Ok here’s my starting point. No empirical evidence for a god, so I can’t be certain by any degree god exists.
Science can’t prove or disprove metaphysical claims. So what evidence would you require?
I can’t believe, to any degree of certainty, without evidence. God can make himself known in a way that we can test and verify.
If god truly is all powerful he can do so.
I’ve been an athiest essentially since birth, mostly because all the various religions’ idea of god never made sense to me. I have no clue who/what created the universe or why, and I’m not afraid to admit that. I’m also not afraid I have zero idea what happens after death, as terrifying as that is.
Do I think there is an intelligent creator? No. I don’t see why there needs to be one other that it’d fit neatly into how we humans think of ourself and our world. Do I think there is an afterlife? Well, there wasn’t anything before birth, so there probably isn’t anything after death.
And I never understood what atheism has to do with morality. Yes, we evolved in certain ways which in large part determines what we naturally feel is moral. However, we also evolved a conscience for a reason. If we really need something like a religious code to stop ourselves from our worst tendencies, then we really are lost as a species.
You should do what you know is right even if all laws and religions proclaim it to be wrong.
1 Like
As for the age question: I’m 28 but am getting more secular, if anything. I was born extraordinarily disagreeable (just google the Big 5 personality traits), so it’s basically impossible for someone like me to be religious haha.
Religion is an interesting thing. I was born into a Catholic family, but also born with a very strong sense of logic. So from very early on I questioned what IT was all about… And from about age 10, began steering my ship away from it all.
And never looked back. Never felt a need to. I’m not atheist, as my logical mind neither believes nor disbelieves in any one God. It can’t.
The 'single great entity/dirty created everything: doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Not does the everything began from absolutely nothing concept. It’s a weird thing.
No one knows. And that’s kind of cool in my books. Admittedly annoying, but cool all the same. No one knows.
I’ve spoken to many people from both the religious and atheist camps over the years, and the arguments for and against never really make much sense either.
What do I think?
I think some people need guidance. It’s a scary world.
I think religion was created to help with that. To give people hope. And also…To control them to some extent. I think it probably rose from a time that was likely quite wild, a psychological tool to create calm amongst people doing it tough.
But eh. No one knows. Like actually no one.
Just remember
If there is a GOD or a Supreme Being or whomever created the universe
You are not smarter or more logical than IT is
Not everyone is willing to admit this.
What evidence would convince you? Again keep in mind scientific evidence can’t support or disprove metaphysical claims. What philosophical or revelatory evidences would convince you?
Science therefore can’t answer anything regarding how we should behave, what is moral, does morality even exist or are you a moral anti realist considering morality and ethics aren’t physical things? Why shouldn’t i set a baby on fire? If nothing outside the physical world exists its not riht or wrong it is a neutral act.
Because if atheism is true there is no objective morality. Murder doesn’t exist, rape doesn’t, these are mere arbitrary acts that are morally neutural. Rights don’t exist, they are mere human constructs. Atheism forces a perspective of moral antirealism.
Hence atheists can be what we see as moral, but they can’t ground their morality in objectivity. As such without a sincere belief in God me deciding to rape and murder then cannibalise women is as miorally arbitrary as me killing and eating a cow. Both are merely animal species as am I. My actions are void of any moral weight as morality is simple a construct and not existing in reality in the physical world. And if there is only he physical world, then morality doesn’t even exist.
Nietzsche was saying this when he said God is dead. And he found it horrifying and realised if that was to happen if we had murdered the construct of God, then we would be faced with ultimate loss of meaning and moral law ans everything would be permissible. And so we must go back to antiquity where the strong who raped and enslaved and conquered were revered and the weak and soft were enslaved raped and killed at will and this was the status of all animal species.
He rightly saw the first people to care about the weak and morality were the Jews who rejected the worship of the strong for the worship of a creator. They he said created a slave morality that cherised the weak and meek and despised the strong and abusive. This transformed the entire world. Without that belief in the metaphyscial world and notions of defending the weak and being kind, things that go against evolutionary strategy and selection, then the world would still look as it did during the dominance of Rome.
An entire economy built on the ability of Roman elites to rape and murder anyone they wanted however they wanted. And that was moral then and now we find it evil. Because despite living in a secular age the west still functions on Christian values and the Muslims still function on Islamic values and the Orthodox Jews still function on Jewish values. And they all trace their roots back to the faith of Abraham or Ibrahim and the idea of monotheism.
Without monotheism every civilized impulse in us to be kind and to not abuse and ravage the weak would dissapear.
Empirical evidence.
Doubt any.
I think morality is subjective and always changing. You shouldn’t set a baby on fire because society has deemed that an issue. Most cultures have adopted a framework of not causing harm to others and not doing to others what you wouldn’t want done to yourself.
From an evolutionary perspective, setting babies on fire(causing harm to others) would be problematic to the survival of the tribe.
Society is always evolving and so too will morality.
You can’t have EMPIRICAL evidence about fucking metaphysical beleifs. Sorry dude but maybe study the very basics of philosophy and come back and start a thread when youve gotten these down. This is like saying you won’t believe 2+2 equals four until you see biological evidence. It doesn’t make sense
First, I’m not an atheist.
Second, 2+2=4 can be proven beyond philosophically.
Third, god, the all powerful, can easily present himself to us. Unless you’re claiming god can’t and is restricted.
Burden of proof is on you.
The problem you seem to be facing is you chose to believe your religion first and are now doing some mental gymnastics to justify it.
Can you prove 2+2 is 4 using biological evidence? If not why would you think God can be proven through physical evidence when God is outside of the creation if he exists? Saying only scientific evidenc ecould prove to me a metaphysical claim is true is literally a non sequitur.
Why do I need biological evidence? 2+2=4 can be tested and verified. I can use my fingers, biological enough for you?
How do you know god is outside creation? How do you know he can’t come into it? Jesus not real then? How do you know anything about god? All you have are claims that you choose to believe. We can make claims and hypotheticals all day.
Here’s a claim. There is a 6 legged giant pink monkey on the moon. Why do you deny this?
I am saying if God does exist and he says this life is a test why the fuck would he show you he exists? Like this is the dumbest line of argument possible, and I don’t even think you are trolling I think you genuinely aren’t getting the premises laid out in the question.
Can God create a rock he himself can’t lift would be the better atheist question regarding omnipotence etc. The philosophical answer would be to say the question isn’t valid in the same way asking can God create a square circle isn’t valid. By definition a square can not be a circle. Thus to create one is a logical impossibility and a nonsensical question.
Something can’t be moving and still, to say if God can’t create something that is perfectly still but moving at the same time, that he isn’t all powerful is to fundamentally misunderstand what all powerful means. An all powerful thing still can’t simultaneously do two opposite things that negate each other at once. Because that is a logical absurdity.
I can’t create a square circle because of the properties of the square and circle. God can’t lift something too heavy for him to lift because he can lift anything by his will. So the question is an illogical one because you are judging by properties being together at the same time that can’t exist together in existence due to the nature of their internal properties… Anything God creates is subject to his omnipotence, if he created something not subject to his will he wouldn’t be God.
the point…
Your head
More random claims…
How the fuck do you know that? You don’t.
I think we’ve reached the end of this conversation. It’s clear that you already “know” the truth and will do mental gymnastics all day to justify your faith.
I love how you say this:
And then go on to tell me all about what he can do and his motives.
All the best dude!
You don’t need biological evidence, I am saying that you could never prove 2+2 is 4 using biology so saying only biological proof 2+2 is 4 will convince you is retarded. Equally saying only empirical evidence will convince you of God, a metaphysical BEYONG THE PHYSICAL concept, is equally as absurd and retarded.