God? Don't be silly!

[old.Tohtori]

So what ARE you saying? I've completely lost the thread of this now.

I was agreeing with you that religion isn't the ONLY source of our morals...i've said it plenty a times. I wasn't fighting you, i wasn't arguing with that.

It's called agreeing, finding a "middle way", of making a both sided agreement on something being as it is.

Game Over man he's got you!!!!

F*ck off.

 

[nath]

1: My post may be all over the place because i'm discussing with THREE individuals who are talking their OWN views BUT taking things from other replies to other people as well. How about you try it. Your bull may be subtle, but it's still bull.

2: There's no contradiction; the morals that we have now, have become what they are as they have become. It's how it is. It's how we evolved etc. This does not remove the fact that it COULD happen other way. But as they are NOW, it's a FACT that it happened with religious influence. Get it now?

3: I'm not driving at anything, you're the one who started to question it and now agree to it. You questioned it because you didn't read it as it was written.

Lastly, no, i won't. I've pointed it out many times so you just have to read back if you want to better yourself, look from a neutral perspective.

1. Highlight it...

2. I don't know how to discuss this with you if you can't see how it was a contradictory statement.

Without religion, morals wouldn't be as they are now.
They COULD be or written another way Without religion, morals COULD be as they are now

Once again:
Without religion, morals wouldn't be as they are now.
Without religion, morals COULD be as they are now

You're right, we don't know how our specific set of morals would be without a history of religion, religion is a fact of our history and nothing we can do will change that. However, you can't say the former and then the latter and have them both be true. The first statement is attempting to claim a solid fact, the second simply undermines it by saying the first is not necessarily true.

3. I question what you say because what you say is not specific and without ambiguity.

Lastly, you've never pointed out specifics, you've simply said general statements and are now expecting me to hunt for meaning. Sorry, I'm not playing that game, if you want to argue with the things I'm saying point them out - I'm not doing it for you.

 

[old.Tohtori]

1. Highlight it...

2. I don't know how to discuss this with you if you can't see how it was a contradictory statement.

Without religion, morals wouldn't be as they are now.
They COULD be or written another way Without religion, morals COULD be as they are now

Once again:
Without religion, morals wouldn't be as they are now.
Without religion, morals COULD be as they are now

You're right, we don't know how our specific set of morals would be without a history of religion, religion is a fact of our history and nothing we can do will change that. However, you can't say the former and then the latter and have them both be true. The first statement is attempting to claim a solid fact, the second simply undermines it by saying the first is not necessarily true.

3. I question what you say because what you say is not specific and without ambiguity.

Lastly, you've never pointed out specifics, you've simply said general statements and are now expecting me to hunt for meaning. Sorry, I'm not playing that game, if you want to argue with the things I'm saying point them out - I'm not doing it for you.

1: Not getting into that, pointless arguing as you yourself said.

2: They are both true. Morals we have now wouldn't be what they are(because they are as they are), if there was no religion. But they COULD be what they are now via other means. They are not counter points.

3: That's the problem, you need stuff proven that you agree on from the get-go IF you read it and not just glance it the first time. Do as you claim to do and see it from another perspective, not just yours. You said you do that, so try to do so too.

Lastly, no. It's not me playing games, it's you not taking the time to look at your own self as you so conviniently tell me to do. I could start acting like you, if you like?

 

[nath]

1: Not getting into that, pointless arguing as you yourself said.

2: They are both true. Morals we have now wouldn't be what they are(because they are as they are), if there was no religion. But they COULD be what they are now via other means. They are not counter points.

3: That's the problem, you need stuff proven that you agree on from the get-go IF you read it and not just glance it the first time. Do as you claim to do and see it from another perspective, not just yours. You said you do that, so try to do so too.

Lastly, no. It's not me playing games, it's you not taking the time to look at your own self as you so conviniently tell me to do. I could start acting like you, if you like?

I think for the sake of this thread we should bypass this whole section as I can see it degrading (even more).

Lets go back to the point about doing things with no recompense. As I understood from your previous posts (and correct me if I've taken them the wrong way) you don't see the point in doing things to ensure the well being of those around you if there's no afterlife where you can appreciate your deeds. Is this accurate?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Lets go back to the point about doing things with no recompense. As I understood from your previous posts (and correct me if I've taken them the wrong way) you don't see the point in doing things to ensure the well being of those around you if there's no afterlife where you can appreciate your deeds. Is this accurate?

I was actually about to take myself out of the conversation as it feels everything is either misunderstood or taken completely wrong. But, guess just need to explain more clearly, or just keep answers more simple.

Anyway...

In a way, yes.

I don't see the point of doing things that effect the time after your death, IF there's no afterlife.

It ofcourse comes down to "what's the point at all" if there's no afterlife, so that might put it into context.

 

[nath]

Well there is no "point" so to speak. No higher purpose, this is it.

The reason to do things that affect people after you've died is caring for others. If I care for someone now, I care about how their life is now and the future. Therefore I will make efforts now to ensure that they're happy. It's an unconditional love thing - people don't need rewards for their care in order to take action. So given that we feel a certain way *now* we'll do things to ensure they're taken care of.

Lets look at it from the other angle. If I had a son, I could treat him perfectly well but do nothing to ensure his well being after I've died. When I die - I won't give a shit obviously, because I won't exist to give a shit. However, when I'm alive I'll be aware that I've not prepared things to ensure his well being.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I wouldn't. When it came to "when i'm gone" they'd be on their own.

I wouldn't care, as i would have no point to do so. Afterall it makes no difference to me when i croak.

I would however, care for anyone as much as i'd care for my dearest loved one due to making most of the little time i have. Then again, i'd give anything that was possible for me to give to any member of this forum as it is now, if they were in need.

We'd need a whole different thread about how "unselfish acts don't happen" and how "unconditional love" doesn't exist though...

 

[nath]

I wouldn't. When it came to "when i'm gone" they'd be on their own.

I wouldn't care, as i would have no point to do so. Afterall it makes no difference to me when i croak.

I would however, care for anyone as much as i'd care for my dearest loved one due to making most of the little time i have. Then again, i'd give anything that was possible for me to give to any member of this forum as it is now, if they were in need.

We'd need a whole different thread about how "unselfish acts don't happen" and how "unconditional love" doesn't exist though...

Then I'm glad that many people don't share your attitude.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Then I'm glad that many people don't share your attitude.

You read that as "i wouldn't give a f*ck about the people around me if there was no afterlife" didn't you?

Also note the "if" part.

You see, i discuss things with you and explain views and you do that.

 

[nath]

No, that's not how I read it.

I wouldn't care, as i would have no point to do so. Afterall it makes no difference to me when i croak.

I read that as if you didn't believe in an afterlife you wouldn't care what happens to people in your life after you die.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No, that's not how I read it.

I read that as if you didn't believe in an afterlife you wouldn't care what happens to people in your life after you die.

While disregarding everything else i wrote about how i would live and indeed how i DO live.

That's a good example if you wanted one, you pick out only things you can pick apart, insult about or make an argument out of.

 

[Calaen]

I wouldn't. When it came to "when i'm gone" they'd be on their own.

I wouldn't care, as i would have no point to do so. Afterall it makes no difference to me when i croak.

I actually feel sorry for you, you must have had it really hard or something dude because this aint normal at all.

 

[nath]

While disregarding everything else i wrote about how i would live and indeed how i DO live.

That's a good example if you wanted one, you pick out only things you can pick apart, insult about or make an argument out of.

But that was the crux of the issue - we were discussing how the idea of a lack of afterlife affects us. You said that's how it would affect you if you didn't believe in an afterlife so I discussed it. The fact that you would treat people well aside from this fact isn't the issue we're discussing.

 

[inactionman]

I have but one thing to say, I think it dovetails into this discussion nicely.

Look at the hubble telescope, it's discovered untold wonders of a vast unexplored universe, but not one picture of a guy with a beard sitting on a cloud. I mean what's he doing up there??!!

 

[Wij]

Tossing new galaxies all out his bell-end !

 

[inactionman]

For those who have not seen the latest family guy, which does have some relevance to this discussion (as one of the two plots is about religion and atheism), here's a link to the relevant part which I quoted earlier.

YouTube - Flash is God.

 

[Ch3tan]

I read your post and knew I had heard that somewhere today, then re-watched the ending of family guy.

Loved Brains rant at Meg at the end

Also you must watch this episode for the guest appearances

 

[old.Tohtori]

But that was the crux of the issue - we were discussing how the idea of a lack of afterlife affects us. You said that's how it would affect you if you didn't believe in an afterlife so I discussed it. The fact that you would treat people well aside from this fact isn't the issue we're discussing.

No, you started insulting a hypothetical situation. You didn't discuss it. You didn't offer questions or comments aside from "lucky people aren't like you". Even if i'm not like that.

Majority of people believe in an afterlife by the way, majority ARE like me.

The issue we're discussing is the way you'd live if you didn't believe in afterlife, that includes ALL ways of living, not just the part about saving for little timmies shoes.

I actually feel sorry for you, you must have had it really hard or something dude because this aint normal at all.

You can, as well as nath, take that sorry and stick it up your hiney until you figure out how to discuss hypothetical situations.

If someone asks you "hypothetically if you were a nazi, would you have gassed jews" and then answer "well if i WAS a nazi, i guess i would have" and then people using that to call you sick.

Think about it.

Also while we're on the subject of atheists, if you are one; do you celebrate christmas? easter? Take those days off?(since inactionmans video poked the gift thing )

 

[DaGaffer]

Oh no, you don't get away with that one, I'm calling shenanigans! At no point did you present it as a hypothetical situation until you were in a corner; we were talking about you and YOUR belief in an afterlife. You started it with the whole "I don't understand why would you care about others if there's no afterlife" bit.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh no, you don't get away with that one, I'm calling shenanigans! At no point did you present it as a hypothetical situation until you were in a corner; we were talking about you and YOUR belief in an afterlife. You started it with the whole "I don't understand why would you care about others if there's no afterlife" bit.

Well...

you don't see the point in doing things to ensure the well being of those around you if there's no afterlife where you can appreciate your deeds. Is this accurate?

It's right there in naths question and we've established i believe in an afterlife already.

You have invoked shenannigans without just cause, you need to pay a toll.

 

[DaGaffer]

Well...



It's right there in naths question and we've established i believe in an afterlife already.

You have invoked shenannigans without just cause, you need to pay a toll.

Dude...WTF?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Dude...WTF?

Dude...you said "we're talking about your belief in afterlife". Fair enough, we're talking about a situation where i wouldn't believe in an afterlife, but it IS hypothetical by default as we've established already that i DO believe in an afterlife.

Calling me "abnormal" or hoping that people aren't like me, due to a hypothetical situation/question is the f*cked up thing here.

You may try and throw some sh*tty things at me but this isn't one of them.

 

[Ch3tan]

Oh look. A Tree.

 

[Calaen]

Is it a hypothetical tree?

 

[nath]

Toht, I'm not referring to the hypothetical part. The fact that you say you'd not care about the well being of others after you'd died (as in, caring what happens to them after you die, before you die.. you know what I mean) implies that your empathy is conditional on how it affects you. So that's NOT hypothetical - it exposes the foundations of your empathy and I don't like them.

You say that the majority of people believe in an afterlife - I think that's possibly unfortunately true, however that does *not* imply that peoples empathy is the same as yours - conditional on some sort of recompense, whatever it may be.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toht, I'm not referring to the hypothetical part. The fact that you say you'd not care about the well being of others after you'd died (as in, caring what happens to them after you die, before you die.. you know what I mean) implies that your empathy is conditional on how it affects you. So that's NOT hypothetical - it exposes the foundations of your empathy and I don't like them.

You say that the majority of people believe in an afterlife - I think that's possibly unfortunately true, however that does *not* imply that peoples empathy is the same as yours - conditional on some sort of recompense, whatever it may be.

Well ain't you a f*cking psych.

It is a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical scenario. I don't feel that way now. I CAN imagine how i would feel if there was no afterlife in my mind.

You can e-pshych my empathy-foundations all you want, doesn't make 'em true.

And you judging me by your flawed assumptions is being a dickhead.

 

[DaGaffer]

Shenanigans!!!!!

 

[nath]

Well ain't you a f*cking psych.

It is a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical scenario. I don't feel that way now. I CAN imagine how i would feel if there was no afterlife in my mind.

You can e-pshych my empathy-foundations all you want, doesn't make 'em true.

And you judging me by your flawed assumptions is being a dickhead.

It's not psychology at all - you've TOLD us that you caring for others beyond your existence hinges on you being around (in some form) to be aware of the benefits. If this is wrong, please correct me.

 

[Krazeh]

Also while we're on the subject of atheists, if you are one; do you celebrate christmas? easter? Take those days off?(since inactionmans video poked the gift thing )

Yes, I celebrate christmas and easter but in the wider, and some may say more commercial, scope they have taken on in recent times.

 

[Calaen]

It is a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical scenario. I don't feel that way now. I CAN imagine how i would feel if there was no afterlife in my mind.

Would that not be the same as not being able to say what morals would be without religion? How can you tell us what you would be like based on something you can never experience. I believe you said we would need a new planet to see what morals woupld be like without religion, do we not need one for you to be able to find out how you would feel?