If the world was aethiest...

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Uccisore

Dan~

Then God is an angery, childish fool.

Or, I was joking. Can’t you respond to anything good that I write?

[thesun1]

@my real name

@thesun1

But really I would like to extend on this,

The god we would create would be a physical person, with a superior ability. The world would be based off of survival of the fittest, and our idiotic moral ethics of today’s society would be scrapped to insure the well being and overall happiness of the human race.

I would really like to extend on this.

Morality and ethics is supposed to insure the well being and moral
happiness of the human race. People should try it sometime.

I could go into very great detail but unlike most people on these forums I hate to type for extended periods of time…

A prime example would be personal freedom. In todays society, thanks to locke, we believe in the three natural rights. If we didn’t follow those laws than maybe the human race could get more done, thus bettering the human race.

An example one in todays society, helping those that are in need. No I don’t mean generic helping, like lending a hand in a project, I mean on a large scale. The US spends billions on aid to other countrys, with this money we could be reasearching to help better the human race. We could be curing diseases with that money, figuring out new forms of treatment.

Another one, animal testing. People’s views on animal testing are preventing us from testing new drugs that would help fight disease in the human race.

[scythekain]

@omar

Have you thought that the world might just be exactly the same as it is today?

no, not quite…

Atheism? We’re all atheists; but most just go one god further…(I can’t remember who said this)

I think this is a bogus statement. It’s like a vegan saying “we’re all vegetarians to an extent, because we all eat vegetables. Just some vegetarians also choose to eat meat!”

If god did not exist man would invent a god for himself. (still can’t remember)

Atheists already do that.

It might be a different god, but a god nonetheless.

no, the difference would be he would be made up and non-existent. God is non-existent (in that he/she/it can’t exist in our space) but it’s the same way that a hydrogen atom is non-existant once it’s been burnt for energy by the sun.

[omar]

@thesun1

@omar

If god did not exist man would invent a god for himself. (still can’t remember)

It might be a different god, but a god nonetheless.

But really I would like to extend on this,

The god we would create would be a physical person, with a superior ability. The world would be based off of survival of the fittest, and our idiotic moral ethics of today’s society would be scrapped to insure the well being and overall happiness of the human race.

O- I don’t think it must necessarly be a person with a superior ability, but superior, period, be that superiority physical of otherwise. Perhaps because of his/her wisdom.
Nature might select only those fit to survive, but we do not follow nature’s plan. We’re not Spartans.
But why do you suppose that an atheist society would ensure the well being and overall happiness of the human race? Wishful thinking…
And what is this? “Our idiotic moral ethics of today’s society”? Please explain what do you mean.

[thesun1]

@omar

@thesun1

@omar

If god did not exist man would invent a god for himself. (still can’t remember)

It might be a different god, but a god nonetheless.

But really I would like to extend on this,

The god we would create would be a physical person, with a superior ability. The world would be based off of survival of the fittest, and our idiotic moral ethics of today’s society would be scrapped to insure the well being and overall happiness of the human race.

O- I don’t think it must necessarly be a person with a superior ability, but superior, period, be that superiority physical of otherwise. Perhaps because of his/her wisdom.
Nature might select only those fit to survive, but we do not follow nature’s plan. We’re not Spartans.
But why do you suppose that an atheist society would ensure the well being and overall happiness of the human race? Wishful thinking…
And what is this? “Our idiotic moral ethics of today’s society”? Please explain what do you mean.

Look up ^^

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

I’ve seen more then a few Atheist Taoists & Buddhists.

When we find a higher force or state of being, we don’t have to add man-like qualities to it and call it “God”, because that starts with the insanity of expecting something that isn’t human to act human in some way.

Basically, God corrupts higher powers & gets blamed for natural events.

[omar]

Hello thesun1:

— Look up ^^
— A prime example would be personal freedom. In todays society, thanks to locke, we believe in the three natural rights. If we didn’t follow those laws than maybe the human race could get more done, thus bettering the human race.—
O- That is an opinion but is getting more done nthe same or equal to “bettering” the human race? It is not the quantity of what is done but the quality of whatever is being done.

— An example one in todays society, helping those that are in need. No I don’t mean generic helping, like lending a hand in a project, I mean on a large scale. The US spends billions on aid to other countrys, with this money we could be reasearching to help better the human race. We could be curing diseases with that money, figuring out new forms of treatment.
O- How can it be that the money spent to aid to other countries does not help better the human race? What akes you so sure that curing diseases is to better the human race? Why, some like J. Huxley might say the exact opposite. If not for war and disease, how would you keep human population in check?

— Another one, animal testing. People’s views on animal testing are preventing us from testing new drugs that would help fight disease in the human race.
O- The point is that you’re making the cure for our disease the only thing that matters. I believe that it is not. Call me “idiotic”, but suppose you cure all dieases, then what? How do you support such levels of population. You increase the number of people, but just how will you increase the Earth’s ability to support us? Cure diseases, you say, but then that word is used arbitrarly. Isn’t hunger itself a disease? Some might say that it is a disease in the hearts of men. Surely they are idiotic.
Cure diseases; that is what is best for mankind; for the WHOLE of MANKIND…
Sure…

[my_real_name]

@thesun1

A prime example would be personal freedom. In todays society, thanks to locke, we believe in the three natural rights. If we didn’t follow those laws than maybe the human race could get more done, thus bettering the human race.

An example one in todays society, helping those that are in need. No I don’t mean generic helping, like lending a hand in a project, I mean on a large scale. The US spends billions on aid to other countrys, with this money we could be reasearching to help better the human race. We could be curing diseases with that money, figuring out new forms of treatment.

Another one, animal testing. People’s views on animal testing are preventing us from testing new drugs that would help fight disease in the human race.

It sounds to me like you care more about man’s physical human health
than for his spiritual and existential happiness.

Are you willing to say that? And I wonder who will benefit from your
medical advances when you don’t want to give aid to the world.

[Harry_Haller]

— An example one in todays society, helping those that are in need. No I don’t mean generic helping, like lending a hand in a project, I mean on a large scale. The US spends billions on aid to other countrys, with this money we could be reasearching to help better the human race. We could be curing diseases with that money, figuring out new forms of treatment.
O- How can it be that the money spent to aid to other countries does not help better the human race? What akes you so sure that curing diseases is to better the human race?

I think he means like for example in africa would it be better to continually treat all the AIDs victims and give them food (which obviously does nothing to solve, only stall the problem) or would it be much more cost effective and logical to invest in a cure for AIDs so they can become productive and feed themselves instead of continually draining money from foreign aid. Kind of like the fishing lesson parable.

Why, some like J. Huxley might say the exact opposite. If not for war and disease, how would you keep human population in check?

Are you actually advocating war and disease are good thing on this premise? Are you shitting me? Im pretty sure you can control populations with things like condoms, education, and birth control. Also the reality is that the more industrialized and developed a nation is the more likely they are to have lower birth rates and even negative like japan and germany. So yes, instead of spending money to kill people and ignoring medical technology, i would invest in development so that people can be more educated and healthy.

Isn’t hunger itself a disease?

Hunger is not a disease, it can be a symptom of a disease state such as malnutrition.

[Harry_Haller]

It sounds to me like you care more about man’s physical human health
than for his spiritual and existential happiness.

In my opinion, most people will not be happy without their health even if they are spirtually and existentially fullfilled. Also, i doubt many people can be existentially fullfilled if they are unhealthy. and yes i personally would rather have my health than spiritual and exitential fullfillment. Why? becuase this can be achieved, altered, and changed anytime. Health however is irrevocable and permanent.

[Bob]

Hi Omar,

The US spends billions on aid to other countrys, with this money we could be reasearching to help better the human race. We could be curing diseases with that money, figuring out new forms of treatment.

The truth is, that it isn’t really very much in comparison to the amount of profit made by weapons deals…

globalissues.org/TradeRelate … sandGraphs

Shalom

[thesun1]

@Harry_Haller

— An example one in todays society, helping those that are in need. No I don’t mean generic helping, like lending a hand in a project, I mean on a large scale. The US spends billions on aid to other countrys, with this money we could be reasearching to help better the human race. We could be curing diseases with that money, figuring out new forms of treatment.
O- How can it be that the money spent to aid to other countries does not help better the human race? What akes you so sure that curing diseases is to better the human race?

I think he means like for example in africa would it be better to continually treat all the AIDs victims and give them food (which obviously does nothing to solve, only stall the problem) or would it be much more cost effective and logical to invest in a cure for AIDs so they can become productive and feed themselves instead of continually draining money from foreign aid. Kind of like the fishing lesson parable.

You hit the nail on the head. Funny thing is, I was thinking of the fishing lesson when I was writing that

Are you willing to say that?

Yes

You increase the number of people, but just how will you increase the Earth’s ability to support us?

Going back to a superior being, if they pushed the human race hard enough I’m sure we can accomplish tasks that are unthinkable at this point.

Currently there is enough food for everyone on earth, we are not communists though so people go hungry.

Currently the population of the world could fit in texas and be less crowded than NYC.

Call me “idiotic”

no

O- The point is that you’re making the cure for our disease the only thing that matters.

I am only giving examples of morals that if broken could benefit the human race.

Cure diseases; that is what is best for mankind; for the WHOLE of MANKIND

The basics can be taken care of, but that is where massive suffering takes place.

But what is all boils down to these are all opinions and everything anyone says is just speculation.

starts singing the year 2525 song

[omar]

@Harry_Haller

— I think he means like for example in africa would it be better to continually treat all the AIDs victims and give them food (which obviously does nothing to solve, only stall the problem) or would it be much more cost effective and logical to invest in a cure for AIDs so they can become productive and feed themselves instead of continually draining money from foreign aid. Kind of like the fishing lesson parable.
O- I think that rather than witholding help until a cure is found we should sexually educate them, same as with do withy our own citizens, and still help them. In other words, don’t just send food but also condoms and educators.

Why, some like J. Huxley might say the exact opposite. If not for war and disease, how would you keep human population in check?

Are you actually advocating war and disease are good thing on this premise? Are you shitting me? Im pretty sure you can control populations with things like condoms, education, and birth control. Also the reality is that the more industrialized and developed a nation is the more likely they are to have lower birth rates and even negative like japan and germany. So yes, instead of spending money to kill people and ignoring medical technology, i would invest in development so that people can be more educated and healthy.
O- Double H, I was thinking that since the question is what woulod the world be like if it was entirely atheist, that the relevant figures should be the atheists. In Julian’s case I am using an agnostic but the materialist agenda is the same. It is not that I am advocating for war and disease but to demonstrate the the absurdities, and inconsistencies, we arrive at by using a strickly atheistic outlook. As an defender of the atheistic outlook you must answer the other, less noble, but valid argument that come from the atheist perspective.

Hunger is not a disease, it can be a symptom of a disease state such as malnutrition.

O- I was waxing poetic there and refering to the disease of the heart that does not share.

[omar]

@Bob

Hi Omar,

The US spends billions on aid to other countrys, with this money we could be reasearching to help better the human race. We could be curing diseases with that money, figuring out new forms of treatment.

The truth is, that it isn’t really very much in comparison to the amount of profit made by weapons deals…

globalissues.org/TradeRelate … sandGraphs

Shalom

O- Ahh, err, Bob, how can I say this, I did not say that bit. But I do agree with you.
Off subject, pm material if you like, have you ever heard of Bill Hicks?

[Harry_Haller]

@omar

@Harry_Haller

— I think he means like for example in africa would it be better to continually treat all the AIDs victims and give them food (which obviously does nothing to solve, only stall the problem) or would it be much more cost effective and logical to invest in a cure for AIDs so they can become productive and feed themselves instead of continually draining money from foreign aid. Kind of like the fishing lesson parable.
O- I think that rather than witholding help until a cure is found we should sexually educate them, same as with do withy our own citizens, and still help them. In other words, don’t just send food but also condoms and educators.

i would agree it would be good to send them condoms and educators while researching a cure. However it is very ironic that you suggest that since in reality, currently, the religious core has taken over “helping AIDs” (in reality they are just there to promote their religious ideals/religion) by preventing distrbution of condoms and educating abstinence which has shown to make the problem worse, not better.

Why, some like J. Huxley might say the exact opposite. If not for war and disease, how would you keep human population in check?

Are you actually advocating war and disease are good thing on this premise? Are you shitting me? Im pretty sure you can control populations with things like condoms, education, and birth control. Also the reality is that the more industrialized and developed a nation is the more likely they are to have lower birth rates and even negative like japan and germany. So yes, instead of spending money to kill people and ignoring medical technology, i would invest in development so that people can be more educated and healthy.
O- Double H, I was thinking that since the question is what woulod the world be like if it was entirely atheist, that the relevant figures should be the atheists. In Julian’s case I am using an agnostic but the materialist agenda is the same. It is not that I am advocating for war and disease but to demonstrate the the absurdities, and inconsistencies, we arrive at by using a strickly atheistic outlook. As an defender of the atheistic outlook you must answer the other, less noble, but valid argument that come from the atheist perspective.

“that the relevant figures should be the atheists.” Are you saying we should assume atheistic ideals and the results from it? how would you assume atheistic ideals. frankly, i have no idea what you are talking about, can you please rephrase your argument to make it more comprehensive so that i can understand.

[omar]

Double H, I can expand on what I have said, but I cannot guarantee your comprehension.

— “that the relevant figures should be the atheists.” Are you saying we should assume atheistic ideals and the results from it?
O- Not at all. Where do you get that? If we are discussing what an atheistic world would be like then the “relevant figures”, the thinkers and philosophers we use in our discussion should be atheists. If I am talking how would a theistic world be like, I would perhaps use St Augustine, with his City of God, for example. If I am discussing what would an atheistic world would be like then I would discuss the ideas of atheists and see where and how they see such world. And I mean atheists in the highest sense, not just some humanist…

[MargaretAnne]

@Iacchus

@Hassooni

IF the entire world was aethiest how do you think it would be?

Ideas please…

Terribly boring perhaps?

Iacchus,

You can say more in three little words than anyone else can say in a 300-page novel. You’re cute, Iacchus–among other attributes.

[David_Redden]

An Atheist is at the end of their intellectual growth…can you have higher learning without a higher being to learn from?

If they have found happiness at their end…and can prove it…I may even want to tag along.

[Hassooni]

i have religion… but honestly… for the most part… religion is used as a scape-goat for the government… and there have been many examples of this…

i think i just have a bias veiw against atheists because of the way i was raised…

wen i used to think of them i think of inhuman beings… ;( even tho thats how many people think of the people in my religion… so i dont think of them like that any more…

so i do not know how atheists are… especially because i go to a religious school…

so please inform me…

[Duder]

Atheism is lack of religion. People are Atheistin their default state. Religion is something they take on after they’re born. If anything, religious people are weird, and Atheist are just normal people going about their lives.

Very few philosophers are religious. Religion is a narcotic.