If God was proven to exist... what would happen?

[Budadiiii]

If god is proven to exist what would happen?

Lets just assume for a moment that God/Allah whatever you wish to call it is found. I mean concrete proof of a being with inconceivable power that is responsible for creating us. Also heaven is found with him. A physical place within human reach. Do you think in time people would grow to hate it and possibly consider it an enemy of mankind? Think about this for a minute. A creature beyond your understanding comes to earth. Tells you what to do and how to live your life with his only reason being "Because I said so" and anyone who doesn

[oarabbus]

If God was proven to exist, society would go ****ing nuts. Also, whichever religion's God that existed, would quickly become the most popular religion.

[KyleKong]

Atheists would say God was made by natural selection and retarded fish butt fvcking retarded fish until that retarded fish grew legs and became a God.

Yeezus.

[Crystallas]

What if God existed, demonstrated undeniable proof, and we learned there is no judgment or rules from the 'almighty creator' for mankind to follow? And that this God told us religion is an object of our own human nature, not one of the God itself?

[russwest0]

God is you; god is me. If that's not enough proof then I don't know what is homie.

[Budadiiii]

God is you; god is me. If that's not enough proof then I don't know what is homie.
:oldlol:

DMT is a helluva drug.

[Derka]

What if God existed, demonstrated undeniable proof, and we learned there is no judgment or rules from the 'almighty creator' for mankind to follow? And that this God told us religion is an object of our own human nature, not one of the God itself?

That's really the question that matters, I think.

[K Xerxes]

No way you could post something like that... copied straight from kblaze. :oldlol:

[Out_In_Utah]

God = #1
You = ISH
ISH = #1
You = God

PROOF!

[chosen_one6]

You just might stop being an idiot.

[Akrazotile]

OP have you been posting at night again..

[CavaliersFTW]

OP starts a thread based on a malformed question, than proceeds with a bunch of paragraphs?

Needless to say, TL;DR the malformed question of the thread title was all I needed.

[Kblaze8855]

We didnt proof read in 2003. ISH was 45 people.

[Patrick Chewing]

You don't have to look to far to see that God exists.

[JohnFreeman]

He would have to answer some serious questions

[Patrick Chewing]

He would have to answer some serious questions


Like what's up with the gays, Muslims, and LeBron's claim as the Chosen 1.

[nathanjizzle]

didnt read.

[MavsSuperFan]

Atheists would say God was made by natural selection and retarded fish butt fvcking retarded fish until that retarded fish grew legs and became a God.

Yeezus.
maybe stupid ones, but most atheists believe whatever the evidence indicates, and cant take something as true on faith alone.

If there was evidence god was real, I and 99% of atheists would accept him and try to change to whatever religion is the correct one.

Eg. if it was christianity, we would stop eating shellfish and wearing clothes of different fabrics, and would punish any woman raped in a city that didn't scream loud enough to be heard, treat worshipping false gods as the most heinous crime ever, etc.

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=Budadiiii]If god is proven to exist what would happen?

Lets just assume for a moment that God/Allah whatever you wish to call it is found. I mean concrete proof of a being with inconceivable power that is responsible for creating us. Also heaven is found with him. A physical place within human reach. Do you think in time people would grow to hate it and possibly consider it an enemy of mankind? Think about this for a minute. A creature beyond your understanding comes to earth. Tells you what to do and how to live your life with his only reason being "Because I said so" and anyone who doesn

[Draz]

Could the Heat get him?
:roll:

[miller-time]

Could the Heat get him?

They already do man

http://thenosebleeds.nextimpulsemedia.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Blacksports-online-ray-allen-jesus-shuttlesworth.jpg

[outbreak]

well we have plenty of proof he doesn't and idiots still deny that....

[Take Your Lumps]

You don't have to look to far to see that God exists.

:oldlol: you got that right.

[agostudd]

I would be f'd

[97 bulls]

Eg. if it was christianity, we would stop eating shellfish and wearing clothes of different fabrics, and wouldpunish any woman raped in a city that didn't scream loud enough to be heard, treat worshipping false gods as the most heinous crime ever, etc.
Theres no need to lie or stretch the truth. You are totally distorting what that scripture says as far as the penalty for rape. Here it is just to set you straight.
"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces (i.e. rapes) her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.*26*But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.*27*When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her."

This scripture plainly shows there is no penalty for a woman who is raped.

Now there was a penaly for a woman who ALLOWS herself to be taken freely (thus she wouldn't be crying out for help)

[step_back]

As an Atheist I'd imagine it would be terribly awkward.

[Derka]

I'll carry on doing what I do.

If my obedience and love is what he wanted, he should have made me obedient and thirsty for his love. He didn't. I get to choose what I want so that's what I'll do.

If he gives me a reason to give him those things, I'm all for it.

[97 bulls]

I'll carry on doing what I do.

If my obedience and love is what he wanted, he should have made me obedient and thirsty for his love. He didn't. I get to choose what I want so that's what I'll do.

If he gives me a reason to give him those things, I'm all for it.
If God has to force you to love him, then it's not true love. You choose to love him. It's the beauty of free will. All intelligent beings have it.

[Denitron]

We already know GOD exists

6 rings

6 FMVPs

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Derka]

If God has to force you to love him, then it's not true love. You choose to love him. It's the beauty of free will. All intelligent beings have it.
Then, like I said, he's gotta earn it.

I really hope the day comes when he pops out and he's like "All these organized religions claiming to speak for me have it all wrong. Just be excellent to each other and we're square."

[97 bulls]

Then, like I said, he's gotta earn it.

I really hope the day comes when he pops out and he's like "All these organized religions claiming to speak for me have it all wrong. Just be excellent to each other and we're square."
Funny thing is that all you have to do is read the bible. Im sure you posess enough intellect to have an understanding of what God requires of you. I personally tend to stay away from organized religion because it is so distorted. And their leaders tend to be about themselves as opposed to God.

Saying that, what else does God need to do to earn your love? I don't know your situation, but I assume you have the basic necessities of life and decent health I hope. How else can God "earn" your love?

[EwingMan]

well, there are proofs:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/


but if you mean there being some sort of further empirical evidence of a being who had properties similar to what god might, and such a being issued commands which were inconsistent with some persons moral thinking/intuition, one would imagine such persons might reject this being as god, or would reject such prescriptions as having moral force.

you want this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

if a being punished infractions with sufficient speed and force, one would imagine behavior modification, coupled with a cultural realignment of moral thinking.

[16X]

If God has to force you to love him, then it's not true love. You choose to love him. It's the beauty of free will. All intelligent beings have it.
What is your evidence for the existence of free will? You don't have any. Free will is just an idea. It's not actually something real. There is no evidence for free will just like there is no evidence for God. Both are silly ideas.

[97 bulls]

What is your evidence for the existence of free will? You don't have any. Free will is just an idea. It's not actually something real. There is no evidence for free will just like there is no evidence for God. Both are silly ideas.
You have a choice in everything you do. You use reason. That's my evidence. You're insulting yourself by not saying you have free will. What you are essentially doing is putting yourself on the level of a dumb animal that lives its life on instinct.

Can a Lion decide to no longer eat meat and feed off plants and berries? Basically be a vegetarian.

[16X]

You have a choice in everything you do. You use reason. That's my evidence. You're insulting yourself by not saying you have free will. What you are essentially doing is putting yourself on the level of a dumb animal that lives its life on instinct.

Can a Lion decide to no longer eat meat and feed off plants and berries? Basically be a vegetarian.
Just like lions, we can not break the chain of cause and effect. Free will is an illusion. You can not decide what you think. Thoughts just emerge from the brain. Think of a movie right now. Did you decide what movie you were going to think of or did the the thought of a specific movie just emerge?

When we make a decision, what we decide has already been determined unconsciously before we consciously know what decision we're going to "choose".

I'm insulting myself? I don't think refusing to accept blind assertions is insulting myself.

[97 bulls]

Just like lions, we can not break the chain of cause and effect. Free will is an illusion. You can not decide what you think. Thoughts just emerge from the brain. Think of a movie right now. Did you decide what movie you were going to think of or did the the thought of a specific movie just emerge?

When we make a decision, what we decide has already been determined unconsciously before we consciously know what decision we're going to "choose".

I'm insulting myself? I don't think refusing to accept blind assertions is insulting myself.
Lol what? I think you're taking this wayyyyyyyy out there bro. Free will is you being able to make a decision on what you wanna do. You can change your mind. Granted, some of our actions are instinctive. But not all.

If we dont have free will, how can penalize a person for committing a crime? According to you, they had no choice in the matter.

[KingBeasley08]

To answer KBlazes question:

I believe that if God stepped out of it, Heaven's forces would probably win. This is because many nations would have to work together and lettuce be reality, can you see the US and China willing to share info with each other? Meanwhile, Heaven probably has a more unified military. Also, there would be some religious fanatics that would help God's troops and fight against us.

The Allied Forces of Humanity have one chance though. Lucifer was tempted so it's possible that we can strike a deal with the Devil. He does some espionage work to try and convert Angels to our cause while using guerrilla tactics against Heaven. Then, we promise Lucifer Heaven's territory if we win. Once we secure Heaven, an angel can manipulate all the fanatics to our cause. If everyone is against God, then he would surrender because without the support of humanity, he is just a lonely all-powerful being.


tldr: God's troops would most likely win but if executed properly, humanity can take that ni99a out

[16X]

Lol what? I think you're taking this wayyyyyyyy out there bro. Free will is you being able to make a decision on what you wanna do. You can change your mind. Granted, some of our actions are instinctive. But not all.

If we dont have free will, how can penalize a person for committing a crime? According to you, they had no choice in the matter.
But whatever decisions you make, they are determined unconsciously in your mind before you're aware of the decision you're going to make, so I don't see how you can call the choice "free" when it's made unconsciously. You can't break the chain of cause and effect, so that means things can only go one way. This is determinism. A murderer could not have done any differently than what they did. Their biology, environment, and influences in life made it so they did not have a choice but to become a murderer.

How can we penalize people if there is no free will? Well, even if a murderer didn't choose to murder and couldn't have done otherwise, they still need to be kept away from society to keep society safe from them.

I understand why you may think this sounds way out there and scary. I thought the same at first, but this is simply the reality that we live in.

[Graviton]

God is a human concept, it only exists in your own mind. That alone should make it obvious how real he is. Apply the same belief to other living beings. You can answer your questions with questions.

Does God exist for animals? Is there good and evil in nature when animals kill each other for survival? Is there truly "morality" in a world that's shaped by incidents beyond your control? A baby is born "innocent", like blank paper that's over time shaped by events around him. There is no right or wrong, only actions and reactions. You can't be judged when there are no actual rules.

[Dresta]

I would tell him to go **** himself.

[Dresta]

Lol what? I think you're taking this wayyyyyyyy out there bro. Free will is you being able to make a decision on what you wanna do. You can change your mind. Granted, some of our actions are instinctive. But not all.

If we dont have free will, how can penalize a person for committing a crime? According to you, they had no choice in the matter.
Because they are a danger to the rest of society. A psychopathic child murderer is what he is, but he has in no way chosen to be that. But i think most people would still prefer he be locked away somewhere unpleasant. Also, it may not be his choice (it isn't) but it is who he is, it is the essence of his being: if he were not a child murderer/psychopath then he would be a completely different person, not just the same person making a different choice. A man cannot change his nature unless it is in his nature to do so. In this way people are either wholly accountable for what they do, or not accountable at all (i lean towards the former, which is basically the existentialists doctrine).

[Droid101]

Which god? Thor? Odin? Jesus? Buddha?

[kentatm]

If god is proven to exist what would happen?


https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-yH07mVnJUE8/UGzD8ARWqyI/AAAAAAAAAXI/EttPhrsLYWU/s387/indygif.gif

[97 bulls]

Because they are a danger to the rest of society. A psychopathic child murderer is what he is, but he has in no way chosen to be that. But i think most people would still prefer he be locked away somewhere unpleasant. Also, it may not be his choice (it isn't) but it is who he is, it is the essence of his being: if he were not a child murderer/psychopath then he would be a completely different person, not just the same person making a different choice. A man cannot change his nature unless it is in his nature to do so. In this way people are either wholly accountable for what they do, or not accountable at all (i lean towards the former, which is basically the existentialists doctrine).
Wow. So there's nothing wrong with murderers, child molesters, burglers, etc. Then why not cage other animals for acts of violence?

[97 bulls]

But whatever decisions you make, they are determined unconsciously in your mind before you're aware of the decision you're going to make, so I don't see how you can call the choice "free" when it's made unconsciously. You can't break the chain of cause and effect, so that means things can only go one way. This is determinism. A murderer could not have done any differently than what they did. Their biology, environment, and influences in life made it so they did not have a choice but to become a murderer.

How can we penalize people if there is no free will? Well, even if a murderer didn't choose to murder and couldn't have done otherwise, they still need to be kept away from society to keep society safe from them.

I understand why you may think this sounds way out there and scary. I thought the same at first, but this is simply the reality that we live in.
The free will comes when you ACT OUT your thoughts. You choose to do what you want to do.

[Graviton]

Wow. So there's nothing wrong with murderers, child molesters, burglers, etc. Then why not cage other animals for acts of violence?
There isn't anything "wrong" with them, they are what they are. Either products of their environment or humans born with no empathy/emotion. They walk a different path, but it's the "right one" for them. You are judging with your emotions, not cold logic. They are just humans who act differently, and those actions just happen to be things most people don't enjoy. But they are no more "wrong" than US government bombing and killing thousands of innocent civilians overseas for their own political gain. But we turn a blind eye to those "evils" and condemn some others for doing the same.

There is no "right" or "wrong", just actions and reactions. Rest is all a matter of perception.

[Dresta]

Wow. So there's nothing wrong with murderers, child molesters, burglers, etc. Then why not cage other animals for acts of violence?
I don't think you really understood my post, especially considering i stated that in my view a man is 100% responsible for his actions, regardless of circumstance.

Morality is personal and subjective; so from my point of view, of course there is something 'wrong' with those people, but they will have their own modes of conduct that enable them to justify their actions, as all human beings do.

And what do you mean 'cage other animals'? Animals who commit acts of violence on human beings are killed all the time because they are deemed dangerous. Yet no one would refer to the dog that ripped apart a baby as 'evil' or 'immoral' because the dog is only obeying its nature. It is the same with man, despite his being capable of ratiocination, which is only an aspect of his nature and not something separate from it.

[97 bulls]

There isn't anything "wrong" with them, they are what they are. Either products of their environment or humans born with no empathy/emotion. They walk a different path, but it's the "right one" for them. You are judging with your emotions, not cold logic. They are just humans who act differently, and those actions just happen to be things most people don't enjoy. But they are no more "wrong" than US government bombing and killing thousands of innocent civilians overseas for their own political gain. But we turn a blind eye to those "evils" and condemn some others for doing the same.

There is no "right" or "wrong", just actions and reactions. Rest is all a matter of perception.
You're totally missing the point. Nothing is that cut and dry. Where is the logic in a man taking the life of some random child that he has no ties with past a chance encounter?

You have to really be careful as to what you say.

Let me ask you, lets say you have a ten year old daughter, you don't see anything wrong with a grown man having a sexual relationship with her?

Just think about the slippery slope your going down. Basically, we shouldn't have bounderies of any kind because there isn't a such thing as right or wrong in a general sense. Only whats in the uncontrolled mind of the person committing the act.

[97 bulls]

I don't think you really understood my post, especially considering i stated that in my view a man is 100% responsible for his actions, regardless of circumstance.

Morality is personal and subjective; so from my point of view, of course there is something 'wrong' with those people, but they will have their own modes of conduct that enable them to justify their actions, as all human beings do.

And what do you mean 'cage other animals'? Animals who commit acts of violence on human beings are killed all the time because they are deemed dangerous. Yet no one would refer to the dog that ripped apart a baby as 'evil' or 'immoral' because the dog is only obeying its nature. It is the same with man, despite his being capable of ratiocination, which is only an aspect of his nature and not something separate from it.
I agree that morality is personal and subjective TO AN EXTENT. We all have boundaries, but most people don't overstep them for the most part. But when a person does over step those boundaries, and they know it, THEY TRY TO HIDE IT. Thats when the right vs wrong equation comes to play.

Now, you seem to be contradict yourself. You can't on one hand take the stance that there is no such thing as free will, and man has no control over his actions, but then say every man is responsible for the decisions they make. Even though they have no control over it.

[Graviton]

You're totally missing the point. Nothing is that cut and dry. Where is the logic in a man taking the life of some random child that he has no ties with past a chance encounter?

You have to really be careful as to what you say.

Let me ask you, lets say you have a ten year old daughter, you don't see anything wrong with a grown man having a sexual relationship with her?

Just think about the slippery slope your going down. Basically, we shouldn't have bounderies of any kind because there isn't a such thing as right or wrong in a general sense. Only whats in the uncontrolled mind of the person committing the act.

Again, you are talking with emotions, I am observing from an objective point of view without any involvement. You are already approaching the argument from a biased point. We are not discussing how people feel about certain actions, we are looking into the events themselves. But for you it seems everything needs to "make sense". Shit happens, that's my point, because you experience certain misfortunes doesn't make things "evil" or "wrong". They are just another set of events.

I probably wouldn't approve of that, but that's because I would be emotionally invested in the issue. Obviously the man that wants the girl doesn't see anything wrong with it, we are on separate paths. To me he is insane, but to him I am the crazy one.

Survival of the fittest, animals don't have a concept of right or wrong, they act on instinct. Humans are similar, only they are burdened with emotions, so they have to label everything "good" or "evil" in order to justify their beliefs. I am trying to tell you there is no such thing, only cause and effect, everything in-between is just your own perception.

[97 bulls]

Again, you are talking with emotions, I am observing from an objective point of view without any involvement. You are already approaching the argument from a biased point. We are not discussing how people feel about certain actions, we are looking into the events themselves. But for you it seems everything needs to "make sense". Shit happens, that's my point, because you experience certain misfortunes doesn't make things "evil" or "wrong". They are just another set of events.

I probably wouldn't approve of that, but that's because I would be emotionally invested in the issue. Obviously the man that wants the girl doesn't see anything wrong with it, we are on separate paths. To me he is insane, but to him I am the crazy one.
More often than not, that person knows theyre wrong. Why? Because the perpetrator attempts to conceal it. If a person does something in the presence of others, then I would agree they dont feel theyre doing anything wrong. But more often than not, if a person is doing something mankind feels is wrong, that person atattempts to comceal it.

Survival of the fittest, animals don't have a concept of right or wrong, they act on instinct. Humans are similar, only they are burdened with emotions, so they have to label everything "good" or "evil" in order to justify their beliefs. I am trying to tell you there is no such thing, only just cause and effect, everything in-between is just your own perception.


Exactly. Humans don't act solely on instinct. We have a conscience that dictates the decisions we make. Hence free will. That's why I used the example of animals. They will kill and don't care whose watching. We don't. Or people deemed sane don't. But even insane individuals get a relative pass in that if they commit what is considered a crime,

[Real14]

God do exist and don't you ever forget dat:no:

[Graviton]

Exactly. Humans don't act solely on instinct. We have a conscience that dictates the decisions we make. Hence free will. That's why I used the example of animals. They will kill and don't care whose watching. We don't. Or people deemed sane don't. But even insane individuals get a relative pass in that if they commit what is considered a crime,
How do you explain sociopaths that are born without empathy and lack your definition of right/wrong? That "conscience" you think of is nothing but a collection of chemical reactions in your brain. It doesn't exist for everyone. Most politicians, CEOs and typical men in power display sociopathic tendencies and don't follow your rules.

Like I said, it's your perception, what is"sane" for you isn't universal.

[Budadiiii]

97 bulls is struggling with a concept that most 15 year olds understand.

Way to make yourself come off as a gigantic idiot... oh wait, you had no choice.

typical retarded Chicago native. But I don't hate you for it. You had no choice. You were destined to be stupid. It's not your fault. Nature isn't fair.

[Budadiiii]

How do you explain sociopaths that are born without empathy and lack your definition of right/wrong? That "conscience" you think of is nothing but a collection of chemical reactions in your brain. It doesn't exist for everyone. Most politicians, CEOs and typical men in power display sociopathic tendencies and don't follow your rules.

Like I said, it's your perception, what is"sane" for you isn't universal.
He's too stupid to grasp a simple concept.

But don't insult him for it... he had no choice. Just part of his biology.

[97 bulls]

How do you explain sociopaths that are born without empathy and lack your definition of right/wrong? That "conscience" you think of is nothing but a collection of chemical reactions in your brain. It doesn't exist for everyone. Most politicians, CEOs and typical men in power display sociopathic tendencies and don't follow your rules.

Like I said, it's your perception, what is"sane" for you isn't universal.
Again, the best way to tell that a person knows they're doing wrong is they try to hide it. I can't make that any simpler.

And while I agree that everyone has a different definition as to whats right and wrong, there is a general understanding. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. And granted, im sure the thought to hurt someone that has done us wrong does cross our minds. But free will allows us to make the decision to act on those feelings.

[97 bulls]

97 bulls is struggling with a concept that most 15 year olds understand.

Way to make yourself come off as a gigantic idiot... oh wait, you had no choice.

typical retarded Chicago native. But I don't hate you for it. You had no choice. You were destined to be stupid. It's not your fault. Nature isn't fair.
So youre proving my point. You have the choice to hate me but choose not to. Free will.

And mind you, I'm the one stating that we as intelligent beings have the ability to make choices. Graviton and Dresta disagree.

[Graviton]

Again, the best way to tell that a person knows they're doing wrong is they try to hide it. I can't make that any simpler.

And while I agree that everyone has a different definition as to whats right and wrong, there is a general understanding. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. And granted, im sure the thought to hurt someone that has done us wrong does cross our minds. But free will allows us to make the decision to act on those feelings.
What? Don't you ever think they try to hide it because otherwise they would go to jail? You serious? You think they would do it if we had an anarchy?

This is what you don't understand, none of these things are inherently "wrong", they are choices just like crossing the street. They are "wrong" according to YOUR beliefs. But for a sociopath with no empathy murder is as natural as drinking water. The word you are looking for is "common sense" not "free will". Most people including me live by 1 belief, "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you". But to someone with no emotion those words mean nothing because they don't feel or care about others so their "common sense" is different, it's centered around them only and what THEY want. And to them murder, rape and whatnot is not "wrong".

[RidonKs]

Lol what? I think you're taking this wayyyyyyyy out there bro. Free will is you being able to make a decision on what you wanna do. You can change your mind. Granted, some of our actions are instinctive. But not all.

If we dont have free will, how can penalize a person for committing a crime? According to you, they had no choice in the matter.
i think this article is relevant to your question, you should give it a read if only to broaden your understanding of what you're talking about, which by no means has any sort of a simple answer

http://projects.thestar.com/what-michael-stewart-did/

[97 bulls]

What? Don't you ever think they try to hide it because otherwise they would go to jail? You serious? You think they would do it if we had an anarchy?

This is what you don't understand, none of these things are inherently "wrong", they are choices just like crossing the street. They are "wrong" according to YOUR beliefs. But for a sociopath with no empathy murder is as natural as drinking water. The word you are looking for is "common sense" not "free will". Most people including me live by 1 belief, "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you". But to someone with no emotion those words mean nothing because they don't feel or care about others so their "common sense" is different, it's centered around them only and what THEY want. And to them murder, rape and whatnot is not "wrong".
Exactly. They are choices. I think your confusing yourself. All free will is, is the ability to make choices in your life. Not all sociopaths kill. The thought may cross their mind, but they choose not to act on it. They are free to make that decision.

It sounds like you feel human beings are nothing more than robots that act on instinct. I vehemently disagree. And if you've trained yourself to have that lifestyle, I really feel for you. You're missing out on a very beautiful part of life.

[Budadiiii]

Exactly. They are choices. I think your confusing yourself. All free will is, is the ability to make choices in your life. Not all sociopaths kill. The thought may cross their mind, but they choose not to act on it. They are free to make that decision.

It sounds like you feel human beings are nothing more than robots that act on instinct. I vehemently disagree. And if you've trained yourself to have that lifestyle, I really feel for you. You're missing out on a very beautiful part of life.
:facepalm

You frustrate me bro.

[Dresta]

I agree that morality is personal and subjective TO AN EXTENT. We all have boundaries, but most people don't overstep them for the most part. But when a person does over step those boundaries, and they know it, THEY TRY TO HIDE IT. Thats when the right vs wrong equation comes to play.

Now, you seem to be contradict yourself. You can't on one hand take the stance that there is no such thing as free will, and man has no control over his actions, but then say every man is responsible for the decisions they make. Even though they have no control over it.
We may all have boundaries (though someone very well may have no boundaries at all), but people's morality and 'boundaries' vary from person to person and culture to culture. For example, i don't think a person like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo
had many boundaries (if any). People don't try to hide it because they are personally averse to it, rather they are fearful of punishment or even social condemnation.

I don't contradict myself at all: there is free will in that the choices available are open, but the person making the choice will make one choice or the other based on his fundamental nature and character, which is beyond his control; however, if he did not have this nature and character to begin with then he would be a completely different person, and would likely make a different decision. Hence complete responsibility.


Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. .
Really? Then why have human beings been murdering and raping incessantly all throughout human history? Because all human beings act against their conscience? Certainly not. Many would have been engaging in these acts of revelry (because that's what they were) with complete moral approbation.

It was almost tradition many years ago that whenever a population was conquered, that the men would all be either enslaved or executed (often male children also) and their women taken as the spoils of war. The whole of Europe is one giant rape and burial ground. For thousands of years different tribes raped and murdered each other in the most brutal fashion. The moral standards of the time were clearly very different to now. (btw there is a passage in the bible, when after conquering somewhere or other, and killing all the adult males of the place, Moses remains unsatisfied, and sends back his men to also kill all the male children and older females, but to keep the younger ones for themselves)

How can you think that human morality is a static thing when it has changed so much even over the last hundred years? Morality first emerged as a means of ensuring human survival, and passed from generation to generation through cultural development: what was found conducive to the welfare of human beings became considered as 'good' and what was destructive termed 'evil'; this consequently becomes a dynamic process of trial and error where different tribes compete and those with the most effective morals survive. But still, outside of the tribe all kinds of 'evils' remained justified, because, after all, human beings are a tribal species, and outsiders have always been regarded as inferior (still are by most). It took two catastrophic world wars to convince people against rampant nationalism - but still the tribal sentiment dominates world and domestic politics.


So youre proving my point. You have the choice to hate me but choose not to. Free will.

And mind you, I'm the one stating that we as intelligent beings have the ability to make choices. Graviton and Dresta disagree.
Once again: i am not denying that a human being is capable of making choices, only that the choices he makes will be determined by his nature. What don't you understand about this?

[97 bulls]

i think this article is relevant to your question, you should give it a read if only to broaden your understanding of what you're talking about, which by no means has any sort of a simple answer

http://projects.thestar.com/what-michael-stewart-did/
Interesting read. But this man had no control over his emotions. He has mental problems. He had no free will. Which is why he wasnt punished.

Notice in the article it says that after he killed his mother he called the police. He didn't try to hide it. Had he denied it, and or tried to conceal it, hed probably be in prison.

[Graviton]

Exactly. They are choices. I think your confusing yourself. All free will is, is the ability to make choices in your life. Not all sociopaths kill. The thought may cross their mind, but they choose not to act on it. They are free to make that decision.

It sounds like you feel human beings are nothing more than robots that act on instinct. I vehemently disagree. And if you've trained yourself to have that lifestyle, I really feel for you. You're missing out on a very beautiful part of life.
Now you are confusing free will with self control. Yes they have the freedom to make choices, meaning if they want to kill and rape they DO, now that is free will.

SOME human beings like sociopaths and psychopaths are robots, they don't feel emotion, they act on their urges and they do what THEY want. Why can't you get that through your thick skull? I keep trying to explain that to you but you keep bringing up "free will" when you mean "common sense" and "self-control", and once again those DO NOT APPLY TO THESE INDIVIDUALS. You keep talking about free will when that concept itself is what allows them to do whatever they want. Do you understand?

[97 bulls]

We may all have boundaries (though someone very well may have no boundaries at all), but people's morality and 'boundaries' vary from person to person and culture to culture. For example, i don't think a person like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo
had many boundaries (if any). People don't try to hide it because they are personally averse to it, rather they are fearful of punishment or even social condemnation.

I don't contradict myself at all: there is free will in that the choices available are open, but the person making the choice will make one choice or the other based on his fundamental nature and character, which is beyond his control; however, if he did not have this nature and character to begin with then he would be a completely different person, and would likely make a different decision. Hence complete responsibility.


Really? Then why have human beings been murdering and raping incessantly all throughout human history? Because all human beings act against their conscience? Certainly not. Many would have been engaging in these acts of revelry (because that's what they were) with complete moral approbation.

It was almost tradition many years ago that whenever a population was conquered, that the men would all be either enslaved or executed (often male children also) and their women taken as the spoils of war. The whole of Europe is one giant rape and burial ground. For thousands of years different tribes raped and murdered each other in the most brutal fashion. The moral standards of the time were clearly very different to now. (btw there is a passage in the bible, when after conquering somewhere or other, and killing all the adult males of the place, Moses remains unsatisfied, and sends back his men to also kill all the male children and older females, but to keep the younger ones for themselves)

How can you think that human morality is a static thing when it has changed so much even over the last hundred years? Morality first emerged as a means of ensuring human survival, and passed from generation to generation through cultural development: what was found conducive to the welfare of human beings became considered as 'good' and what was destructive termed 'evil'; this consequently becomes a dynamic process of trial and error where different tribes compete and those with the most effective morals survive. But still, outside of the tribe all kinds of 'evils' remained justified, because, after all, human beings are a tribal species, and outsiders have always been regarded as inferior (still are by most). It took two catastrophic world wars to convince people against rampant nationalism - but still the tribal sentiment dominates world and domestic politics.


Once again: i am not denying that a human being is capable of making choices, only that the choices he makes will be determined by his nature. What don't you understand about this?
I see your point bro. But in general, people dont allow their rage to get the best of them to the point of murder. And it's not very common that a murder is committed due to a person not having a choice.

Im not gonna sit here and debate exceptions to a rule. People with mental problems that have committed heinous acts dont recieve the same result as a person that understands what theyre doing.

And I do agree that our character is greatly shaped based on what we've seen, how we are raised etc. But one doesn't HAVE TO conform to that. Most people born in a poor part of town don't end up being criminals. They have choices. To answer your question, human beings make bad choices because we've left God. We aren't perfect. There is a reason as to why God has instructed us to refrain from these bad things. Because it hurts others.

I honestly feel we are saying the same thing.

[Budadiiii]

I see your point bro. But in general, people dont allow their rage to get the best of them to the point of murder. And it's not very common that a murder is committed due to a person not having a choice.

Im not gonna sit here and debate exceptions to a rule. People with mental problems that have committed heinous acts dont recieve the same result as a person that understands what theyre doing.

And I do agree that our character is greatly shaped based on what we've seen, how we are raised etc. But one doesn't HAVE TO conform to that. Most people born in a poor part of town don't end up being criminals. They have choices. To answer your question, human beings make bad choices because we've left God. We aren't perfect. There is a reason as to why God has instructed us to refrain from these bad things. Because it hurts others.

I honestly feel we are saying the same thing.
And you went off the deep end.

Log off.

[97 bulls]

Now you are confusing free will with self control. Yes they have the freedom to make choices, meaning if they want to kill and rape they DO, now that is free will.

SOME human beings like sociopaths and psychopaths are robots, they don't feel emotion, they act on their urges and they do what THEY want. Why can't you get that through your thick skull? I keep trying to explain that to you but you keep bringing up "free will" when you mean "common sense" and "self-control", and once again those DO NOT APPLY TO THESE INDIVIDUALS. You keep talking about free will when that concept itself is what allows them to do whatever they want. Do you understand?
Ive acknowledged such my friend. With a caveat. Not all sociopaths paths kill.

And the ones that do, tend to cover it up and hide and do it in secret. And you say they only do it in secret not because they feel its wrong but because of the punishment, I say if they dont feel its wrong, why would it be a problem for the murderer to have a bad thing done to them? For the person committing the act that is.

[Graviton]

Ive acknowledged such my friend. With a caveat. Not all sociopaths paths kill.

And the ones that do, tend to cover it up and hide and do it in secret. And you say they only do it in secret not because they feel its wrong but because of the punishment, I say if they dont feel its wrong, why would it be a problem for the murderer to have a bad thing done to them? For the person committing the act that is.
Jesus Christ, they are not retards. They don't want to go to jail, they may not feel empathy but they still like to enjoy life in their own way. Sociopath doesn't mean self loathing masochist that wants to get caught.

You have this idea in your head that people who do "wrong" things hide it because deep down they feel ashamed, and they want to be punished for their deeds. Feels like I am talking to a damn Jehovah's Witness here. :facepalm

[97 bulls]

Jesus Christ, they are not retards. They don't want to go to jail, they may not feel empathy but they still like to enjoy life in their own way. Sociopath doesn't mean self loathing masochist that wants to get caught.

You have this idea in your head that people who do "wrong" things hide it because deep down they feel ashamed, and they want to be punished for their deeds. Feels like I am talking to a damn Jehovah's Witness here. :facepalm
No. They hide it because they know its wrong. They may not feel guilt, or shame,.remorse, etc, but they know its wrong because they don't want to experience the punishment theyre dishing out to someone else. You are the one arguing that they have no.choice in the matter.

Like I stated, if they dont feel its wrong, bad, etc then they shouldn't mind it being done to them. That's why its deemed bad. Because we as a society don't want heinous acts being committed on us and our loved ones.

I believe you stated the Golden Rule. Do one to others. Thats taken from the Bible. Matthew chapter 7 I believe. Why attempt to complicate something so simple? In an effort to argue against God?

[Graviton]

No. They hide it because they know its wrong. They may not feel guilt, or shame,.remorse, etc, but they know its wrong because they don't want to experience the punishment theyre dishing out to someone else. You are the one arguing that they have no.choice in the matter.

Like I stated, if they dont feel its wrong, bad, etc then they shouldn't mind it being done to them. That's why its deemed bad. Because we as a society don't want heinous acts being committed on us and our loved ones.

I believe you stated the Golden Rule. Do one to others. Thats taken from the Bible. Matthew chapter 7 I believe. Why attempt to complicate something so simple?In an effort to argue against God?

I don't even....








Sigh...









Uhhhh.....









Just....




Religious fanatics that can read minds but can't see beyond their own ego are just a lost cause.

[16X]

The free will comes when you ACT OUT your thoughts. You choose to do what you want to do.
You don't "choose" what you act out though. Most people have no problem believing in free will because it appears that we are making choices and it seems like we can choose one way or another, but that's not the case. It's all an illusion. There is only one way things can go. You go back in time and we're going to make the exact same choice every single time, and there is no escaping that. I didn't "choose" to make this post. I was determined to make it and things could not have gone any other way. You are determined to believe in free will, so that's what you will continue doing, because determinism is true :D

So once again, if things can only go one way (or are determined to go this way), then there can be no free will. Free will to me would imply that you could have chosen differently.

[97 bulls]

You don't "choose" what you act out though. Most people have no problem believing in free will because it appears that we are making choices and it seems like we can choose one way or another, but that's not the case. It's all an illusion. There is only one way things can go. You go back in time and we're going to make the exact same choice every single time, and there is no escaping that. I didn't "choose" to make this post. I was determined to make it and things could not have gone any other way. You are determined to believe in free will, so that's what you will continue doing, because determinism is true :D

So once again, if things can only go one way (or are determined to go this way), then there can be no free will. Free will to me would imply that you could have chosen differently.
As intelligent individuals, we do have the option to not continue repeatedly doing things that aren't good for us. Going by your logic, theres nothing wrong with a woman staying in an abusive relationship because she has no choice but to stay. But then why do her loved ones always call her stupid for returning to such an environment?

I just dont see mankind as a bunch of fleshly robots that only act on instinct and have no choice in the decisions we make. And if that were true, why punish the people that do certain acts? They have no choice in the matter.

[97 bulls]

I don't even....








Sigh...









Uhhhh.....









Just....




Religious fanatics that can read minds but can't see beyond their own ego are just a lost cause.
Lol. I can't see past my own ego? Well youre not agreeing with my stance so does that make you an atheist fanatic that cant see past your own ego? You are trying to undo basic laws and principles that have been established since the beginning of man, but I have the ego?

Perhaps we need to develop a common knowledge of what is considered "wrong" or better yet why some things around considered wrong.

In general, Murder, rape, robbery etc are considered wrong because they have ill effects on the victim. Punishment. You feeling that whats right and wrong is only in the mind of the person in question is fine until you apply the Golden Rule. If a person committing an act on a person wouldn't want that act to be inflicted on them and thus they try to hide it, then thats wrong.

There is no need to get insulted because I implement a scripture from the bible. Why would you get mad at something that makes perfect sense?

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Theres no need to lie or stretch the truth. You are totally distorting what that scripture says as far as the penalty for rape. Here it is just to set you straight.
"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces (i.e. rapes) her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.*26*But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.*27*When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her."

This scripture plainly shows there is no penalty for a woman who is raped.

Now there was a penaly for a woman who ALLOWS herself to be taken freely (thus she wouldn't be crying out for help)

[B]

[97 bulls]

Which implies that if a woman is raped in a city and no one hears her screaming it is evidence that it is not rape, and thus should be stoned to death. Every rape in a city that is not heard, by a third party should result in the death of the female, because obviously (if we believe the bible is the word of god) she wanted it, and didnt scream loud enough.
Don't be rediculous. Theres no implication of that. Use common sense. The scripture plainly states that the woman would be put to death FOR NOT CRYING OUT. It says nothing to the effect of her crying out and not being heard.

[MavsSuperFan]

Don't be rediculous. Theres no implication of that. Use common sense. The scripture plainly states that the woman would be put to death FOR NOT CRYING OUT. It says nothing to the effect of her crying out and not being heard.
IF no one hears a woman crying out, how do you prove she cried out?

The bible instructs authorities to believe a woman who accuses a man of raping her if she is raped outside of a city.
The assumption is in a crowded city if a woman doesn't cry out, (or isnt heard crying out) she must have wanted it.
Dont be mad at me that your bible is ridiculous

[MavsSuperFan]

Theres no need to lie or stretch the truth. You are totally distorting what that scripture says as far as the penalty for rape. Here it is just to set you straight.
"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces (i.e. rapes) her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.*26*But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.*27*When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her."

This scripture plainly shows there is no penalty for a woman who is raped.

Now there was a penaly for a woman who ALLOWS herself to be taken freely (thus she wouldn't be crying out for help)

“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and*another*man finds her in the city and lies with her,*24*then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them*[n]to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

And in this case both are to be put to death. There is nothing wrong with either of these scriptures.

Now if your argument is that of culture, that has nothing to do with Gods word. In that culture, women were fine with being given to men in marriage. And once received the man had a huge responsibility to care for her. And see that her needs were met.


The bible basically argues that it would be unreasonable to expect a woman raped in a field to be heard screaming, so if no one heard her scream while being raped, the authorities should still believe her when she says she was raped.

The bible also argues that in a crowded city, if no one heard a woman scream while being raped, she obviously didnt scream and thus wanted it. THus she should be stoned to death. The problem with the second scripture is it creates the requirement that the woman be heard screaming, for the rape to have occurred

The interpretation that those 2 scriptures taken together create a situation where many women would be stoned to death for being raped is not much of a leap.

[ILLsmak]

[QUOTE=Budadiiii]If god is proven to exist what would happen?

Lets just assume for a moment that God/Allah whatever you wish to call it is found. I mean concrete proof of a being with inconceivable power that is responsible for creating us. Also heaven is found with him. A physical place within human reach. Do you think in time people would grow to hate it and possibly consider it an enemy of mankind? Think about this for a minute. A creature beyond your understanding comes to earth. Tells you what to do and how to live your life with his only reason being "Because I said so" and anyone who doesn

[97 bulls]

The bible basically argues that it would be unreasonable to expect a woman raped in a field to be heard screaming, so if no one heard her scream while being raped, the authorities should still believe her when she says she was raped.

The bible also argues that in a crowded city, if no one heard a woman scream while being raped, she obviously didnt scream and thus wanted it. THus she should be stoned to death. The problem with the second scripture is it creates the requirement that the woman be heard screaming, for the rape to have occurred

The interpretation that those 2 scriptures taken together create a situation where many women would be stoned to death for being raped is not much of a leap.
You keep ADDING things bro. It does not say that if a woman screams and no on hears her that she is just as guilty. Why assume that unless you're intentionally trying to find something wrong. Just take it for what it says.

If this is your only means for questioning the bible, then you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[97 bulls]

The bible basically argues that it would be unreasonable to expect a woman raped in a field to be heard screaming, so if no one heard her scream while being raped, the authorities should still believe her when she says she was raped.

The bible also argues that in a crowded city, if no one heard a woman scream while being raped, she obviously didnt scream and thus wanted it. THus she should be stoned to death. The problem with the second scripture is it creates the requirement that the woman be heard screaming, for the rape to have occurred

The interpretation that those 2 scriptures taken together create a situation where many women would be stoned to death for being raped is not much of a leap.
You keep ADDING things bro. It does not say that if a woman screams and no on hears her that she is just as guilty. Why assume that unless you're intentionally trying to find something wrong. Just take it for what it says.

If this is your only means for questioning the bible, then you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[Dresta]

I see your point bro. But in general, people dont allow their rage to get the best of them to the point of murder. And it's not very common that a murder is committed due to a person not having a choice.

Im not gonna sit here and debate exceptions to a rule. People with mental problems that have committed heinous acts dont recieve the same result as a person that understands what theyre doing.

And I do agree that our character is greatly shaped based on what we've seen, how we are raised etc. But one doesn't HAVE TO conform to that. Most people born in a poor part of town don't end up being criminals. They have choices. To answer your question, human beings make bad choices because we've left God. We aren't perfect. There is a reason as to why God has instructed us to refrain from these bad things. Because it hurts others.

I honestly feel we are saying the same thing.
Once again: one can only rebel against one's nature if it is in one's nature to do so. Human beings make 'bad' or 'evil' choices because they are bad or evil human beings, and were made that way by God. If people have left God then that is because God has created them to do so.

Anyway, God hasn't instructed us to 'refrain from these bad things' - religious morality imposes doctrinaire morality from the top down that prevents the evolution of morals (see Middle Ages and how limited progress was until Luther came and diluted the power of the Catholic church). For morals to develop, conventional morality has to be broken by individuals. Thus for the progression of morality 'evils' must be committed, and the future 'good' is often born out of what was deemed evil in the past.

(for example, it was once considered the height of evildoing to translate the bible so it could be read and understood by the laity, and if no one had been willing to take that burden upon himself, break with convention, and commit this 'evil' then you would most likely never have had direct access to the book you so treasure)


It is proven lol. I've been thinking about this stuff a lot lately, but I just listened to some speech by Gandhi on YouTube where he says that the presence of something, that is felt as more 'real' than reality is impossible to ignore. Of course, he goes on to talk about God's benevolence. I would like to think that God is a benevolent entity, but...

If God is God then God does what God wants. Good and evil is defined by God.

I'm just speaking to the 'unbreakable laws.' Order, etc. It is definitely proven to me. Can I prove it to someone else? I could if they wanted to know. But most people are stuck in a loop of "God isn't real." And they would never be able to get out of it and think about things my way.

It's not like someone is gonna have a picture of God. Dude if someone had a 15 minute camphone video of GOD, talking to God and everything... I bet you half of the world would think it was a hoax. Because of that, it'll never be 'proven' the way you think.

-Smak
:facepalm

Where do you get this crap from? Of course if someone recorded something they called 'God' on their 'camphone' then people would think it was a hoax. It's a fuggin camphone man; what does God need human technology for? Are you so sure of your belief because you saw Bruce Almighty or something?

[Shade8780]

God = #1
You = ISH
ISH = #1
You = God

PROOF!
636 posts and full rep? I sense alt accounts.

[KingBeasley08]

636 posts and full rep? I sense alt accounts.
That same poster had the nerve to call me an alt :lol :facepalm

[JohnStarks]

I believe God gave me allergies because he knew without them I'd be too much of a real nigguh.

[97 bulls]

Once again: one can only rebel against one's nature if it is in one's nature to do so. Human beings make 'bad' or 'evil' choices because they are bad or evil human beings, and were made that way by God. If people have left God then that is because God has created them to do so.

Anyway, God hasn't instructed us to 'refrain from these bad things' - religious morality imposes doctrinaire morality from the top down that prevents the evolution of morals (see Middle Ages and how limited progress was until Luther came and diluted the power of the Catholic church). For morals to develop, conventional morality has to be broken by individuals. Thus for the progression of morality 'evils' must be committed, and the future 'good' is often born out of what was deemed evil in the past.

(for example, it was once considered the height of evildoing to translate the bible so it could be read and understood by the laity, and if no one had been willing to take that burden upon himself, break with convention, and commit this 'evil' then you would most likely never have had direct access to the book you so treasure)
This goes back free will and Adam and Eve and love. Many wonder, why did God implement the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad? Why wouldn't he just make it so that mankind was invulnerable to sin. The answer is as I stated earlier. In order to have true love, you must have free will. The ability to choose to love. Our first parents decision (cuz thats what it was), has been passed down to us.


God has been instructing us since Adam and Eve. As far as mankinds evolution, I think it greatly depends on who you talk to. In some ways the evolution of mankind has benefited us greatly. In other ways, its hurt us. Humans today are extremely lazy. As a whole, we are in terrible physical shape, selfish, our children are disobedient, our men are irresponsible, our women aren't the nurturers they used to be. And I attribute this to what you call evolution.

[Dresta]

This goes back free will and Adam and Eve and love. Many wonder, why did God implement the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad? Why wouldn't he just make it so that mankind was invulnerable to sin. The answer is as I stated earlier. In order to have true love, you must have free will. The ability to choose to love. Our first parents decision (cuz thats what it was), has been passed down to us.


God has been instructing us since Adam and Eve. As far as mankinds evolution, I think it greatly depends on who you talk to. In some ways the evolution of mankind has benefited us greatly. In other ways, its hurt us. Humans today are extremely lazy. As a whole, we are in terrible physical shape, selfish, our children are disobedient, our men are irresponsible, our women aren't the nurturers they used to be. And I attribute this to what you call evolution.
Adam and Eve is a fairy tale bro. An eloquent and poetic one, i grant you that, but the story is in direct contradiction to so much archeological evidence that i don't know how anyone can claim it as true.

As for the latter, well, i think that has nothing to do at all with the evolution of morals and humanity, and everything to do with the modern state, and its supplanting of God as the director of all human endeavours, as the distributor of fortunes and favours (basically this is what socialism is - faith in the state replacing faith in God) and as the father figure hovering over a nation of children who need to be coddled and protected from themselves at all times. We have artificially bred dependency, indolence and mediocrity, and that is completely a result of our interference with the evolutionary process, but has nothing to do with the process in and of itself. We have created a nation of sheep with the state as its shepherd.

But then there is a certain inevitability about the whole process: once human beings achieve a certain standard of living and political power they will always clamour selfishly to be given more while doing less. People are lazy today not because of the absence of God, but because our prosperity and self-satisfaction has afforded them the opportunity to be lazy. It wasn't that long ago that if you didn't work yourself to the bone you and your family might well suffer extinction. An abundance of wealth always will and always has encouraged laziness. Why do you think most of the booming industries and technologies are in areas that solely exist as a means to fritter away our time in vapid exercises of pointlessness. But i can't see that being a valid argument as to why we should all remain poor or return to nature a la Rousseau.

edit: also, about love: love is the opposite of free will, it is a feeling you either have or you do not have and which you certainly do not choose. Love completely bypasses the rational part of the brain, and is actually a form of dependancy not unlike a drug addiction (though usually healthier and more fulfilling, but certainly not always so: it is often extremely destructive).

[Kblaze8855]

Did I misunderstand or are people in this topic claiming there is proof of god?

[97 bulls]

Adam and Eve is a fairy tale bro. An eloquent and poetic one, i grant you that, but the story is in direct contradiction to so much archeological evidence that i don't know how anyone can claim it as true.

As for the latter, well, i think that has nothing to do at all with the evolution of morals and humanity, and everything to do with the modern state, and its supplanting of God as the director of all human endeavours, as the distributor of fortunes and favours (basically this is what socialism is - faith in the state replacing faith in God) and as the father figure hovering over a nation of children who need to be coddled and protected from themselves at all times. We have artificially bred dependency, indolence and mediocrity, and that is completely a result of our interference with the evolutionary process, but has nothing to do with the process in and of itself. We have created a nation of sheep with the state as its shepherd.

But then there is a certain inevitability about the whole process: once human beings achieve a certain standard of living and political power they will always clamour selfishly to be given more while doing less. People are lazy today not because of the absence of God, but because our prosperity and self-satisfaction has afforded them the opportunity to be lazy. It wasn't that long ago that if you didn't work yourself to the bone you and your family might well suffer extinction. An abundance of wealth always will and always has encouraged laziness. Why do you think most of the booming industries and technologies are in areas that solely exist as a means to fritter away our time in vapid exercises of pointlessness. But i can't see that being a valid argument as to why we should all remain poor or return to nature a la Rousseau.
I can't really disagree with you Dres. The way I see it, your biggest gripe is that you feel evolution and religion clash. I just dont see it that way. And we differ on the beginning of man. I really dont see how your view is any more tangible as mine. Both revolve around faith.

[Dresta]

I can't really disagree with you Dres. The way I see it, your biggest gripe is that you feel evolution and religion clash. I just dont see it that way. And we differ on the beginning of man. I really dont see how your view is any more tangible as mine. Both revolve around faith.
Well, i think evolution (which is evidence based) and your idea of the beginning of man (which is a faith based one) are self-evidently contradictory. But i certainly don't think personal religion interferes with evolution, it is of course a natural part of it. I just don't think religions should use the power of the state to enforce their morality onto all in the corporeal world, because their domain is in the spiritual world, and churches combined with political power has always been a recipe for disaster, as the theoretical founders of the United States well knew from their meticulous study of history. I think a man should be answerable to his own conscience and his own view of good and evil first and foremost, provided the rules of inter-personal conduct are maintained. The state came into being as an institution for protecting one individual from another, but the more it is ennobled, the wider its scope (and allowing the enforcement of moral doctrine through law greatly enhances this), the more the individual is suffocated and dissolved into the mass, and thus the [I]raison d'

[GimmeThat]

We would not be able to duplicate life and minds (soul) completely.


wait...