If from the beginning of mankind there had been no thought of a God or higher purpose to life would man have ever advanced?
Say life was only ever about survival of the fittest with no devine influence would we be here today discussing topics of interest or still living like cavemen.
I find it hard to grasp that mankind would have advanced if that was all life was about.
We would be just as Darwin suggests Animals.
Well - You obviously have an extremely limited imagination, if the only way you can see us having developed the ability to poison the Gulf, build vacuum cleaners and threaten each other with nuclear weapons is through a belief in an invisible super being.
I am sure we could have managed without. Who knows - perhaps our values would not include having "dominion over" everything?
We would merely have developed differently, but I feel reasonably certain we would have developed. Try reading "Hominids" by Robert Sawyer - it is a really good book about what a Hominid society without an irrational belief system might have developed into. Very imaginative - might even help you grasp an alternative viewpoint.
We are animals, and if you do not see "survival of the fittest" written all over our religions - you are not looking very hard.
I didnt suggest the survival of fittest mentality didnt exist it clearly does.
The animal kingom is all about dominion.
And i know of no animal that plans for the future generations.
Why would man have ever worried about these things if his reality was only survival.
yep i am with you there. Humans have a long term plan, passed on to them........ unfortunately some generations kind of lose sight of that. I believe it is a need, like we have a need for food etc...... it can be ignored of course, like we can choose not to eat if we want to.
Really? Please do some research - you will find many animals teach their young how to survive, how to hunt, how to store food for the future etc. Take a look at killer whales and ants - amazing how they plan for the future in very different ways.
they work on instinct, we copy some of the things they do,, but we are different than animals surely.
Animals dont live in a world of right or wrong its a natural flow of eat or be eaten.
If applied to man he would have not planned to far ahead as he would have been to busy trying to survive.
Why would man have ever worried about his young or the bloke next door.
What? What has that got to do with your assertion that no animals plan for the future? Why do animals "worry " about their young? Why does the Queen ant makes sure her workers are well looked after?
I guess the queen ant does that because without here workers she dies.
But clearly the queen ant is superior and her workers dont aspire to anything other than to care for her
Are you suggesting man is like an ant?
Recall i didnt suggest we are animals you did
We are animals. You are the one claiming that animals do not plan for the future.
Queen ant - uses workers and army to do what she wants for her survival and the prosperity of her offspring.
Queen human - uses workers and army to do what she wants for her survival and the prosperity of her offspring.
Where is the difference exactly?
The only reason we have Parliament is so we got a central bank. Now the Queen is a figurehead and always in debt - but the same rules apply.
We are off track
Why did man do anything more than protect his territory if his only reality was survival of the fittest
No - we are on track. You make baseless, incorrect assertions - I show you that you are wrong, you ignore what I said and try a different track.
Man is expanding his territory all the time, killing and murdering and destroying as he goes.
I think your sidestepping the original question.
Why would first man have given a rats arse about his fellow man if his only reality is survival of the fittest.
He would have first have to had thought of something that would have been for the good of his offspring and then learn how to communicate it.
Why would he have done that?
In answer to this question - Tribes are stronger than individuals and we are a social animal. There wasn't a "first man" - there was a first tribe. Does the Lion give a rat's arse about it's fellow lions? Still - they hunt in prides.
Please educate yourself a little - other wise you will always be trapped in "I find it hard to grasp that mankind would have advanced if that was all life was about."
I did not side step the original question - I gave an answer which you chose to ignore in favor of asking the same question in another way. Now respond to my first answer instead of asking the question in another way, which suggests you are not actually here to discuss anything - you are merely here to persuade me there is an invisible super being. Next step is usually to tell me what it wants.
Im sorry i dont think you answered anything except tell me we are animals and i should read up on some science books.
Thanks for your thoughts Mark
You asked if we could have developed without the belief in an invisible super being. I told you what I thought and suggested a science fiction book that would allow you to experience some one else's imagination and their view of a hominid society that developed without the belief.
That was not worth responding to - presumably because it does not coincide with your limited ability to imagine something outside the confines of a god.
Why not just ask for believers to agree with you instead of asking a question? I am sure there are plenty
We are animals.
can queen ants join hub pages then, they would probably talk more sense than some of us.
Imagination is the ability of forming mental images, sensations and concepts, in a moment when they are not perceived through sight, hearing or other senses. Imagination is the work of the mind that helps create fantasy. Imagination helps provide meaning to experience and understanding to knowledge; it is a fundamental facility through which people make sense of the world, and it also plays a key role in the learning process.A basic training for imagination is listening to storytelling (narrative), in which the exactness of the chosen words is the fundamental factor to "evoke worlds."
So imagination was your answer Mark ?
Well im not sure but i think in your first responce you said i have a limited imagination if i cannot see man advancing with only a belief in survival of the fittest .
So likewise they would have had to had imagination?
Yes - you have a limited imagination if you can only "grasp" one scenario. I offered an alternative scenario, which you immediately ignored. But - yes - imagination is required to advance, if I am understanding what you mean by "advanced" to be technology.
There is no such thing as a "belief" in survival of the fittest. It just is. An opportunity to utilize said imagination only comes about after destroying the local threats and finding the time to do so.
So - what you are now saying is that man could not have advanced without an imagination, instead of a belief in a god. In which case - I agree. Why didn't you say so in the first place?
Just for clarity while have a current leaning for creation i have spent last 40yrs defending evolution. But this area of evolution theory is my stumbling block. Beside's the fact we still relying on truth or not of what fellow man tells us happened.
Why is it your stumbling block? At some point - as a logical progression of the evolutionary process - man became self aware - approximately 35,000 years ago as I understand it. It took some 25,000 years to wipe out the competition and find the time to start developing technology and "advancing" - which was the advent of agriculture around 10,000 bc. Why does that not fit with your model of evolution?
"as a logical progression of the evolutionary process - man became self aware "
There is my stumling block.
"Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples, the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms."
"A conclusion is a proposition which is reached after considering the evidence, arguments or premises. Conclusions are a fundamental feature in academic or research work."
That is not a stumbling block.
The first life on earth were single celled organisms. These organisms have evolved into the life forms that we see today. You yourself have been arguing that man is more than just an animal.
Why is it so hard to grasp that the logical next step in evolutionary development from Homo Habilis, through to Homo Sapiens (knowing man) is self awareness, as our brains have become more developed.
Gorillas and Dolphins are capable of communication and grasping abstract principals, so we are not the only animal to become self aware - just the first.
The brain is the key then.
Your example of Gorillas and Dolphins being self aware.
Wht have they not advanced if they have learned to communicate they have been around far longer than man.
where is the difference
Who says they haven't and are just not stupid enough to develop meaningless advances that cause us to destroy everything around us. Who is the intelligent one?
Yep, the more I live the more I tend to think that our technological "progress" is actually regress...
Yup. I read an interesting article about how much time it takes to do household chores - washing, cleaning the floor etc - and it takes exactly the same time now as it did 100 years ago, despite all the gadgets.
LOL This must be from those 99% of statistics that is created on the spot
No - it was a scientific paper. I can't find it right now, but I will look. Basically - houses have gotten bigger, and we have more crap in them to clean, so although the gadgets speed things up, there is more to do so - no net gain.
A wise snippet from Ecc 8:9
"man has dominated man to his injury"
And here is some wisdom for you from Douglas Adams.
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. "
Dolphins anatomies i guess would dictate somewhat in how far they could advance but Gorillas are another thing.
If they had any sort of self awareness they would have realised the danger man poses on them and surely that would incourage some type of advancement in self preservation.
They have the same physical advantages we have but they havent developed any extra abilities to addapt to the threat man has imposed on them.
So we conclude that from the animal kingdom model, we followed a similar line except at some stage we must have deviated from the norm and become self aware even though there is no evidence to support such a signicant change based on the evidence seen in the nature.
Another thing that puzzles me is why "presuming we are a product of the natural order of things" do we break the mould and become the only species in the planets history do destroy not only ourselves but every thing around us.
That does not fit with nature which we conclude we are a product of.
No - that is a product of technology. All other animals eat until they start to destroy their food supply. Then food becomes scarce and they die out themselves. That is the natural order of things. Boom and bust in populations is perfectly normal. Do some research and you will find out.
Since we are the first to become self aware and have started to develop ways of avoiding the natural order, but all we have done is extended the boom. When the bust arrives it will no doubt be spectacular, and I hope not to see it in my lifetime. How many humans can the planet support? I don't know, but I suspect it is a finite amount. Or maybe we will have found a way to permanently avoid the natural order - but I doubt it.
I am not presuming anything. Everything in existence is a product of the natural order of things. You are the one saying we are the one and only thing in existence that is not.
Good answers thanks Mark
Jury is still out but given me ideas to mull over while i trudge my way through work tomorrow.
Maybe someday i will find what ever it was that i lost when i was a child.
Because from some odd reason, mankind believes that the earth exists for our own purpose... you know... we act like we own the place!
I actually shouldn't say all of mankind... just the majority. Especially those who were indoctrinated with the idea that we are supposed to rule over everything.
The author behind every textbook or theory has a vested interest in it becoming the common opinion of the masses which only attests to the fact we shouldnt believe anything anyone tells us.
Mark, that's "...survival of the faithful that is written in all religions."
Well, I hope you guys straighten out your topic's topic....
As a hypothetical, I guess you can ask the question, but the question is meaningless. God is a necessary being. As such He cannot NOT exist. You couldn't say, "If God did not exist, things would be like......" "Like" involves stating some characteristic or property and there just isn't anything you can say things are "like" or "as if" if He doesn't exist.
A strong faith in something requires good foundations
MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
We will advanced even without the knowledge of a GOD, before people always attribute phenomenon as miracle (when they cant explain what is happening) when science steps in, they can explain phenomenon already, but science cant answer all but we keep on improving on getting answers through science. The limit I dont know.
There is a need for a God like concept give sense on what is happening, the concept of God becomes utilitarian. It is easy to believe phenomenon when you attribute it to a God like thing or person (human like God),
Given time, there is no reason to suspect science will not be able to explain all phenomena.
If universe is expanding(which it is) then we can't answer all the questions. It's like with every generation we'll discover something new about universe so it's hard to say we'll answer everything.
Not only is this an statement of faith in a method, there is no ground for saying that science will be able to explain all phenomena in the future.
I sure do find it amusing when people who profess blind faith in the invisible super being attack other people as having no grounds for saying something.
Who knows what science will be able to explain, but given past measurable data and enough time it is not unreasonable that science will be able to explain all phenomena. Look what we have managed to explain in just a few years. There is no limit to the potential.
You don't really want to do this MK, do you?
Your statement is as naive as the one you're defending. It expresses a lack of understanding about the nature of explanation.
Just one example: explanations can be offered that are right, but for the wrong reasons. Galileo is a good example. He rightly believed that the earth revolved around the sun, but was wrong about the path of rotation. His explanation, while useful (its predictive power was greater, for example) was still flawed.
How could you ever know if you had explained all phenomena? What benchmark would you use?
"There is no limit to the potential"? Wow. You sound like one of those management seminars...
There is no limit to the potential. Potential. I cannot see ten billion years into the future. All I see is limitless potential. How can we say we will definitely never explain all phenomena? Who knows what evolution will turn humans into in the next ten billion years? Not me - potential is there though. limitless potential.
I sure do find it funny when people who profess a blind faith in something that does not exist go down this road. Very funny. Your lack of understanding is quite astounding.
At this time, there are only a couple of unanswered questions that when understood will begin to explain a great deal about our universe. One being the nature of gravity and inertia(include dark matter and dark energy) while the other is the search for the Higgs Boson or some other carrier particle that binds things together.
With both these questions answered and understood, we will understand the very principles and foundations of matter and energy.
What else is there in the universe to understand?
Do you think that explaining all phenomena in physics is the same as explaining all phenomena?
You might want to rethink your enthusiasm for the methods of science. This reminds me of the Patent clerk in the 1800s who supposedly said that the Patent Office should be closed since there was little left to invent. Our experiences have been that knowledge is a two-edged sword in that we learn more, but we also uncover greater mysteries that make us aware of what we don't know.
Sure, why not? If we understand how matter and energy behaves, we can understand the universe.
I don't need to, I know the current methods work well.
That's nice. Relevancy?
All phenomena reduced to physics? I'll let someone else tell you why this is a problem.
Given the history of the development of science, you can't possibly hold to an evolutionary view. Given our experience and given enough time, our methods will be scorned by future observers of nature. They will laugh at our methods just as we shake our head at those medicine men called "physicians" that bled poor George Washington to death with leeches.
Relevancy? Think about it.
Or crack right up at the religious concept of creation!
I've never seen this as a problem, neither have scientists.
I think that's rather silly. What will be laughed and scorned at are the religions that ruled our world for so long and the embracing of Bronze Age myths and superstitions.
It may take time but I don't see why it couldn't. If you mean that science can't explain the spiritual... if that spirituality is based in truth, then the two shouldn't contradict, but rather validate eachother.
To a lot of people, this is their way of life. Did you forget to look around you, and realize the answer to your question, has been out there all along?
If there was no God? Hm........., to millions of people there is no God. So what's the big deal? They have survived. They are fit. So.......???
Religion is an individual choice.
They have survived yes but the question is would man have advanced without the concept of a god.
Its easy to cite current situations as an example that yes man would have advanced but this is based on governments and common morals that have been shaped by both beliefs.
Take god out of the mix then when does morals come into play? i see government easily fitting in as there will always be some who want to dominate.
Alterative thinking or anything that threatens that government is squashed without any thought of morality. Why would they need morality? that would only restrict them.
Keep in mind this is about whether or not first man would have advanced without the thought of a god.
First man did advance without the thought of god. Gods did not really come into the equation until later. Much later. About 25,000 years later in fact. And your single God, even later - about 2,000 years ago. You really should consider reading up about this stuff.
I do read thanks Mark
25,000yrs fact? or theory?
I find what i have read about evolution to have just as many holes in it as creation theory.
You sound no different than a bible basher.
I see. Sorry you cannot see the difference, but - I understand now. You are not interested in divergent opinions from your own and will ignore proven facts in favor of the fairy tale. Please educate yourself before making such a condescending statement. You clearly do not understand evolutionary theory - nor have you done any research Don't bother cutting and pasting the bible bashers "holes in evolution."
Sorry you did not understand what you read about evolution - but this is probably not the best place for an education. I did write a forum thread trying to explain to people such as yourself - but - no one bothers to read what I linked to, because they already have the biblical answer.
Creation by an invisible super being - no evidence at all.
Evolution - millions of evidences, facts and measurable data, but not solid proof of every single step of every single organism's development.
Exactly the same really.
You are the condescending one Mark.
I havent made up my mine either way on the subject of how we got here but your quick to judge me as the enemy of your belief because i havent swollowed it yet, not much different than the people who insist that god exists.
I started this post initially to find out what people thought about the differences there would be today if there had never been any influence of a god.
But ive quickly learnt that it dont matter which side of the tracks your on both sides push it as fact and deride you if you dont agree with them.
While hunting the net for information i have come across those bible bashers dribble of a young earth and i dont support this idea in the slightest and think they show how narrow minded they really are.
The earth is billions of years old.
But that dont make me automatically believe in evolution of man just because scientists say its true.
I think science is only just starting to scratch the surface of how the universe works and how we got here.
I think Molecular bioligy will be the area that shuts the door on the debate.
But how we got here isnt the topic i wanted to get into and i should have stepped more lightly when expressing my opinions.
I do have a question for you though Mark.
How many times must a man walk of a cliff before he grows wings?
First, I would like to address the issue with your post... "god" or a higher purpose of life, are two separate subjects.
A "god" is a concept of a higher being or entity supposedly in existence.
A "higher purpose" of life is that which should be higher than self, for which, motivates oneself.
Life is only about survival, and not of the fittest. But, at a time in the evolutionary process, the educated elite, for two reasons, brought about the "god" concept, because of a preconceived notion of chaos would ensue, if humanity did not answer to a higher power, either government(rulers) or a god(a supreme being, all powerful), to keep them in line. And, at the time, for which, religion was born(founded by accident), it was necessary to keep those who did not know any better under wraps(control).
There happens to be a remote possibility, but highly unlikely, due to the growth and expansion of the human consciousness and societal pressures.
As for the title- If there was no god - There is no god.
thats what we are..i dont think how u find ourselves different...it is survival of fittest...we see it in humans too..1 in 7 can't have two time meal...now this is reality in the world...we are self interested beings..in last 50 years humans as species has wiped out fifty percent of other species from the world ..now if it is not survival of fittest what it is?..if we take larger view of sin , what can be more sin than wiping out other species or having 1 out of 7 not having two time meal..theory of evolution applies in every walk of life..it is just that we dont see it...
I agree %100 that society lives by princable of survival of the fittest but tell a man he is an animal and thats how he will behave.
Likewise tell a man he a chosen one and he will kill you because your not.
After re-reading Cagsil post i agree with what he said but lets get away from the fact that religion began in the first place.
I see there would have been 2 types of people, those that respect life and want to live in peace and those that dont care about life and wish to take what ever they want by force as many civs have in history.
I would think that the ones who prefered peace would have been the ones
with more intelegance and then be the ones most likely to advance.
They would have to had laws or codes of behaviour of some type to maintain this peace and weed out the bad guys which every society has.
If the second group out numbered the first then there would be very retarded growth of civilisation.
But i guess that the groups that took more time improving there communities would have greater growth rate and more chance to succeed.
At the end of the day my question "if there was no god" is irrelevant, the reality is this is where society is at.
To be honest i think it would'nt have made any difference to the end result (religion or not) as we still live by survival of the fittest mentality which is destructive as you point out pisean.
Only difference would have been how fast we got here.
I don't think it could happen that man could think and never speak of an unknown quantity. He wouldn't have instantly become self aware AND full of knowledge regarding this magnificent mechanism and the laws that govern it. We don't know nearly as much as so-called atheists seem to think we know. ("We" being "science".) Even now, in the twenty first century, scientists are often awed by what they discover and the illusive A>B>C>D to explain it.
If man had never spoken of a God before, quantum physicists would speak of it now. Fortunately, there are some scientists who don't care what we think and don't mind speaking of "mysteries" for fear of being labeled as this or that and I say "fortunately" because they're the ones who are solving those mysteries.
Well in some ways we are like animals, but fortunately we do not only act on instinct. We have a brain to think things through...
I have done a lot of thinking lately. If this were all there was to life, grow old, watch our parents die..... gain lots of money then die ourselves, i would not like to part of the game.
There are lots of un answered questions.
Mark i am being serious, what is the purpose of life?????
To be alive.
Whether you can find an individual purpose for you over and above that is for you to know. Billions of people are satisfied with living, surviving, having a family - even just feeding themselves is enough for some. I have several individual purposes which are exclusive to me and they do not particularly include gaining lots of money.
I know what you mean, but supposing you are 50 now..... does it bother you that you have already lived most of your life...... There has to be more i feel.....
Why would it bother me? I have lived - and am still living - an interesting life. Maybe there is more. I do not feel that there hasto be more. That is just fear talking. One thing is certain - you are not going to stop yourself from dying - and if there is more - I am pretty sure I will not be excluded from it for not listening to the religionists.
Why does there have to be more? It is not possible that things - including us - live and die? Despite the evidence of that happening all around us? You are of an age where you have probably had friends and family die. I know I am.
i have had far too many friends and family die. My poor dad, was one of ten children he has lost all his brothers and sisters, in the last year about 8 of his friends, and his wife. He has also lost one of his daughters. I do understand what you mean, but if you were told tomorrow you had cancer, or some such illness and you had a short time to live, how would you feel then.
Pissed, but I am not going to change it.
do you believe there is no such thing as an atheist on a battlefield.
I am beginning to think that we all think we have lots of choices, but we do not have quite as many as we hoped. We have all been handed different talents, and some are more benificial than others.
No. I have been close to being killed and never needed to succumb to the propaganda that has been shoved in to my head all my life - no.
We have to make the most of what we have, but - you are right - many of the choices we think we have have been foisted on us - by religion, government and special interest - big business and banks.
so do you think we should have more choices for ourselves, and why don't we?
I do. Because I see where the choices are made for me. I am still hampered though, but it certainly helps to identify where the choices are being made for you - or you are being given the illusion of choice.
You really think David Cameron is any different to Gordon Brown?
Speak for yourself, Mark...I plan on living forever!!!
You have lived and have the ability to choose your direction in life based on a society shaped by creation and evolutionary theories.
If say we are back when man first started why would i have cared what you think or even have let you on my turf, you would have been a threat nothing more just like any animal today that enters anothers territory
If there was no God?
Then we won't have had the pleasure of writing posts here since we would have never existed; everything would have been in a chaos and had not worked in a system which we observe in the Universe and aslo in our bodies. No Athiests Agnostics would have existed without God.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Really ? Ants,bees and many other animals form colonies just for the sake of that.
they have instincts. but i did not ever see a whale looking up information on a computer, We have free thought and a different intelligence, a higher intelligence, so i am told.
other animals have limited ability to manipulate things around them,that doesn't make us more intelligent. Just more aware about environment than other animals. There is no thing like free thought. No matter what choice we make in life, it's predictable just like actions of other animals.
Categorizing right or wrong thing again forms colony just like what animals do. Christianity is right or islmics are right type of thinking again forms a colony. You can see peaceful islamics spamming forums to form group of peaceful islamics, same goes with Christians. Pattern of forming colony is common among animals. You see this any different than what animals do ?
Simple, we want our species to survive. Exception to this case : some christians who want islamics,hindus to die. Some islamics who want all other religious/non-religious people to die on judgement day.
Most animal colonies are dominated by one male and they dont generally tolerate other males in there colonies.
Strength is the keyword to know more about such colonies. In case of humans, we've mixed results. Some gangs in new york do have leader chosen because of strength while some gangs in vatican have leader having muscle in brain.
So man would have reasoned that if goes over and teams up with joeblo
and shares the woman he would have a better chance of survival?
I'm sure in limited population scenario, they'll do exactly like this. 10 females for 50 males will only end up in sharing. Sanity, loyalty,morality will only end up in talks/papers.
So when a lion for example sees his fellow males dont have females he descides it best for the common good to share his females with them?
I would think survival of the fittest is then not applied
You're assuming "Survival" as the only factor in this example. There are many other factors like territory, strength,pack,faithful partners etc. In case of humans, we're also territorial. And about sharing partner ? we've example surrogate mothers/sperm bank etc. We're doing everything possible to keep our species alive and kicking.
Ok what is the thread?
Survival would have been mans only reality in the beginning why would he have advanced past that.
It is. You can't expect species who think and manipulate environment around them to stick on the point of survival only. Species do reproduction as well. They eat,sleep, dream (manipulate subconscious information) as well. We humans avoid monotonous activity as much as possible. So after thinking about survival(and achieving point of safety) we prioritize things to keep us happy or busy(or we can say activities to get out of boredom/monotonous life).
And what would they have dreamed about?
Your suggestions are based on life as we know it now.
I suggest if you lived in the wild without conveniece stores you would be hard pressed even feeding yourself let alone raising families and dreaming of a brighter future.
wow food for thought there. Ganging up is a cowardly concept. Pulling together is somehow different.
I know what you mean......... colony, organised religion have their disadvantages. If there was a single purpose to come out of a religion for the good of others, be it temporary what then
Well be it religion, or solo atheists, agnostics. Everyone wants to survive and want to pass their stuff to future generation. Religion is evil- because they want to manipulate people for the stuff which is under question. In many ways, religion restricts growth of our species. Religion is against skepticism. This(religion) is not the discussion point of this thread though, point is about life without concept of god. So what worst will happen without this concept is that some weak minds will have tough time to convince their brain about unknown questions.
For example, i don't think babies are born from their parents but concept of angel dropping bag of baby is more interesting for me hence i choose to believe. Life can't have purpose of just survive & multiply hence i choose to believe. This type of self-bias is like virus that religion(belief in god) keeps in mind of people. This kills skepticism, giving birth to questions that ONLY please to source of your belief. Like there are many unanswered questions,hence skepticism/atheists are wrong and my belief is right type. Without god, some people will really have tough time navigating their way out of self-bias.
No religion, no gods.
Don't believe in horror and hate fairytales that are nonsensical.
C'mon i like horror. It's fun, especially stories like silent hill.
I dont care if you believe in religion or not.
That wasnt my question
If no God/God's exist, does free will exist or not exist?
Please keep on topic.
"Stick to the Topic: Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread."
Thanks. The question is on topic. The answer to the question determines my answer to the question. Have a nice day.
Thanks. Is it nonsense to everyone or only you? If it is only nonsense to you, does that mean it's nonsense to everyone?
"Stick to the Topic: Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread."
If God didn't exist, Sundays on the Forums would be a lot more fun, a lot less argumentative and perhaps people would be a lot nicer to each other. But then someone would go an invent an offensive, monotheist religion and off we'd all go again.
Good Day Anichol
I see this thread is only a few hours old and its inspired quite an onslaught. You have started a very interesting discussion. Your question is something to the effect of: where would we be without God? I'll just say a quick word about ethics.
We have all heard it said that 'if there is no God then everything is permitted.' The idea is that a belief in a supreme being acts as a guide for our behavior. General 'civilization' is guaranteed to the extent that human beings, on the whole, try to emulate God, and so on and so forth.
But I have heard it said, (and this is a position I more or less agree with) by the Slovenian philosopher called Slavoj Zizek (I want to say he was quoting Hegel?), who said 'If God exists then EVERYTHING IS permitted. But if God does not exist then NOTHING is permitted.
I want to suggest that this formulation rather makes sense when we consider it. I am speaking as an American of the western tradition. The former conception 'If God exists nothing is permitted' may be the official statement but there is an effective loophole, if you will. In our tradition "its never too late to come to Jesus," and so forth, "if you accept Him as Lord and Savior," and so on.
The escape clause, I think, often acts as a disincentive to taking our ethical life as seriously as we might, day to day. It is important to acknowledge the extent to which, we as Americans are in the thrall of professional, organized sports. It seems to me that the traditional connection of God with ethics/morality allows for a mindset that thinks one can always "win it in the late innings," as it were.
But perhaps if there was no God, then human beings might not have trivialized, in a way, our passage through time. Maybe.
Couldn't be bothered to read what the discussion is actually about then?
Good Day Mark Knowles!
My, but you are an aggressive type, aren't you? As I said when I posted, seeing that the thread was so new and yet inspired such an onslaught, I thought I'd begin by taking a shot at addressing Anichol's (you know the one who started this discussion, our host, if you will) original question for a start.
You see, Mark Knowles, it's my way of "cheking in," as it were. I happen to think its good E-etiquette. When a hubber starts a discussion in a forum, its like the space he or she has carved out, sort of like a temporary abode, to my way of thinking.
Suppose one is going to a party. You've been invited. Suppose there's a lot of people there already and somehow it happens that the person who opened the door for you was not the homeowner (maybe a close friend of hers, who is authorized to regulate traffic in and out). What is the first thing you would do?
The first thing I would do is find the hostess, give her the giift I brought (if its her birthday or something), chat with her a few minutes, thank her for inviting me, and tell her what a lovely home she has. After that I would start to circulate. The way I addressed our "host," Anichol, first, is my way of checking in and all that.
But now its time to circulate. Thank you, Mark Knowles, for being the first "guest" to come up to me and say 'Howdy!'
Howdy, Mark Knowles! :-) Howdy!
Hello wingedcentaur thanks for your thoughts.
People will still have the notion of what is wrong and right even without God, it is just more orderly in the thoughts, actions and explanations if there is a GOD concept
What I find interesting, is that humanity, from all corners of the earth, developed their own ideas of divine nature independently... we seem to have a natural tendency to seek something greater than ourselves. Does anyone know of any ancient culture that did not shape some sort of religion or spiritual practice for themselves?
Just thought I would slot in some humor. Aussie filmaker, John Safran,
'Door to Door Atheists Bother Mormons'
Current society is built on morals which are encorced by law.
I find it hard to beieve our current society would function very well if those morals were not inforced.
If it was possible it would be nice to know how many people percentage wise would violate theses laws if they were not in place and if it would have a flow on effect as people realised they have only themselves to rely on.
Would society spiral out of control? i think yes and i cant see why it would not have been any different for ancient man.
I believe religion would have been used as a tool to keep everyone in line.
If anyone plans to quote some scienctific theory based on an ancient campfire fire surrounded by primitive stone tools forget it.
Scientist are no less ignorant and blind to change than the religous leaders are.
A quick search on Molecular biology will show there findings are going to turn the evolution theory upside down.
Hey Anichol, the only reason humanity continues to live inside the foolish ideology of "survival of the fittest" is because others choose to keep it alive and well for their own benefit and manipulation of others.
It's the direct cause for ALL of the problems plaguing the world, and has done so.
To think humanity is equal or on the same footing as the animals that live around the globe is ignorant and defeats the ability of human consciousness(including conscience).
If there was no God?
Then this Universe won't have existed. We would have not born.
by Kathryn L Hill10 months ago
Liberals do not like the concept of "survival of the fittest."Or do they?Wondering.
by fallenangel6667 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who...
by mecheil6 years ago
fit - fitter - fittesti know evolutionists claim they once roamed the world as well, and that the excavated remains prove so. but really, where has the fitter ones gone?i've been wondering... we see apes and men coexist...
by lovetherain10 days ago
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
It seems like the idea of survival of the fittest is at odds with the basic ideology of the Left.No?Yes?
by Cecilia6 years ago
we've been saying it...but look here, a message from the Rebbe Lubavitcher Schneerson. Really great guy, chassidic, long beard and hat and everything "religionist"but he said this to a "nonbeliever"...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.