I challenge any religious person to give me one rational reason for believing...

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I would think its a subconscious retribution...but they are channeling it to the same category of people so I guess it works. Its more of a "what you represent" sort of issue imo...TC would like to have said to people in real life. A substitute perhaps, idk.

rawsavon

These seem like very reasonable assertions
-some sort of twisted cathartic therapy I guess

I have a sound enough ego/am comfortable enough in my beliefs that things like thig do not bother me
...I just lament the lack of real conversation that these threads cause

But a part of me can't help but think it is 'wrong' to take out your frustrations on innocent by-standers

Anyway. :D

Anyway. :D

Well, the advantage of my religion is my holy place is mount olympus, not some city in the desert that everybody wants. Is that good enough?

I believe in a moral way of life which has been derived from religion. The actions I do will be justified in the after life. No one here can prove theres no life after death. We wernt put on this earth just for our lifespan just to "doss and chill and enjoy life". There is some morality and ethic behind it too.

That alone is more than enough reason to believe in God, and my religion.

It was really good 'talking' to you again :)rawsavon

:D

I believe in a moral way of life which has been derived from religion. The actions I do will be justified in the after life. No one here can prove theres no life after death. We wernt put on this earth just for our lifespan just to "doss and chill and enjoy life". There is some morality and ethic behind it too.

That alone is more than enough reason to believe in God, and my religion.

Disturbed123

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

It was really good 'talking' to you again :)Teenaged

:D

I believe in a moral way of life which has been derived from religion. The actions I do will be justified in the after life. No one here can prove theres no life after death. We wernt put on this earth just for our lifespan just to "doss and chill and enjoy life". There is some morality and ethic behind it too.

That alone is more than enough reason to believe in God, and my religion.

Disturbed123

There are certain ethics that remain exclusive to theistic religions, including no sex before marriage, certain rituals to cleaning before praying, ablusion, equality, certain percentage of wealth going towards charity, etc. When it comes to deriving how many ethics and moralities they really are, religion seems to take the cake. Many Athiests may live a moral life but that doesnt stop them from doing sinning which may seem casual to them, such as swearing and so forth. The thing is they wont feel bad as they dont have any justification that what they did was wrong. While in religious context, swearing is a sin which would reflect upon the afterlife, hence why people ask for forgiveness and learn from their mistakes. Minority of athiests will justify that them swearing was wrong, and try to control themselves, but majority of people of religious ethic adapt to this at an early age.

....in whatever god you worship instead of the thousands of other gods?

Unfortunately making absolute statements is not allowed in this forum as it comes under "forcing your beliefs onto others and offending others". ...

There are certain ethics that remain exclusive to theistic religions, including no sex before marriage, certain rituals to cleaning before praying, ablusion, equality, certain percentage of wealth going towards charity, etc. When it comes to deriving how many ethics and moralities they really are, religion seems to take the cake. Many Athiests may live a moral life but that doesnt stop them from doing sinning which may seem casual to them, such as swearing and so forth. The thing is they wont feel bad as they dont have any justification that what they did was wrong. While in religious context, swearing is a sin which would reflect upon the afterlife, hence why people ask for forgiveness and learn from their mistakes. Minority of athiests will justify that them swearing was wrong, and try to control themselves, but majority of people of religious ethic adapt to this at an early age.Disturbed123

There are certain ethics that remain exclusive to theistic religions, including no sex before marriage, certain rituals to cleaning before praying, ablusion, equality, certain percentage of wealth going towards charity, etc. When it comes to deriving how many ethics and moralities they really are, religion seems to take the cake. Many Athiests may live a moral life but that doesnt stop them from doing sinning which may seem casual to them, such as swearing and so forth. The thing is they wont feel bad as they dont have any justification that what they did was wrong. While in religious context, swearing is a sin which would reflect upon the afterlife, hence why people ask for forgiveness and learn from their mistakes.Minority of athiests will justify that them swearing was wrong, and try to control themselves, but majority of people of religious ethic adapt to this at an early age.

Disturbed123

Religion doesnt stop theists from sinning either. As some great evangelists of GS would say, we ALL sin. We all may lie, we all may swear etc.

There are many reasons one may feel bad for what they did, besides a (supposedly) godsent moral code. I dont believe in the loose concept of sin that Christianity has, but I do feel bad if I wrong someone, if I do something that will cause sadness to those close to me etc. Just because I cant name/define the reason that "urges" me to feel bad, as neatly as religion has (in the imagery of God) doesnt mean that reason/cause doesnt exist.

As for your edited part: in our family (though my parents are Christians) we were never taught what is right or wrong, with God/the Bible being referenced every now and then. I hardly remember my mother or father teaching us a moral lesson by using phrases such as "because God is watching" or something akin to that. So morals can be instilled to children secularly at an early age.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

....in whatever god you worship instead of the thousands of other gods?

Unfortunately making absolute statements is not allowed in this forum as it comes under "forcing your beliefs onto others and offending others". ...

maheo30

What are you referring to?

Because if there is no Odin, then where did Thor come from? Take that!

...I just lament the lack of real conversation that these threads cause

rawsavon

There is a general vibe on these forums that being a christian is a logically compatable religion when it really isnt so things should be exposed...

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]The questions you asked were just rhetorical ones; ones that pointed to the direction you wanted them to.

But even if they werent: what sort of discussion would your thread create?

The only thing this thread was for, is atheists being called to defend themselves as to why they make many threads. Is that even a topic of a thread that can create discussion?

Gambler_3

Yes it actually is discussion I'd like to know why they do it bottom line. I'd like to know the mentality behind it, I believe in the thread you told me I was using my theism as an advantage when the real world, first off I don't call to any major religion but I was a christian, secondly I discuss many religions IRL, especially judism and they aren't always in favourable views especially with judism.

My thread and this is one is similar, as you can see, which is why I created the other thread in the first place.

It is because religion causes alot of trouble in the world and the world has the potential to be a much better place without it. I live in a country where blasphemy against Islam is punishable under law so the internet is the only way I can try to bring some change.

Lol religion has caused so much trouble in the world? Give me an example where it was religion and not man using religion pls. If there was no religion they would just find another way..

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Morality and ethics are not necessarily absent from atheism. In other words, they arent exclusive to theism, by far.

Teenaged

There are certain ethics that remain exclusive to theistic religions, including no sex before marriage, certain rituals to cleaning before praying, ablusion, equality, certain percentage of wealth going towards charity, etc. When it comes to deriving how many ethics and moralities they really are, religion seems to take the cake. Many Athiests may live a moral life but that doesnt stop them from doing sinning which may seem casual to them, such as swearing and so forth. The thing is they wont feel bad as they dont have any justification that what they did was wrong. While in religious context, swearing is a sin which would reflect upon the afterlife, hence why people ask for forgiveness and learn from their mistakes.

Religion doesnt stop theists from sinning either. As some great evangelists of GS would say, we ALL sin. We all may lie, we all may swear etc.

There are many reasons one may feel bad for what they did, besides a (supposedly) godsent moral code. I dont believe in the loose concept of sin that Christianity has, but I do feel bad if I wrong someone, if I do something that will cause sadness to those close to me etc. Just because I cant name/define the reason that "urges" me to feel bad, as neatly as religion has (in the imagery of God) doesnt mean that reason/cause doesnt exist.

Ofcourse. Everyone is capable of sinning, no one will be perfect, but sinning doesnt always have to reflect upon inflicting sadness to people. Sinning can come naturally such as swearing when you get annoyed with your work or things aint going your way, lying without knowing, etc. No one here cant guarantee that there will be no life after death, as it will only be proven eschateologically. This is what differentiates between religion and athiests.

At the end of the day however, people should not force views of religious culture or athiestic views. I mean im a muslim, and have atheist friends and friends of other cultures, and we can adapt easily with each other. However the stereotypes that have been given though the media has questioned alot of peoples thoughts about theistic culture, i.e. muslim being terrorists, muslims being effed up etc. I tell you one thing, none of this was ever here before 9.11 happened :( but bottom line,, people should not force views of religious culture or athiestic views. A bunch of minorites that declare they are a part of a cult or religion doesnt reflect upon every person of that religion. Same for atheists. We get white and black people stabbing shooting etc who have no religious background but we dont justify that every athiest is bad. Just shows how the media has twisted religion.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

...I just lament the lack of real conversation that these threads cause

Gambler_3

There is a general vibe on these forums that being a christian is a logically compatable religion when it really isnt so things should be exposed...

All this "believing and non believing" will only be proven eschateologically. Fact is, we wernt given life for 1-70 years just to sit and talk on forums, thats for sure ;) out of 2010 years, we have been given life in the 19th century for a period of time. Why? Just to chill out?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

There are certain ethics that remain exclusive to theistic religions, including no sex before marriage, certain rituals to cleaning before praying, ablusion, equality, certain percentage of wealth going towards charity, etc. When it comes to deriving how many ethics and moralities they really are, religion seems to take the cake. Many Athiests may live a moral life but that doesnt stop them from doing sinning which may seem casual to them, such as swearing and so forth. The thing is they wont feel bad as they dont have any justification that what they did was wrong. While in religious context, swearing is a sin which would reflect upon the afterlife, hence why people ask for forgiveness and learn from their mistakes.

Disturbed123

Religion doesnt stop theists from sinning either. As some great evangelists of GS would say, we ALL sin. We all may lie, we all may swear etc.

There are many reasons one may feel bad for what they did, besides a (supposedly) godsent moral code. I dont believe in the loose concept of sin that Christianity has, but I do feel bad if I wrong someone, if I do something that will cause sadness to those close to me etc. Just because I cant name/define the reason that "urges" me to feel bad, as neatly as religion has (in the imagery of God) doesnt mean that reason/cause doesnt exist.

Ofcourse. Everyone is capable of sinning, no one will be perfect, but sinning doesnt always have to reflect upon inflicting sadness to people. Sinning can come naturally such as swearing when you get annoyed with your work or things aint going your way, lying without knowing, etc. No one here cant guarantee that there will be no life after death, as it will only be proven eschateologically. This is what differentiates between religion and athiests.

At the end of the day however, people should not force views of religious culture or athiestic views. I mean im a muslim, and have atheist friends and friends of other cultures, and we can adapt easily with each other. However the stereotypes that have been given though the media has questioned alot of peoples thoughts about theistic culture, i.e. muslim being terrorists, muslims being effed up etc. I tell you one thing, none of this was ever here before 9.11 happened :(

But it hasnt been established that the moral way of life of religion is "better" than the moral way of life of atheists. What impact does swearing out of pure frustration and directed at no one specifically, has? That would matter if life after death existed, where God and his arbitrary-for-us standards apply and are sacred (assuming that religions have handed down to us the "truth"). While it cant be proven that the afterlife doesnt exist, it also cant be proven that it does.

In light of the above, a criterion that is suitable for both types of morality (atheistic and theistic - in order for us to be able to compare them and say which is "better" we need a criterion that applies to both) is one that judges them pragmatically. Meaning, here in this life and the effect our moral-driven lives have on others/society/the planet and whatever external to us "agent" can be added on this roster depending on the circumstances. That criterion doesnt by any means necessarily distinguish religious morality as "better" than atheistic morality (which is a misleading term to use since there is no universal-to-all-atheists atheistic morality but just for the sake of using "equal" terms).

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

...I just lament the lack of real conversation that these threads cause

Disturbed123

There is a general vibe on these forums that being a christian is a logically compatable religion when it really isnt so things should be exposed...

All this "believing and non believing" will only be proven eschateologically. Fact is, we wernt given life for 1-70 years just to sit and talk on forums, thats for sure ;) out of 2010 years, we have been given life in the 19th century for a period of time. Why? Just to chill out?

Anyways I dont know why we are here and will never know that hence why I am agnostic to the question of "why we are here"...

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

...I just lament the lack of real conversation that these threads cause

Disturbed123

There is a general vibe on these forums that being a christian is a logically compatable religion when it really isnt so things should be exposed...

All this "believing and non believing" will only be proven eschateologically. Fact is, we wernt given life for 1-70 years just to sit and talk on forums, thats for sure ;) out of 2010 years, we have been given life in the 19th century for a period of time. Why? Just to chill out?

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]But this thread was actually supposed to be this way cuz I know there is no answer to the question I pose. But that doesnt make it all useless as you have no idea how many lurkers and even posters are affected by online discussions. I have been very effected over the course of last year and I know a user or 2 who also have claimed to have been greatly affected in their own personal beliefs by discussions on forums.

There is a general vibe on these forums that being a christian is a logically compatable religion when it really isnt so things should be exposed...

Teenaged

All this "believing and non believing" will only be proven eschateologically. Fact is, we wernt given life for 1-70 years just to sit and talk on forums, thats for sure ;) out of 2010 years, we have been given life in the 19th century for a period of time. Why? Just to chill out?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

All this "believing and non believing" will only be proven eschateologically. Fact is, we wernt given life for 1-70 years just to sit and talk on forums, thats for sure ;) out of 2010 years, we have been given life in the 19th century for a period of time. Why? Just to chill out?

Gambler_3

Close up pleaaaase. Thank you. :|

HA!

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

...I just lament the lack of real conversation that these threads cause

Gambler_3

Attacking and insulting =/= 'conversation'

But that doesnt make it all useless as you have no idea how many lurkers and even posters are affected by online discussions. I have been very effected over the course of last year and I know a user or 2 who also have claimed to have been greatly affected in their own personal beliefs by discussions on forums.

People are affected by EVERYTHING they see and and hear each day...even if only by a very small amount
-but that does not necessarily mean that the change is for the better

There is a general vibe on these forums that being a christian is a logically compatable religion when it really isnt so things should be exposed...

1. THIS SITE (or OT to be specific) is defin. more non-believer than believer...so I do not know why you say that
-there have been numerous OT polls to demonstrate

2. Why make a thinly veiled attempt at a conversational thread?
Why not just make a thread attacking what you do not like?

Just be honest.

You are upset about how you are treated for your beliefs IRL
-you are not able to speak freely where you live
-so you take your frustrations out here on 'innocent' by-standers

You wanted to make a thread that was insulting while still w/in the TOU
-which is fine-
But at least be open and honest about it

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Of course there will be morals exclusive to religion. But that doesnt render them important/correct or a loss for the morality of many atheists.

Religion doesnt stop theists from sinning either. As some great evangelists of GS would say, we ALL sin. We all may lie, we all may swear etc.

There are many reasons one may feel bad for what they did, besides a (supposedly) godsent moral code. I dont believe in the loose concept of sin that Christianity has, but I do feel bad if I wrong someone, if I do something that will cause sadness to those close to me etc. Just because I cant name/define the reason that "urges" me to feel bad, as neatly as religion has (in the imagery of God) doesnt mean that reason/cause doesnt exist.

Teenaged

Ofcourse. Everyone is capable of sinning, no one will be perfect, but sinning doesnt always have to reflect upon inflicting sadness to people. Sinning can come naturally such as swearing when you get annoyed with your work or things aint going your way, lying without knowing, etc. No one here cant guarantee that there will be no life after death, as it will only be proven eschateologically. This is what differentiates between religion and athiests.

At the end of the day however, people should not force views of religious culture or athiestic views. I mean im a muslim, and have atheist friends and friends of other cultures, and we can adapt easily with each other. However the stereotypes that have been given though the media has questioned alot of peoples thoughts about theistic culture, i.e. muslim being terrorists, muslims being effed up etc. I tell you one thing, none of this was ever here before 9.11 happened :(

But it hasnt been established that the moral way of life of religion is "better" than the moral way of life of atheists. What impact does swearing out of pure frustration and directed at no one specifically, has? That would matter if life after death existed, where God and his arbitrary-for-us standards apply and are sacred (assuming that religions have handed down to us the "truth"). While it cant be proven that the afterlife doesnt exist, it also cant be proven that it does.

In light of the above, a criterion that is suitable for both types of morality (atheistic and theistic - in order for us to be able to compare them and say which is "better" we need a criterion that applies to both) is one that judges them pragmatically. Meaning, here in this life and the effect our moral-driven lives have on others/society/the planet and whatever external to us "agent" can be added on this roster depending on the circumstances. That criterion doesnt by any means necessarily distinguish religious morality as "better" than atheistic morality (which is a misleading term to use since there is no universal-to-all-atheists atheistic morality but just for the sake of using "equal" terms).

This is what derives the difference between religious morality and atheistic morality. The frustration to you may not have an impact to you per say, but with religion, things we say are accounted for, so we actually try to control our frustration and anger for example, and in the long term is beneficial. In religion, life is a test and people are faced with difficult and problematic problems, it tests your beliefs and your actions to how to rectify them and tests your patience.

While life after death cannot or can be proven, it only takes a bit of logic to derive that life does have some meaning. We have been noneexistentfor decades, and have had the opportunity to live a life since we were born. We have a period of time (variable), it seems a bit out of place that we have been non existant for so long, then been given life for small period of time, it doesnt logically make sense that our life just is meaningless and that once we die, our life is over and we remain none existant for eternity. Atleast with religion, you are minimizing your risk of what lies in the after life. If there is nothing in the after life, then fine, atleast I have done my duty on earth and helped and lived a healthy and good moral life. If there is an afterlife, i could justify my actions, but can an atheist? God is infinatly greater in every way to a human (by theistic views), so no one here can say "oh i can justify myself with ease", because you cant. As i like to say "Easier said then done".

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]But this thread was actually supposed to be this way cuz I know there is no answer to the question I pose. But that doesnt make it all useless as you have no idea how many lurkers and even posters are affected by online discussions. I have been very effected over the course of last year and I know a user or 2 who also have claimed to have been greatly affected in their own personal beliefs by discussions on forums.

There is a general vibe on these forums that being a christian is a logically compatable religion when it really isnt so things should be exposed...

Teenaged

All this "believing and non believing" will only be proven eschateologically. Fact is, we wernt given life for 1-70 years just to sit and talk on forums, thats for sure ;) out of 2010 years, we have been given life in the 19th century for a period of time. Why? Just to chill out?

That practically beats the purpose of life then. We have been given life with no sentiment or meaning, which begs the question of why were we given life in the first place? Clearly theres more to life then the rules and creations that are governed by humans.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]That is assuming we were given life by someone sentient; that would be something to be proven in order to start arguing that there are expectations from us beyond our physical existance.

Teenaged

Close up pleaaaase. Thank you. :|

HA!

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

Ofcourse. Everyone is capable of sinning, no one will be perfect, but sinning doesnt always have to reflect upon inflicting sadness to people. Sinning can come naturally such as swearing when you get annoyed with your work or things aint going your way, lying without knowing, etc. No one here cant guarantee that there will be no life after death, as it will only be proven eschateologically. This is what differentiates between religion and athiests.

At the end of the day however, people should not force views of religious culture or athiestic views. I mean im a muslim, and have atheist friends and friends of other cultures, and we can adapt easily with each other. However the stereotypes that have been given though the media has questioned alot of peoples thoughts about theistic culture, i.e. muslim being terrorists, muslims being effed up etc. I tell you one thing, none of this was ever here before 9.11 happened :(

Disturbed123

But it hasnt been established that the moral way of life of religion is "better" than the moral way of life of atheists. What impact does swearing out of pure frustration and directed at no one specifically, has? That would matter if life after death existed, where God and his arbitrary-for-us standards apply and are sacred (assuming that religions have handed down to us the "truth"). While it cant be proven that the afterlife doesnt exist, it also cant be proven that it does.

In light of the above, a criterion that is suitable for both types of morality (atheistic and theistic - in order for us to be able to compare them and say which is "better" we need a criterion that applies to both) is one that judges them pragmatically. Meaning, here in this life and the effect our moral-driven lives have on others/society/the planet and whatever external to us "agent" can be added on this roster depending on the circumstances. That criterion doesnt by any means necessarily distinguish religious morality as "better" than atheistic morality (which is a misleading term to use since there is no universal-to-all-atheists atheistic morality but just for the sake of using "equal" terms).

This is what derives the difference between religious morality and atheistic morality. The frustration to you may not have an impact to you per say, but with religion, things we say are accounted for, so we actually try to control our frustration and anger for example, and in the long term is beneficial. In religion, life is a test and people are faced with difficult and problematic problems, it tests your beliefs and your actions to how to rectify them and tests your patience.

While life after death cannot or can be proven, it only takes a bit of logic to derive that life does have some meaning. We have been noneexistentfor decades, and have had the opportunity to live a life since we were born. We have a period of time (variable), it seems a bit out of place that we have been non existant for so long, then been given life for small period of time, it doesnt logically make sense that our life just is meaningless and that once we die, our life is over and we remain none existant for eternity. Atleast with religion, you are minimizing your risk of what lies in the after life. If there is nothing in the after life, then fine, atleast I have done my duty on earth and helped and lived a healthy and good moral life. If there is an afterlife, i could justify my actions, but can an atheist? God is infinatly greater in every way to a human (by theistic views), so no one here can say "oh i can justify myself with ease", because you cant. As i like to say "Easier said then done".

You are implying that a life without an afterlife is meaningless? That is false. There is meaning to be found without the probability of the afterlife; especially considering that "meaning" is a personal issue and thus not something we can apply cIassification to; such as "more important meaning"/"trivial/false meaning" etc.

And you have applied Pascal's Wager. That is not an argument that is supposed to be convincing to all. It merely shows the odds. Not everyone makes decisions based on odds and its not always bad to make decisions against the odds.

Why would an atheist even need to justify his actions to God in the afterlife if he lead a moral life (generally)?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Beat you to it.:P

Gambler_3

Close up pleaaaase. Thank you. :|

HA!

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

All this "believing and non believing" will only be proven eschateologically. Fact is, we wernt given life for 1-70 years just to sit and talk on forums, thats for sure ;) out of 2010 years, we have been given life in the 19th century for a period of time. Why? Just to chill out?

Disturbed123

That practically beats the purpose of life then. We have been given life with no sentiment or meaning, which begs the question of why were we given life in the first place? Clearly theres more to life then the rules and creations that are governed by humans.

(RED) Depends on what you focus on. We as humans can idolise pretty much anything. If it isnt a diety or the grand scenario of an afterlife, it can be our intellect, our superiority as a species (even if that is debatable, people can most definitely hinge on to that, even as a delusional support) and many more.

Who said there is more than one God and not merely more than one understanding of that one God?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Its just that when you mention the term "moral way of life" (although "moral" out of context is a media vox word; either bad moral or good moral) you imply an "optimally moral way of life". I mean why else would you list it as a reason to believe; as a reason to not choose atheism?

But it hasnt been established that the moral way of life of religion is "better" than the moral way of life of atheists. What impact does swearing out of pure frustration and directed at no one specifically, has? That would matter if life after death existed, where God and his arbitrary-for-us standards apply and are sacred (assuming that religions have handed down to us the "truth"). While it cant be proven that the afterlife doesnt exist, it also cant be proven that it does.

In light of the above, a criterion that is suitable for both types of morality (atheistic and theistic - in order for us to be able to compare them and say which is "better" we need a criterion that applies to both) is one that judges them pragmatically. Meaning, here in this life and the effect our moral-driven lives have on others/society/the planet and whatever external to us "agent" can be added on this roster depending on the circumstances. That criterion doesnt by any means necessarily distinguish religious morality as "better" than atheistic morality (which is a misleading term to use since there is no universal-to-all-atheists atheistic morality but just for the sake of using "equal" terms).

Teenaged

This is what derives the difference between religious morality and atheistic morality. The frustration to you may not have an impact to you per say, but with religion, things we say are accounted for, so we actually try to control our frustration and anger for example, and in the long term is beneficial. In religion, life is a test and people are faced with difficult and problematic problems, it tests your beliefs and your actions to how to rectify them and tests your patience.

While life after death cannot or can be proven, it only takes a bit of logic to derive that life does have some meaning. We have been noneexistentfor decades, and have had the opportunity to live a life since we were born. We have a period of time (variable), it seems a bit out of place that we have been non existant for so long, then been given life for small period of time, it doesnt logically make sense that our life just is meaningless and that once we die, our life is over and we remain none existant for eternity. Atleast with religion, you are minimizing your risk of what lies in the after life. If there is nothing in the after life, then fine, atleast I have done my duty on earth and helped and lived a healthy and good moral life. If there is an afterlife, i could justify my actions, but can an atheist? God is infinatly greater in every way to a human (by theistic views), so no one here can say "oh i can justify myself with ease", because you cant. As i like to say "Easier said then done".

You are implying that a life without an afterlife is meaningless? That is false. There is meaning to be found without the probability of the afterlife; especially considering that "meaning" is a personal issue and thus not something we can apply cIassification to; such as "more important meaning"/"trivial/false meaning" etc.

And you have applied Pascal's Wager. That is not an argument that is supposed to be convincing to all. It merely shows the odds. Not everyone makes decisions based on odds and its not always bad to make decisions against the odds.

Why would an atheist even need to justify his actions to God in the afterlife if he lead a moral life (generally)?

Thats a rather narrow approach. Anger can be controlled in so many ways and be released to void tension. Example, boxing bag :P but in a serious note, using fustration on work is not something that will eat you up on the long run. I certainly wont be dwelling on a module i done last week which potentially wanted to make me eff and bee everywhere. What will that solve? Nothing. Same way of releasing anger, people find ways to release and control anger without the need of inflicting or going against their moral beliefs.

I have yet to discover what kind of meaning life has without the potential aspect of an afterlife. I live, i work, i have fun,i help, i have friends, i fall in love. Thats it?Apart from socialing and living the normal steps of life, that doesnt deduct any apprehensive meaning towards life itself. A complex world, our complex bodies, and our complex minds wernt put together just so we can do the basic of tasks, its evident enough using logic that theres an afterlife

Why would an athiest need to justify his actions to God in the afterlife if he lead a moral life? Now, thats what I have been trying to get at all this time. What makes you convinced that your moral beliefs is what God would consider a good deed? You clearly stated that whats the harm of effing and beeing when you are frustrated? This shows the difference between one of theistic way of controlling your frustration compared to an atheistic way. You will be happy probably effing and beeing, a theist may control his anger according to his religion context. God can question why you didnt search for a religion, you had your entire life? Why would God even favour your actions if you didnt believe in God in the first place? this is using my limited knowledge, god is infinately more brilliant ,and could ask you questions far more complex that you may not even have an answer to.

This thread has provided me with many lulz. What I don't get is why you're concerning yourself with something that's never going to affect your life.

This thread has provided me with many lulz. What I don't get is why you're concerning yourself with something that's never going to affect your life.

dracula_16

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

This is what derives the difference between religious morality and atheistic morality. The frustration to you may not have an impact to you per say, but with religion, things we say are accounted for, so we actually try to control our frustration and anger for example, and in the long term is beneficial. In religion, life is a test and people are faced with difficult and problematic problems, it tests your beliefs and your actions to how to rectify them and tests your patience.

While life after death cannot or can be proven, it only takes a bit of logic to derive that life does have some meaning. We have been noneexistentfor decades, and have had the opportunity to live a life since we were born. We have a period of time (variable), it seems a bit out of place that we have been non existant for so long, then been given life for small period of time, it doesnt logically make sense that our life just is meaningless and that once we die, our life is over and we remain none existant for eternity. Atleast with religion, you are minimizing your risk of what lies in the after life. If there is nothing in the after life, then fine, atleast I have done my duty on earth and helped and lived a healthy and good moral life. If there is an afterlife, i could justify my actions, but can an atheist? God is infinatly greater in every way to a human (by theistic views), so no one here can say "oh i can justify myself with ease", because you cant. As i like to say "Easier said then done".

Disturbed123

You are implying that a life without an afterlife is meaningless? That is false. There is meaning to be found without the probability of the afterlife; especially considering that "meaning" is a personal issue and thus not something we can apply cIassification to; such as "more important meaning"/"trivial/false meaning" etc.

And you have applied Pascal's Wager. That is not an argument that is supposed to be convincing to all. It merely shows the odds. Not everyone makes decisions based on odds and its not always bad to make decisions against the odds.

Why would an atheist even need to justify his actions to God in the afterlife if he lead a moral life (generally)?

Thats a rather narrow approach. Anger can be controlled in so many ways and be released to void tension. Example, boxing bag :P but in a serious note, using fustration on work is not something that will eat you up on the long run. I certainly wont be dwelling on a module i done last week which potentially wanted to make me eff and bee everywhere. What will that solve? Nothing. Same way of releasing anger, people find ways to release and control anger without the need of inflicting or going against their moral beliefs.

I have yet to discover what kind of meaning life has without the potential aspect of an afterlife. I live, i work, i have fun,i help, i have friends, i fall in love. Thats it?Apart from socialing and living the normal steps of life, that doesnt deduct any apprehensive meaning towards life itself. A complex world, our complex bodies, and our complex minds wernt put together just so we can do the basic of tasks, its evident enough using logic that theres an afterlife

Why would an athiest need to justify his actions to God in the afterlife if he lead a moral life? Now, thats what I have been trying to get at all this time. What makes you convinced that your moral beliefs is what God would consider a good deed? You clearly stated that whats the harm of effing and beeing when you are frustrated? This shows the difference between one of theistic way of controlling your frustration compared to an atheistic way. You will be happy probably effing and beeing, a theist may control his anger according to his religion context. God can question why you didnt search for a religion, you had your entire life? Why would God even favour your actions if you didnt believe in God in the first place? this is using my limited knowledge, god is infinately more brilliant ,and could ask you questions far more complex that you may not even have an answer to.

Perhaps the meaning of life is the experience. Perhaps its living your life to the maximum while helping others achieve the same to the degree that is possible urged by your feelings towards them as memebers of your race with which you feel like socialising, like a social "animal" that you are. Perhaps its coming in terms with who you are. Perhaps its finding happiness. Perhaps its..................

I create my morals based on the pragmatical criteria I mentioned earlier. And it cant be denied that even religious morals are at some degree based on pragmatical criteria, even if God exists and he has made attempts at handing down to us specific morals; at the very least its quite possible. So its not like religious people can be certain that the morals that they believe in are in tune with what God will ultimately require of you.

An atheistic morality is based on pragmatical criteria which are applicable in a world that we are experiencing and that we currently in our state of mind have tangible proof of its existence; like you said, the afterlife is just a possibility. If I embraced Pascal's Wager I may had taken it into consideration.

Again how can you show me that effing and beeing (at no one just to let off steam) are things that constitute the atheistic morality inferior to the theistic morality based on the pragmatical criteria that I mentioned earlier (not the ones stemming from a possible afterlife)?

(RED) Why wouldnt he?

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]That is assuming we were given life by someone sentient; that would be something to be proven in order to start arguing that there are expectations from us beyond our physical existance.

Teenaged

That practically beats the purpose of life then. We have been given life with no sentiment or meaning, which begs the question of why were we given life in the first place? Clearly theres more to life then the rules and creations that are governed by humans.

(RED) Depends on what you focus on. We as humans can idolise pretty much anything. If it isnt a diety or the grand scenario of an afterlife, it can be our intellect, our superiority as a species (even if that is debatable, people can most definitely hinge on to that, even as a delusional support) and many more.

Humans can idolise anything, but they are merely an object. What good can an object do when it has no real connection to a superior being? Theists do not idolise items or idolic statues that potentially reflect upon on their Deity, well, abrahamic religions dont anyway. While religion has been around for many centuries, idolising phases out instantly compared to religions (abrahamic religions for eg)

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

That practically beats the purpose of life then. We have been given life with no sentiment or meaning, which begs the question of why were we given life in the first place? Clearly theres more to life then the rules and creations that are governed by humans.

Disturbed123

(RED) Depends on what you focus on. We as humans can idolise pretty much anything. If it isnt a diety or the grand scenario of an afterlife, it can be our intellect, our superiority as a species (even if that is debatable, people can most definitely hinge on to that, even as a delusional support) and many more.

Humans can idolise anything, but they are merely an object. What good can an object do when it has no real connection to a superior being? Theists do not idolise items or idolic statues that potentially reflect upon on their Deity, well, abrahamic religions dont anyway. While religion has been around for many centuries, idolising phases out instantly compared to religions (abrahamic religions for eg)

For all you know God may be just an external "projection" of our super-ego (the psychological term). That makes him/her/it an "object" too.

But that wasnt the point I was making anyways. You asked (implicitely) if meaning can be found outside of religion/theism. There clearly can be. Like I said earlier though the issue of "meaning" is highly dependant on the person who "finds" it. Therefore its invalid to place judgement on meanings and categorise others as lesser and others as greater.

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]It can actually be argued that controlling your anger at all times and forms is not beneficial in the long term. Bottling things up has been shown to cause many people even more frustration and in the end even more aggressive behavior. Again pragmatically it hasnt been shown how the religious morality is better than atheistic morality. The possibility of an afterlife does not create criteria that is imperative that we hold as more important than the pragmatic criteria.

You are implying that a life without an afterlife is meaningless? That is false. There is meaning to be found without the probability of the afterlife; especially considering that "meaning" is a personal issue and thus not something we can apply cIassification to; such as "more important meaning"/"trivial/false meaning" etc.

And you have applied Pascal's Wager. That is not an argument that is supposed to be convincing to all. It merely shows the odds. Not everyone makes decisions based on odds and its not always bad to make decisions against the odds.

Why would an atheist even need to justify his actions to God in the afterlife if he lead a moral life (generally)?

Teenaged

Thats a rather narrow approach. Anger can be controlled in so many ways and be released to void tension. Example, boxing bag :P but in a serious note, using fustration on work is not something that will eat you up on the long run. I certainly wont be dwelling on a module i done last week which potentially wanted to make me eff and bee everywhere. What will that solve? Nothing. Same way of releasing anger, people find ways to release and control anger without the need of inflicting or going against their moral beliefs.

I have yet to discover what kind of meaning life has without the potential aspect of an afterlife. I live, i work, i have fun,i help, i have friends, i fall in love. Thats it?Apart from socialing and living the normal steps of life, that doesnt deduct any apprehensive meaning towards life itself. A complex world, our complex bodies, and our complex minds wernt put together just so we can do the basic of tasks, its evident enough using logic that theres an afterlife

Why would an athiest need to justify his actions to God in the afterlife if he lead a moral life? Now, thats what I have been trying to get at all this time. What makes you convinced that your moral beliefs is what God would consider a good deed? You clearly stated that whats the harm of effing and beeing when you are frustrated? This shows the difference between one of theistic way of controlling your frustration compared to an atheistic way. You will be happy probably effing and beeing, a theist may control his anger according to his religion context. God can question why you didnt search for a religion, you had your entire life? Why would God even favour your actions if you didnt believe in God in the first place? this is using my limited knowledge, god is infinately more brilliant ,and could ask you questions far more complex that you may not even have an answer to.

Perhaps the meaning of life is the experience. Perhaps its living your life to the maximum while helping others achieve the same to the degree that is possible urged by your feelings towards them as memebers of your race with which you feel like socialising, like a social "animal" that you are. Perhaps its coming in terms with who you are. Perhaps its finding happiness. Perhaps its..................

I create my morals based on the pragmatical criteria I mentioned earlier. And it cant be denied that even religious morals are at some degree based on pragmatical criteria, even if God exists and he has made attempts at handing down to us specific morals; at the very least its quite possible. So its not like religious people can be certain that the morals that they believe in are in tune with what God will ultimately require of you.

An atheistic morality is based on pragmatical criteria which are applicable in a world that we are experiencing and that we currently in our state of mind have tangible proof of its existence; like you said, the afterlife is just a possibility. If I embraced Pascal's Wager I may had taken it into consideration.

Again how can you show me that effing and beeing (at no one just to let off steam) are things that constitute the atheistic morality inferior to the theistic morality based on the pragmatical criteria that I mentioned earlier (not the ones stemming from a possible afterlife)?

(RED) Why wouldnt he?

If life is merely an experiance, then what experiance do people who are suffering from poverty, starvation, accidents, etc have? Clearly its not a pleasent experiance.

An atheistic morality can tie with theistic morality, such as helping people, doing good etc. I did not deny that. All i mentioned is the example of what your way of thinking in terms of how you will tackle your frustration is different to mine. At the end of the day, it boils down to intention and what you do. If your intention is pure, then fine. if you seeking to be popular or something then clearly, or expecting a reward, then that aint right.

As for the effing and beeing, swearing is wrong. Period. You cannot justify saying "mother ****er" because it serves no purpose. A quote from hadith which states:

It has been narrated by Abu Huraira (May Allah be pleased with him) That Allah's Messenger Muhammad () Said:

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]It beats the purpose most people find in life. Not all purpose that can be found.

(RED) Depends on what you focus on. We as humans can idolise pretty much anything. If it isnt a diety or the grand scenario of an afterlife, it can be our intellect, our superiority as a species (even if that is debatable, people can most definitely hinge on to that, even as a delusional support) and many more.

Teenaged

Humans can idolise anything, but they are merely an object. What good can an object do when it has no real connection to a superior being? Theists do not idolise items or idolic statues that potentially reflect upon on their Deity, well, abrahamic religions dont anyway. While religion has been around for many centuries, idolising phases out instantly compared to religions (abrahamic religions for eg)

For all you know God may be just an external "projection" of our super-ego (the psychological term). That makes him/her/it an "object" too.

But that wasnt the point I was making anyways. You asked (implicitely) if meaning can be found outside of religion/theism. There clearly can be. Like I said earlier though the issue of "meaning" is highly dependant on the person who "finds" it. Therefore its invalid to place judgement on meanings and categorise others as lesser and others as greater.

God definition doesnt relate to "object". It relates to "being" in all abrahamic scriptures. God is onipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent which is impossible for an object to be.

The meaning of life to that person serves no purpose in places such as africa when people are starving and dying everyday and almost instantly after birth. We only endulge on aims and objectives of life since we firmly believe we will be here the next day.

Peace Out

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

Thats a rather narrow approach. Anger can be controlled in so many ways and be released to void tension. Example, boxing bag :P but in a serious note, using fustration on work is not something that will eat you up on the long run. I certainly wont be dwelling on a module i done last week which potentially wanted to make me eff and bee everywhere. What will that solve? Nothing. Same way of releasing anger, people find ways to release and control anger without the need of inflicting or going against their moral beliefs.

I have yet to discover what kind of meaning life has without the potential aspect of an afterlife. I live, i work, i have fun,i help, i have friends, i fall in love. Thats it?Apart from socialing and living the normal steps of life, that doesnt deduct any apprehensive meaning towards life itself. A complex world, our complex bodies, and our complex minds wernt put together just so we can do the basic of tasks, its evident enough using logic that theres an afterlife

Why would an athiest need to justify his actions to God in the afterlife if he lead a moral life? Now, thats what I have been trying to get at all this time. What makes you convinced that your moral beliefs is what God would consider a good deed? You clearly stated that whats the harm of effing and beeing when you are frustrated? This shows the difference between one of theistic way of controlling your frustration compared to an atheistic way. You will be happy probably effing and beeing, a theist may control his anger according to his religion context. God can question why you didnt search for a religion, you had your entire life? Why would God even favour your actions if you didnt believe in God in the first place? this is using my limited knowledge, god is infinately more brilliant ,and could ask you questions far more complex that you may not even have an answer to.

Disturbed123

Perhaps the meaning of life is the experience. Perhaps its living your life to the maximum while helping others achieve the same to the degree that is possible urged by your feelings towards them as memebers of your race with which you feel like socialising, like a social "animal" that you are. Perhaps its coming in terms with who you are. Perhaps its finding happiness. Perhaps its..................

I create my morals based on the pragmatical criteria I mentioned earlier. And it cant be denied that even religious morals are at some degree based on pragmatical criteria, even if God exists and he has made attempts at handing down to us specific morals; at the very least its quite possible. So its not like religious people can be certain that the morals that they believe in are in tune with what God will ultimately require of you.

An atheistic morality is based on pragmatical criteria which are applicable in a world that we are experiencing and that we currently in our state of mind have tangible proof of its existence; like you said, the afterlife is just a possibility. If I embraced Pascal's Wager I may had taken it into consideration.

Again how can you show me that effing and beeing (at no one just to let off steam) are things that constitute the atheistic morality inferior to the theistic morality based on the pragmatical criteria that I mentioned earlier (not the ones stemming from a possible afterlife)?

(RED) Why wouldnt he?

If life is merely an experiance, then what experiance do people who are suffering from poverty, starvation, accidents, etc have? Clearly its not a pleasent experiance.

An atheistic morality can tie with theistic morality, such as helping people, doing good etc. I did not deny that. All i mentioned is the example of what your way of thinking in terms of how you will tackle your frustration is different to mine. At the end of the day, it boils down to intention and what you do. If your intention is pure, then fine. if you seeking to be popular or something then clearly, or expecting a reward, then that aint right.

As for the effing and beeing, swearing is wrong. Period. You cannot justify saying "mother ****er" because it serves no purpose. A quote from hadith which states:

It has been narrated by Abu Huraira (May Allah be pleased with him) That Allah's Messenger Muhammad () Said:

" The strong is not the one who over comes the people by his strength"
"But the strong is the one who controls him while in anger."

Anger in Islam is related the work of the devil. Prophet Muhammed went through so much and not once did he lose his cool. This shows the indication using a role model of Islam that justification of being at peace and controlling yourself is far more moral compared to effing and beeing all over the place when one is frustrated. Obviously im just emphasising on this one example. The obvious morals such as *hypathetical example* helping people out of a burning building or something, then whos to say God wont reward you for that? God can reward you, but whos to say your bad deeds wont outweigh the good ones? You havnt said anything in terms of what if God asked you about your religion.
Anyways, im going to sleep now. Its 12:20 am and im KO'ed. Good debate however :)

I never said the experience had to be pleasant. I meant a prupose could be for people to try to make their experiences as pleasant as possible. Again though remember what I said about meanings and their false categorisation.

And why do you justify boxing? It serves no purpose. And if it does, it serves the same as swearing. Letting off steam/frustration.

That is all very good, I am not objecting to the fact that your religion orders you to not swear. But what reason do I have to not do it, other than when my pragmatical criteria dictate that I dont?

(RED) Because I dont see how it would necessarily matter to him/her/it.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

This thread has provided me with many lulz. What I don't get is why you're concerning yourself with something that's never going to affect your life.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Disturbed123"]

Humans can idolise anything, but they are merely an object. What good can an object do when it has no real connection to a superior being? Theists do not idolise items or idolic statues that potentially reflect upon on their Deity, well, abrahamic religions dont anyway. While religion has been around for many centuries, idolising phases out instantly compared to religions (abrahamic religions for eg)

Disturbed123

For all you know God may be just an external "projection" of our super-ego (the psychological term). That makes him/her/it an "object" too.

But that wasnt the point I was making anyways. You asked (implicitely) if meaning can be found outside of religion/theism. There clearly can be. Like I said earlier though the issue of "meaning" is highly dependant on the person who "finds" it. Therefore its invalid to place judgement on meanings and categorise others as lesser and others as greater.

God definition doesnt relate to "object". It relates to "being" in all abrahamic scriptures. God is onipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent which is impossible for an object to be.

The meaning of life to that person serves no purpose in places such as africa when people are starving and dying everyday and almost instantly after birth. We only endulge on aims and objectives of life since we firmly believe we will be here the next day.

Peace Out

Regardless, the point was that there is meaning to be found outside religion. There clearly is. That was the question you raised initially.