God Saves Atheist and Brings Him Back From Death

Dades

I see no record of €50 in my account. So until I do - I'll be watching you lot!

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

I see no record of €50 in my account.

Of course not
Nobody took up on the offer.. i guess atheists arent so bad after all.

Dades

Maybe I need to tell people it's for a bus or something... :pac:

Dave!

There's another bus fund?! WHERE DO I SEND MY LIFE SAVINGS?!?! :pac:

Tomk1

Nerin wrote: »

Our morals don't count because we aren't in the club

Just for intrest: about MORALS:

humanism [hymənizəm] n

1. belief in human-based morality: a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics, and behaviour that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Whispered

son.of.jimi wrote: »

Well I don't care for that club then... my club is better... it has cats...

Can I join the cat club too please?

Soul Winner

Tomk1 wrote: »

Just for intrest: about MORALS:

humanism [hymənizəm] n

1. belief in human-based morality:

Why do we have morals? Assuming there is no God then what possible reason is there for originating or latching onto any set of moral values? What purpose do they serve, assuming humanity is truly purposeless i.e. having no origin or intention in a creator? If all we are is just natural byproducts in a purposeless evolutionary process which as Dawkins puts it has only one purpose really, to propogate DNA. Why do we have morals? And more importantly, why do even atheists feel the need to adhere to any set of moral values when in the end they are meaningless and futile if there is no God?

Tomk1 wrote: »

a system of thought that is based on the values

What values? Who thinks them up? Why should we adhere to them? What are the consequences if we don't adhere to them assuming there is nobody to answer to? We can do what we like right? So why don't we? What is it that stops us in our tracks? Why do we internalize any moral value system and behave in accordance with same? Assuming there is no one to answer to then what is the point?

Tomk1 wrote: »

characteristics, and behaviour that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority.

Believed to be? By who? Why is not killing people better than killing them? To what does one anchor moral values to without there being a superior being to account to in the end? Why should I for instance adhere to what Wicknight believes to be good behavior when there is no consequences to me either way? Why am I scorned if I shoot somebody tomorrow? Why should I not do that if there is nobody to account to for it? If I were truly an atheist then I should be able to do what I please including killing whoever gets in my way. Shouldn't I? If not then why not? If you can come up with a reason then what is that reason? And why ultimately should I adhere to it? Ok I might be shunned by the herd but why is that a good reason to not do what I want assuming the atheistic world view is correct?

Oh and good post OP. I actually thought it was a very interesting read. I liked the way he gave God the glory and not himself as some who seeemingly experience miraculous happenings are apt to do. This is a good sign that it was a genuine experience that he had. It might not have been real but - he at least - thought it was, so hats off to him for not claiming glory to himself in the telling. It wouldn't matter even if it was genuine, it would still get the same reaction here regardless. I know why you posted it and fair play to you. But these heathens are not worthy of your concern for their souls

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why do we have morals? Assuming there is no God then what possible reason is there for originating or latching onto any set of moral values? What purpose do they serve, assuming humanity is truly purposeless i.e. having no origin or intention in a creator? If all we are is just natural byproducts in a purposeless evolutionary process which as Dawkins puts it has only one purpose really, to propogate DNA. Why do we have morals?

How is it possible that you can have been posting on this forum for as long as you have and still come out with questions like this? We've been through this time and time again. Morality is an evolutionarily advantageous trait in just the same way that being faster or smarter is. Human beings are social animals, individuals that lacked morality were excluded from the group and left to die alone. As a consequence humans beings (other than sociopaths) feel an urge to be moral.

And more importantly, why do even atheists feel the need to adhere to any set of moral values

I have an urge to get along with my fellow man in just the same way I have an urge to eat food. It has been evolutionarily advantageous for my ancestors.

when in the end they are meaningless and futile if there is no God?

Are you only a moral person because of fear of God or hope for reward? In which case a moral atheist is far more moral than you, for they are good for goodness' sake, whereas you are a bootlicking opportunist.

If I were truly an atheist then I should be able to do what I please including killing whoever gets in my way. Shouldn't I? If not then why not? If you can come up with a reason then what is that reason? And why ultimately should I adhere to it? Ok I might be shunned by the herd but why is that a good reason to not do what I want assuming the atheistic world view is correct?

Because you don't want to murder rape and steal, right? If you do then you're a sociopath and I would like it very much if you contacted a mental health professional asap.

How well do you think any given ancestor of yours would have done if they tried to kill whoever got in their way?

Why should I not do that if there is nobody to account to for it?

Personally I find your notion of authority driven morality to be utterly reprehensible. You're not moral, you're obedient. It is exactly the kind of mentality that can lead to someone believing and doing terrible things while still thinking they are good.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

How is it possible that you can have been posting on this forum for as long as you have and still come out with questions like this?

Eh, because the answers that came are not very convincing?

Zillah wrote: »

We've been through this time and time again. Morality is an evolutionarily advantageous trait in just the same way that being faster or smarter is.

Smarter and faster I can understand but to be moral about stuff? I fail to see the survivical benefits in that. If we all came from more primitive organisms and our only reason for being was SURVIVAL then why adopt morality en rout to becoming what we are today? If there is no purpose or direction in where we are going then why evolve morals when we were surviving pretty well up until we started evolving them????

Zillah wrote: »

Human beings are social animals, individuals that lacked morality were excluded from the group and left to die alone. As a consequence humans beings (other than sociopaths) feel an urge to be moral.

Why evolve sociality when all that's important is survival?

Zillah wrote: »

I have an urge to get along with my fellow man in just the same way I have an urge to eat food. It has been evolutionarily advantageous for my ancestors.

If before we evolved social structures we survived then why evolve social structures if the only reason for being is to survive? Why waste precious recourses evolving social structures and morals?

Zillah wrote: »

Are you only a moral person because of fear of God or hope for reward?

Both. I see no other reason to internalize a moral value system. If the only reason to exist is to merely survive then I fail to see why I should adopt any moral value system. If the fittest of the fittest rule is correct then you will accept my way of doing things if I happen to be the fittest or else, and If I see a reason to not evolve along the lines of adopting moral values systems then that is the way it is going to be. Get it? I fail to see how the strongest in the herd would lead us along the lines of adopting moral value systems while in their (moral value system's) embryonic stage had no potential for any survival benefits whatsoever. See what I'm getting at? The fact that we have them is proof that there is a higher order than us. Otherwise there would be no reason whatsoever in their embryonic stage to select them as advantageous for survival.

Zillah wrote: »

In which case a moral atheist is far more moral than you, for they are good for goodness' sake, whereas you are a bootlicking opportunist.

But if there is no God then what is "goodness"? From whence comes this concept? Why do we have it? Without God "goodness" means nothing. You might think that you are more good than me but at the end of the day it all means nothing as there is nothing to hold it up against, it's just your version of goodness against mine with nobody to judge between either. We both fade into non existence with nobody at the helm of adjudicating either way. You might be more moral than me but who is it that judges that? You?

Zillah wrote: »

Because you don't want to murder rape and steal, right? If you do then you're a sociopath and I would like it very much if you contacted a mental health professional asap.

If I want to kill everyone then so what? In a purely atheistic world view this should only result in the herd shunning me, and I should not be regarded for anything else. The herd is one and needs only to survive, no more effort should be spent on a sociopath like me other that 'un-mused-over' shunning.

Zillah wrote: »

How well do you think any given ancestor of yours would have done if they tried to kill whoever got in their way?

They would have survived and propagated their genes. Hello!!!

Zillah wrote: »

Personally I find your notion of authority driven morality to be utterly reprehensible.

I'm not putting forth my notion of authority driven morality. I'm merely envisioning an atheistic world view. If we are but animals then what does your judgment mean to me? It means nothing at all, nor should it, as there is no accountability in an atheistic frame of reference.

Zillah wrote: »

You're not moral, you're obedient. It is exactly the kind of mentality that can lead to someone believing and doing terrible things while still thinking they are good.

You are also not moral but obedient. You adhere to a set of values that you have internalized and behave accordingly. If I'm not moral then you're not moral, this also leads to people comitting terrible deeds in the name of what they believe to be right.

Jesus Wept

God bless god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

condra

The-Rigger wrote: »

God bless god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wouldn't have taken that comment seriously but with all those exclamation marks I gotta admit, you have a point.

Zillah

Ok, rather than do a quote-post-quote-post marathon I am just going to try to help you understand the evolutionary basis for morality.

Mere survival is not sufficient from an evolutionary point of view. Surviving better than your competitors is what is important. Those that developed morality and social structures were more fit to survive than those who did not. The individual that learns to cooperate with other individuals is better able to survive than he who does not. The genetic trait that enables this is a tedency to develop a conscience and to create a group orientated morality.

As a thought game, let's take two populations of proto-humans. They're essentially fairly smart ape-like creatures. Both populations have 100 individuals and live in the same climate.

One group has evolved the beginings of morality and live in a tribe-like structure. Their primitive society is based upon rudimentary notions of "good": They rarely steal from each other, rape or murder. As a group they can hunt, gather food and fight off predators and aggressors. Perhaps there is the beginings of a culture; they teach each other how to choose the best sleeping areas, what plants are safe to eat and why a certain crocodile filled river should be avoided.

The second group has evolved no such trait for morality. They will steal, murder and rape as they please. They live as loners, with members of the opposite sex meeting up briefly to procreate and go their separate ways. Any time a group does meet it ends in violence because they have no qualms about killing each other. They don't help each other, they don't hunt together, teach each other things or gang up to scare off predators. Individuals often go hungry if they are sick or injured and they are more easily picked off by tigers because a lone target is much easier than a cohesive group.

Is it not patently obvious that in the future the entire area will be populated by the decendents of the first group, and the second group may well have vanished entirely? Sure, the second group were surviving up until that point, but now their rivals have learned to survive better than they. The first group moves into their territory and the second population can do nothing, as individuals they get driven off or killed by the cooperative forces of the first group. They get killed or forced into less desireable areas where there is less food and more predators.

The members of the first group don't think about why they act the way they do, they just feel it, and indulge those feelings and they're better for it.

I'm really hoping this makes the case because I honestly don't think it can be explained to you any better. If you don't get it now you never will.

EDIT: Typo

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

because the answers that came are not very convincing?

Have you considered the possibility that you may not actually understand what's being explained?

Galvasean

To add to Zillah's very good post let me put it in very simple terms.
Being moral is a very handy survival tool. If you treat others well, they in turn will be more likely to help you out when youre in trouble.
If you spent the whole time robbing, murdering, raping etc. your neighbors they sure arent going to help you out when you are in trouble.

Shinjuku

This guy reminds me of Estebancambias.

tba

I always thought morals were a bit more to do with empathy, we generally have a full comprehension of ourselves (within reason), as such when we do things that hurt others we understand what we are doing and try to avoid it.

We are also very social animals and tend to copy the actions of those around us, tribal societies demonstrate this with practices, which while not often very extreme, we can find very odd.

dlofnep

When you are dieing, your body produces DMT, which causes hallucinations.

We don't want your blind faith. We're quite content with reality.

Rev. Kitchen

Gareth37 wrote: »

:eek:

BORIS: In the blink of an eye, I moved through space over such a distance that I saw the earth quickly approaching. As I advanced I saw the next scene: the hospital staff was taking a body, on a stretcher, to the morgue where corpses were kept. Looking from above, the body was covered with a cloth and only the feet could be seen. When I saw my weeping wife accompanying the stretcher, I understood I was the one being taken to the morgue. One of the hospital staff was comforting my wife, trying to tell her not to grieve over the incident and tried to prevent her from entering the room where they were taking the body on the stretcher. The doors ahead of my wife closed and the stretcher with my body on it was already in the room. The orderlies and nurses who had brought me to the morgue began to move away.

When I saw all this, I felt a jolt and immediately I entered into my body. At that instance, I felt the blowing of wind, an enormous force, which flung open the doors through which my body was brought. This force tore the doors off their hinges and they fell to the floor. It pushed the trolley with the body out of the morgue. After this, I rose up. The cloth on the upper part of my body fell off as I sat up on the trolley. The orderly slipping along the sides of the wall, fell and the nurse did as well. Both of them lay on the floor in a state of terror. Another nurse came and when she saw me sitting up, went into state of shock. The same supernatural power made the trolley on which I was sitting, stand upright, and I stood vertically on the ground. Then the trolley fell to its normal position and rolled back in to the morgue.

How can ye deny this isnt a miricle lads ?? God makes trolley stand up !! :eek:

condra

Shinjuku wrote: »

This guy reminds me of Estebancambias.

Do you mean Esteban, child of the sun? I'm a huge Estaban fan.

Ziggurat

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why do we have morals? Assuming there is no God then what possible reason is there for originating or latching onto any set of moral values? What purpose do they serve, assuming humanity is truly purposeless i.e. having no origin or intention in a creator? If all we are is just natural byproducts in a purposeless evolutionary process which as Dawkins puts it has only one purpose really, to propogate DNA. Why do we have morals? And more importantly, why do even atheists feel the need to adhere to any set of moral values when in the end they are meaningless and futile if there is no God?

Simply put, we're social creatures and have found morals useful in maintaining a stable society. They may seem obvious to us but I would be willing to bet that the earliest societies went through terrible savagery as what is and is not acceptable was determined.

What values? Who thinks them up?

1. belief in human-based morality:

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Why should we adhere to them?

See above: conducive to a functioning society.

What are the consequences if we don't adhere to them assuming there is nobody to answer to?

We answer to our peers. I'm no anthropologist but I wouldn't be surprised if morality is tied up with taboo.

We can do what we like right?

Even libertarians don't advocate that.

So why don't we? What is it that stops us in our tracks? Why do we internalize any moral value system and behave in accordance with same? Assuming there is no one to answer to then what is the point?

Again, see above.

Believed to be? By who? Why is not killing people better than killing them?

Social order tends to collapse when people are given carte blanche to kill.

To what does one anchor moral values to without there being a superior being to account to in the end?

The belief that society and humanity as a whole benefits, perhaps?

Why should I for instance adhere to what Wicknight believes to be good behavior when there is no consequences to me either way?

Because Wicknight is most likely not the only person who holds those values. Chances are society also holds them and will hold you accountable for going against them.

Why am I scorned if I shoot somebody tomorrow? Why should I not do that if there is nobody to account to for it?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because you just can't do whatever you want. Because that would be anarchy. And, once again, social order would break down. The same social order that we have come to rely on.

If I were truly an atheist then I should be able to do what I please including killing whoever gets in my way.

This is, by far, one of the most ridiculous remarks I have ever read. The absolute depth ignorance is astounding.

Shouldn't I? If not then why not? If you can come up with a reason then what is that reason? And why ultimately should I adhere to it? Ok I might be shunned by the herd but why is that a good reason to not do what I want assuming the atheistic world view is correct?

Once again: Do not pass go, do not collect Divine Command Theory, re-read what I've posted above.

I haven't expounded upon all this in any great depth because, (i) I'm very tired, and (ii) much, if not all, of this to me seems self-evident. Apologies to all if I'm stirring the hive with this.

MrPudding

Is Gareth37 a WUM? If I wanted to wind atheists up I would post like him.

MrP

condra

Nope. He is a fundamentalist appearantly.
He regularly posts on the Christianity forum too.
And his phone has been bugged by Lucifer.

CerebralCortex

Quinine wrote: »

Simply put, we're social creatures and have found morals useful in maintaining a stable society. They may seem obvious to us but I would be willing to bet that the earliest societies went through terrible savagery as what is and is not acceptable was determined...

You can explain it a million times to Soul Winner but you have to remember desire rarely wins out against reason and logic.