Originally posted by: Netopia
If there were indeed some way to prove a negative and it was proven that there is no God, then I would feel no need to have any moral constraints, as morals would be nothing more than opinions. Since we would all be nothing more than collections of particles, with no inherent meaning or worth, I would try hard to de-brainwash myself of believing that people matter.
The logical thing to do would be to commit whatever crimes I could be sure to get away with. Feeling bad about hurting people would be illogical, since they are no different than a rock, with the exception (on a cosmic scale) of having momentary animation. I would love those who could help me and try to use them whenever I could get away with it. I would do whatever I wanted in life, since nothing would matter.
If we really are no different than animals, and we only live for a short period of time and then go into oblivion, I'd take advantage of every opportunity to make my life easy, regardless of expense. Life would mean nothing, people would mean nothing... everything would mean nothing because there is not inherent meaning.
If we have no reason for "being", why bother living by artificial rules setup by other who don't have your personal interests in mind? Sure... the lemmings can go around saying that we have some sort of societal instincts through evolution, but one could rise above whatever silly instincts and live for one's self! If the rest of the foolish people continued to live like life meant something that that good and evil actually existed... so much the better, since it would give one a nice stable society from which to take what one could.
I think Stalin is just one such example of a logically convinced atheist. He thought of himself above all. He was his own god and live to that end. And, if there is no God, then Stalin won! He lived a life of wealth and power and now is simply gone, no remorse or punishment. He got what he wanted and then died as he'd have to one day anyway. From a "no God, no afterlife" perspective, I can't find a reason to think that Stalin didn't live a nearly perfect life.
But I do believe in God. I do believe that life has inherent purpose and meaning, that people are important, that God loves us and that when this body dies it is not the end of the person.
Joe
a perfect life is meaningless as life is meaningless and therefore stalin's life is exactly = to everyone else's. The only real relevance anyone's life has is one the future and other's not yourself in actuality.
Also you show a very naive view of what a lack of belief in god entails.
As a person who denies god exactly for the reasons mentioned I think it is quite fine for me to state how I actually act. It's not the different from you I would love to bet, well except for the religious rituals and the aesthetical value. The only major difference is I recognize things differently.
I'm an egoist. Basically I state that everything anyone does is for themselves and that there is no inherently unselfish act. People probably like you deduct from me that this means that I act with no regard to other people and that I manipulate as I like. I'd like to counter that from that belief you cannot possibly draw that conclusion. The only conclusion you can draw is that as I stated everyone acts out of self interest including your unselfish actions. If you take that as the truth then friends are an agreement between people as a means of social interaction and a intrinsic human need that we have. That everything we do such as help out someone else is always with an intent for us. For example if I basically decide to help my friend out with some problem I'm doing it because it's going to make me feel good. Because in fact it's a tradeoff between him being my friend and me being his. You help each other. The aim of friendship or an alliance of anything is to be mutually beneficial. If a friend was anything but "useful" to you never helping you if you needed it and always being a hinderment or just their personality why would you be friends? You wouldn't.
Your last sentence of your first paragraph is totally off. Why would you de-brainwash yourself of anything. Last I checked noone actively tries to brainwash themselves of anything nor de-brainwash. To do either it is always an outside influence rather than our conscious self. We as humans tend to like to be stable and be change averse. Simply because we believe that their is no god does not contend that people are worthless. That person you were friends with because they helped you out and gave you support in times of need is still going to be that person that helped you out and gave support. They don't become meaningless either way. I have friends because of their usefulness. Yes usefulness and I don't dare throw them away as they were nothing. Whether I believe in god or not I love to have people to talk to and interact with. That's their usefulness and I view it as such yet it doesn't change my actions toward them. It is the sociopath that tosses people away without meaning not simply the agnostic/atheist.
Committing crimes have consequences which you seem to not understand. Killing someone means that their family will seek some form of revenge. Murdering someone is almost universally looked down upon and the community may institute some form of punishment. It's not simply "hey I can do whatever I want because nothing matters". Sure you can do what you like atleast once but the consequences to your actions will catch up with you. Your manipulation of people will eventually either fail or someone will catch up with you. If you simply manipulate your friends eventually they will see and then what friends will you have? Noone will be their to help you when you need it. That tradeoff depends on what you make.
Now compare what I said to a normal person. A person who for all intents and purposes believes in god. He has a friend who never helps him out who never cares and is always a drag. Does he ditch his friend? Then why is he a friend? So he will dump this so called friend. That is different from an atheist's prospective how?
An atheist commits more crimes as well you contend because if you don't believe in god you won't follow rule.s I proved it'schildish reasoning as atheists know that their actions have consequences as well. To simply ignore everything is stupid whoever's side your on.
As to the life of stalin it really means nothing. Perfect life is nothing when you are dead. The reality of the matter is the only thing that matters is the end effect you have on people or the future.
The one thing I do admit is that we all do look for bliss in our lives and maybe stalin did find it. If so does that honestly make you want to be anything like him?
Overall, your scared and that's why you refuse to believe. Your first assumption was false and that was that everything you mentioned above is evil. Is it cohesive to living? Not really. If that is in fact the driving force of life then in the subjective sense it is evil but your trying to apply it to a broader spectrum. The second thing you were trying to do is to make that above look so evil that noone would possible believe it. Simple fact is I believe it but I still act majorly different than what you have described. As a living example your post is full of crap. Thirdly you're scared and in a sense we all are but you are lying in order to justify your beliefs. IF most atheists were good people and normal then you would have to accept that our belief has these so called "morals" however they generally don't go named as "morals". they are simply a way we live our lives. Atheism is a religion as much as most try to deny it.
btw I took the atheist side today because your just being a dumbass. I'm an Agnostic who really just doesn't care if god is there or not because we WILL ALL find out and to have your decisions limited and also your view by something we cannot see, cannot prove, and cannot fully imagine while also being omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving is foolish. I will live my life to the max but don't think you aren't trying to do the same thing.
edit: If anyone disagrees with this pls respond since descartes hasn't yet.
Howso? A religion is spread by it's followers. It's ideas are emulated by them. If the followers of a religion are not supposed to represent the religion itself then what USE is the religion unless it's for aesthetical purposes. Written scriptures are all good and well but if in actuality the followers do something different then it says something about how well the religion can be either manipulated or about what type of people the religion attracts either of which should be looked at as it is.
edit: adding a bit more in. Is it ok to simply ignore the followers of a religion instead for the scriptures itself. As all scriptures are interpreted(I don't believe there is simply 1) the followers of the religion call themselves X. If your interpretation of the scripture is different the your not really following religion X as they are the majority here. You are following religion Y. It may come from the same scripture but different beliefs make different religions. Therefore the people are the representation of the religion not the scripture itself.