Turn on thread page Beta

What is the point of life? (atheists only please) watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=cleo488;40523480][QUOTE=Jacob ;40519814]
    (Original post by cleo488)

    But all that is dependent on your assumption a 'just and peaceful' society is right, why is it right? Why os it moral?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't believe anything is universally, infallibly wrong. I believe living in such a society is right at the overwhelming majority of people believe it is and logically and emotionally I believe it is.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    There isn't one, so just enjoy it while it lasts, you have an eternity to be dead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone else find it amusing when atheists say "I don't do this or that because it is wrong". Why is it wrong? From whom are you getting your authority? There is nothing in atheism that says murder or rape is wrong. If you say "Well, I would feel bad if I did such a thing so I don't do it" then that seems to suggest that morals are subjective. You may feel guilty, but what if the man next to you finds pleasure in the very act you condemn? Who's right? And who's wrong?

    Another thing I've heard atheists say: "What's the point in this life if the goal is to go to heaven?" Well, what's the point in doing a mock test if the results are meaningless? But you see, the goal in life is not to go to heaven and be reunited with loved ones. No, the goal is to know GOD in all his infinite glory. GOD said in ISAIAH "I MADE YOU FOR MY GLORY". Who then, are you, to answer back to GOD and say "Why has thou formed me this way?" Can the potter not mold and form the clay in which he pleases? Now as CS Lewis said, you cannot be right and God anymore wrong than say a river can run higher that its source. God is the root; you are the branch. If you cut yourself off you die. Just as Jesus said you would. Those who reject him perish.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody1234)
    Anyone else find it amusing when atheists say "I don't do this or that because it is wrong". Why is it wrong? From whom are you getting your authority? There is nothing in atheism that says murder or rape is wrong. If you say "Well, I would feel bad if I did such a thing so I don't do it" then that seems to suggest that morals are subjective. You may feel guilty, but what if the man next to you finds pleasure in the very act you condemn? Who's right? And who's wrong?

    Another thing I've heard atheists say: "What's the point in this life if the goal is to go to heaven?" Well, what's the point in doing a mock test if the results are meaningless? But you see, the goal in life is not to go to heaven and be reunited with loved ones. No, the goal is to know GOD in all his infinite glory. GOD said in ISAIAH "I MADE YOU FOR MY GLORY". Who then, are you, to answer back to GOD and say "Why has thou formed me this way?" Can the potter not mold and form the clay in which he pleases? Now as CS Lewis said, you cannot be right and God anymore wrong than say a river can run higher that its source. God is the root; you are the branch. If you cut yourself off you die. Just as Jesus said you would. Those who reject him perish.

    Ignorance is alive and well I see... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody1234)
    Anyone else find it amusing when atheists say "I don't do this or that because it is wrong". Why is it wrong? From whom are you getting your authority? There is nothing in atheism that says murder or rape is wrong. If you say "Well, I would feel bad if I did such a thing so I don't do it" then that seems to suggest that morals are subjective. You may feel guilty, but what if the man next to you finds pleasure in the very act you condemn? Who's right? And who's wrong.
    This is really stupid.

    NEGATIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST YOUR POSITION:

    Firstly, where does YOUR authority come from? If you're saying that murder is wrong because "God told you so", then there's two areas of pursuit.

    1) Euthyphro's dilemma - is something moral because God decided it to be moral, or did God decide it to be moral because it is moral? If it's the former, then morality is completely arbitrary - murder could, conceivably, be moral. If it's the latter, then you're left in the same position as the atheist.

    2) Morality hits hardest at the level of conscience. I believer murder to be wrong because there is a part of me that is uncomfortable with the idea of humans murdering each other. In many pragmatic philosophies, this needs no further justification.

    POSITIVE ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF MY POSITION:

    Secondly there are atheistic explanations of morality and human solidarity. I think the golden rule (and moral intuitions that capture the normative/motivational elements in Kantian and Rawlsian philosophy) is an intuitively useful guideline for constraining human behaviour in a civil society where mutually beneficial relationships take place. Stealing is wrong because, by stealing, you make a rule for yourself that you can't wish to be universally applicable to all other humans. This is the definition of unfairness - placing arbitrarily different values upon humans as rule-following agents. If there is no reason to treat humans differently, then treating them equally appears to be the default intuition, because that is something which every human can, jointly, do without causing conflict.

    You don't need God as an authority to use normative terms in every day life.

    Another thing I've heard atheists say: "What's the point in this life if the goal is to go to heaven?" Well, what's the point in doing a mock test if the results are meaningless? But you see, the goal in life is not to go to heaven and be reunited with loved ones. No, the goal is to know GOD in all his infinite glory. GOD said in ISAIAH "I MADE YOU FOR MY GLORY". Who then, are you, to answer back to GOD and say "Why has thou formed me this way?" Can the potter not mold and form the clay in which he pleases? Now as CS Lewis said, you cannot be right and God anymore wrong than say a river can run higher that its source. God is the root; you are the branch. If you cut yourself off you die. Just as Jesus said you would. Those who reject him perish.
    There are some really insightful Christian thinkers out there, but you are not one of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    This is really stupid.

    NEGATIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST YOUR POSITION:

    Firstly, where does YOUR authority come from? If you're saying that murder is wrong because "God told you so", then there's two areas of pursuit.

    1) Euthyphro's dilemma - is something moral because God decided it to be moral, or did God decide it to be moral because it is moral? If it's the former, then morality is completely arbitrary - murder could, conceivably, be moral. If it's the latter, then you're left in the same position as the atheist.

    2) Morality hits hardest at the level of conscience. I believer murder to be wrong because there is a part of me that is uncomfortable with the idea of humans murdering each other. In many pragmatic philosophies, this needs no further justification.

    POSITIVE ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF MY POSITION:

    Secondly there are atheistic explanations of morality and human solidarity. I think the golden rule (and moral intuitions that capture the normative/motivational elements in Kantian and Rawlsian philosophy) is an intuitively useful guideline for constraining human behaviour in a civil society where mutually beneficial relationships take place. Stealing is wrong because, by stealing, you make a rule for yourself that you can't wish to be universally applicable to all other humans. This is the definition of unfairness - placing arbitrarily different values upon humans as rule-following agents. If there is no reason to treat humans differently, then treating them equally appears to be the default intuition, because that is something which every human can, jointly, do without causing conflict.

    You don't need God as an authority to use normative terms in every day life.


    There are some really insightful Christian thinkers out there, but you are not one of them.
    Show me another species on this planet that lives in harmony with another. I think you'll find they defend their own, and that's it. Not only that, you've completely failed to tell me why rape is wrong. If the goal of evolution is to ensure survival of the species, then doesn't rape support that? In that mean, more chance of conception? And if you're gonna come back and talk about free-will and rights, then first you're going to have to prove that free-will even exists. The whole atheistic approach is that morals are subjective, and that just doesn't sit right with me.

    And when you talk about knowing right or wrong without God, that's true to a certain extent. God created the moral conscious that you have, yet no one has ever been able to abide by it. So really you condemn yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody1234)
    Show me another species on this planet that lives in harmony with another. I think you'll find they defend their own, and that's it. Not only that, you've completely failed to tell me why rape is wrong. If the goal of evolution is to ensure survival of the species, then doesn't rape support that? In that mean, more chance of conception? And if you're gonna come back and talk about free-will and rights, then first you're going to have to prove that free-will even exists. The whole atheistic approach is that morals are subjective, and that just doesn't sit right with me.

    And when you talk about knowing right or wrong without God, that's true to a certain extent. God created the moral conscious that you have, yet no one has ever been able to abide by it. So really you condemn yourself.
    You are trying to justify rape and other disgusting acts with some 'animals do it' rhetoric everybody has heard before. Unlike animals, we have the conscious ability to think right from wrong and talk. Unlike animals. We know what is right from wrong so we SHOULDN'T DO IT. There is no justification in mauling a girl because a dog did it is there?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bluffroom)
    You are trying to justify rape and other disgusting acts with some 'animals do it' rhetoric everybody has heard before. Unlike animals, we have the conscious ability to think right from wrong and talk. Unlike animals. We know what is right from wrong so we SHOULDN'T DO IT. There is no justification in mauling a girl because a dog did it is there?
    I thought we are animals?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody1234)
    I thought we are animals?
    You can't read can you?

    we have the conscious ability to think right from wrong and talk. Unlike animals. We know what is right from wrong so we SHOULDN'T DO IT
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bluffroom)
    You can't read can you?
    I can read perfectly fine, but thanks for the concern. As for knowing the difference between right and wrong, well, would you not stay they have been instilled in you? And even then it doesn't explain why its right and why its wrong.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't particularly think life has a point, but what does that matter?

    I don't think you should worry if you have a purpose, but rather just enjoy your time here because the world is a beautiful place to be

    This is what life is about:

    "Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them.”
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by battycatlady)
    I don't particularly think life has a point, but what does that matter?

    I don't think you should worry if you have a purpose, but rather just enjoy your time here because the world is a beautiful place to be

    This is what life is about:lrself running with them.”
    It's not a beautiful place though is it? There is one particular forum on the internet that shares videos of torture and cruelty. I advise everyone to stay away. It is sick. And atheists say this is just an undesirable trait of evolution. What sick people!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody1234)
    Show me another species on this planet that lives in harmony with another. I think you'll find they defend their own, and that's it. Not only that, you've completely failed to tell me why rape is wrong. If the goal of evolution is to ensure survival of the species, then doesn't rape support that? In that mean, more chance of conception? And if you're gonna come back and talk about free-will and rights, then first you're going to have to prove that free-will even exists. The whole atheistic approach is that morals are subjective, and that just doesn't sit right with me.
    A great many species on this planet demonstrate solidarity, often best expressed at the familial level - the parent animal taking care of its offspring, for instance. So you're just plain wrong to suppose that spontaneous bonds of affection, duties and so forth don't exist in the animal kingdom.

    But, more importantly, humans have the capacity to engage in second-order reflective thinking - we're not instinctive, nor impulsive, nor completely self-interested. Considering the full implications of the golden rule (or other moral systems) require introspection, rationality, and self-reflection.

    As for the claim that "I've completely failed to tell me why rape was wrong"... I don't see how I could have failed to do something that was never asked of me. However, a more alert reader would have seen that I would have justified it by recognising that I wouldn't like to be raped, so why would I wish to inflict that upon other people? I think that mode of thinking is based on deep-rooted intuitions. If a person has committed crime X under circumstance Y and receives punishment Z, then another person who commits X under Y should receive Z. Moral judgements supervene on matters of fact. Intuitions about fairness have motivational force. Of course, in a world where humans do not respect such intuitions (and have no psychological commitment to them) then we may be committed to dismissing morality as not being at all authoritative - but that's trivially true (i.e. humans not committed to the belief in the immorality of murdering themselves and others will not respect moral laws that constrain human behaviour in accordance with that moral maxim). I happen to think that the human capacity for self-reflection, en masse, creates spontaneous order, a modus vivendi - a golden rule that we won't do to others what we wouldn't like done to other people.

    As for your connection between rape and evolution... you seem very stupid. And I don't usually use that sort of language in debate.

    The FACT of evolution does not imply any normative imperative. Evolution has no goal. It has no telos. It is not a teleological theory. It is purely mechanistic. There are no "ought" statements. Just because homosexual couples don't produce offspring doesn't mean that it's immoral to have such relationships. There are no imperatives to rape in order to produce offspring. Evolution is a natural process; I would find it hard to incorporate it into a moral theory other than on the occasion where some psychological thesis offers some insight about human behaviour, human psychology and moral culpability.

    Finally, contrary to what you're saying, I'm not committed to a radical or extreme conception of free will or an absolutist version of rights. Instead of spouting off half-arguments in all sorts of directions, may I suggest that you choose your argument, argue it well, and discuss it?

    And when you talk about knowing right or wrong without God, that's true to a certain extent. God created the moral conscious that you have, yet no one has ever been able to abide by it. So really you condemn yourself.
    Answer my other concerns please (e.g. euthyphro dilemma). You assert that God created the moral conscious [conscience?], yet there's no need to presuppose a creator.

    I don't see how I've condemned myself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody1234)
    It's not a beautiful place though is it? There is one particular forum on the internet that shares videos of torture and cruelty. I advise everyone to stay away. It is sick. And atheists say this is just an undesirable trait of evolution. What sick people!
    You must be a troll or something.

    Just because you think something is bad doesn't mean that it isn't true. I mean, wouldn't it be nice if a big fluffy Santa delivered presents to African children every year? But instead, omg, you Christians believe that Africans die instead! What sick people.

    The world is both beautiful, in places, and disgusting, in other places. Those are facts, not to be contested, regardless of what you want to believe.

    I'm embarrassed and ashamed that some Christians argue like this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody1234)
    It's not a beautiful place though is it? There is one particular forum on the internet that shares videos of torture and cruelty. I advise everyone to stay away. It is sick. And atheists say this is just an undesirable trait of evolution. What sick people!
    No, the universe is beautiful. Cold and terrifying, but really quite beautiful all the same. You don't have to appreciate every bit of it's content to appreciate it's form.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody1234)
    Not only that, you've completely failed to tell me why rape is wrong. If the goal of evolution is to ensure survival of the species, then doesn't rape support that? In that mean, more chance of conception?
    Morality is not based on what is most evolutionary viable. Atheist morals are formed through debate and ethical philosophy. Rape is morally wrong because it violates another human, which has been generally accepted as wrong. Moral verdicts by philosophers are just as (if not more) viable than those from God. Why is God's morality objective? Why should we follow God's morality? Why should we be moral at all? These questions face religious morality as much as secular morality.


    (Original post by Woody1234)
    The whole atheistic approach is that morals are subjective, and that just doesn't sit right with me.
    As Dawkins brilliantly pointed out, objective religious morality is atrocious. Morality should be subject, and should be subject to debate, scrutiny and delegation. The idea of following a supposedly objective morality from God does no sit well with me either. What gives God the moral authority to degree objective morality?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W-Three)
    Morality is not based on what is most evolutionary viable. Atheist morals are formed through debate and ethical philosophy.
    Not sure about that. I mean, I can rational moral arguments but it's usually justification after the fact. Most of my moral judgements are instinctive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W-Three)
    Morality is not based on what is most evolutionary viable. Atheist morals are formed through debate and ethical philosophy. Rape is morally wrong because it violates another human, which has been generally accepted as wrong. Moral verdicts by philosophers are just as (if not more) viable than those from God. Why is God's morality objective? Why should we follow God's morality? Why should we be moral at all? These questions face religious morality as much as secular morality.




    As Dawkins brilliantly pointed out, objective religious morality is atrocious. Morality should be subject, and should be subject to debate, scrutiny and delegation. The idea of following a supposedly objective morality from God does no sit well with me either. What gives God the moral authority to degree objective morality?
    Uh, because he's the creator? Can the potter not do how he pleases with the clay? Consider the relationship a human has with his dog. He tells him all sorts of commands and expects him to obey them. It's the same with us and God. God set the moral law and we ought to obey them. Of course God has also blessed us with free-will, which gives us the ability to go against a particular moral law. But there are severe consequences for those who do. As CS Lewis said, arguing against God is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. You cannot win. You cannot be right and him anymore wrong than say, a river can run higher than its source.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    The answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    Not sure about that. I mean, I can rational moral arguments but it's usually justification after the fact. Most of my moral judgements are instinctive.
    Which are not objective, they are subjective. Those morals are instilled in you while you grow up, and are shaped by you're experiences.

    (Original post by Woody1234)
    Uh, because he's the creator? Can the potter not do how he pleases with the clay? Consider the relationship a human has with his dog. He tells him all sorts of commands and expects him to obey them.
    Why? On what basis is the creator allowed to do as they wish with their creation?

    (Original post by Woody1234)
    God set the moral law and we ought to obey them.
    Why?


    (Original post by Woody1234)
    You cannot be right and him anymore wrong than say, a river can run higher than its source.
    Why? Because he is God? Because he is the creator? That gives him no more moral authority over me than a rock. Unless we start with the basis that being the creator gives it moral authority of me. In which case, on what basis does this arise?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,888

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.