Where do atheists derive their non- belief in god? Atheists derive their non-belief in god due to the fact of all the inconsistencies of god’s presence. So the atheist derives his or her non-belief in the inconsistencies of the fanatical believer which they observe and interact with in society.
What is the inconsistency of morality and ethics? Hypocrisy is the inconsistency of morality and ethics.
The nihilist or pessimist derive their non-belief in morality and ethics due to the fact of all the hypocritical inconsistencies of their presence. Does not the existence of hypocrisy ( inconsistency) negate the existence of morality and ethics as non-existing?
Many people are atheists and are so ready to discuss the non-existence of god but refuse to even acknowledge the non-existence of morals or ethics as they too are filled with inconsistencies. Why?
Well god isn’t the real topic of this thread as it’s just a comparative example for my arguement on the inconsistencies of morality and ethics.
Besides if you say that your sure such inconsistencies of god do exist I don’t think you need me explaining them further to you especially if you yourself already know them.
The hypocrisy of morality and ethics is whole cities, communities or towns around the world describing our species of primates as being a moral one where they also say that we aspire towards fairness and altruism as well yet the fact of the matter is that these same cities, communities, and towns infact survive on inequality, unfairness, competition,war, violence,blackmail, forced isolation, forced alienation, threats, scarcity of others and malice.
These same cities, communities, and towns hold judgement around those who live around them in describing individuals as being either superior or inferior in various positions of living all the while having the audacity of preaching equality.
That is the inconsistency and a moral inconsistency is called hypocrisy.
No a hypocrite is a person who preaches one thing describing anything outside of their own belief in condemnation but privately when noone is looking partakes in what they condemn all the same.
A hypocrite is one who condemns x,y,z but privately when noone is around partakes in x,y,z anyways and when one presses them with their inconsistencies they are unable to prove why everyone else should stay away from x,y,z when they themselves do not where amongst their inconsistencies they are unable to give reason for their belief.
It is very similar to my comparative analogy of a fanatical believer who says that god is there but when pressed with their inconsistencies are unable to prove the existence of their god that they themselves are preaching for.
morals are man made just like god is man made. There are no morals. We act the way we do because it seems “right” others act the way they do because morals are there for them to follow in case they can’t see what is “right”
Unlike the belief in unicorns, the belief in God carries with it the power of explanation: of the universe’s being brought into existence because designed by, well, God. God explains certain things; fantastical, imagined entities don’t. And no: God isn’t of that fantastical kind!
How do you know there is one God and not two Gods? Did your god explain the universe to you via text messages? Or did he communicate with you through your 52k internet. how do you know the universe was designed? where is the designer lable? can you see your mystical being? can you touch your mystical being? if you can’t see, touch, taste something how on earth do you know it exist? you lack logic.
First, logic is not concerned with truth and falsity, only the consistency of statements, any of which could be true or false.
Second, there cannot (logically) be two supreme beings (i.e., Gods), for if there were, neither could be supreme. Supreme is what God is reckoned to be (if this is denied, then it isn’t God in question – again, this is a matter of logic).
Third, design is apparent in creation – or certain aspects of it. It is perceived, just as redness is. It makes no more sense to ask, ‘how do you know this thing is designed?’ than to ask, ‘how do you know this thing is red?’ Neither aspect of things is declared to our senses via labels.
Fourth, I cannot know that others have minds, nor is it possible to prove that they do. All I have is evidence in the form of behaviour. This is a matter of logic, not evidence. In the same way, I cannot know that God exists (nor did I claim as much) but I believe He does, just as I believe others have (or are) minds.
If I am mistaken, then, by all means, put me right.
Yes - understood. But your analysis is too simplistic, I think, although there’s something in it. I admit that finding signs of design in things is very often an inference from observations, but I wonder if there are occasions when we realize that little, if any, inference is involved. Do we not know instantaneously (that is, without reasoning, reflection, inferring) that a stone is not designed and that a motorcar is? On your plausible account, we’d always have to sit and ponder the matter before arriving at a conclusion.
In the same way, we immediately perceive that certain things have a purpose, even though we might not know what the purpose is. The purposefulness is simply perceived, not inferred, just like any other perceptible quality is perceived. Consider: we look at a strange object for the first time and say, “this has a purpose”, or, “it is designed”. The problem lies not in perceiving as much, as deciding for what purpose the object was designed at all.
Absolutely, Churro. And because it takes, as you rightly say, an instant, that I believe the element of design/purpose in something perceived is itself a sense-datum, in exactly the same way as color, texture, taste, sound and odors are.
I don’t believe in god as I’m a stubborn atheist. God in the context of this thread is merely a comparative analogy that I’m using for comparison in my criticism of morality.
I believe in the non-existence of both god and morality.
Yes: quite right, Mr D. Various civilisations have invoked (what we regard as) mythical gods to explain phenomena, just as some of us now invoke the Christian God to function in the same manner. For many, this invocation rests, ultimately, on belief; but the question then becomes one of how sound this belief can be.
There is, first of all, blind faith utterly unsupported by reason or evidence, and it is this that many on forums like this one rightly reveal to the rest of us as worthless.
But there is belief grounded on evidence; and it would be irrational to ignore, or dismiss out of hand the possibility that, such evidence exists.
One piece of such evidence is the element of design which is apparent in certain objects – possibly all objects. All right, this may not be ‘apparent’ to all; but just because some phenomenon is not apparent doesn’t mean, of itself, that it doesn’t exist. That some claim to perceive design in nature is reason enough not to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
And there is also the evidence of individuals which amounts, for them, to be proof of God’s existence. Proof of this kind can be convincing. Its only weakness is that it might not be convincing to all.
It is the actuality of such proof of God’s existence that I believe He exists.
Asylums worldwide are supposedly filled with unsound minds of many men and women.
How is the belief in god any less sound than the man who believes he is second reincarnation of Jesus conversing with his father in heaven constantly everyday around the confines of a padded room?
Also I’m kinda miffed as this thread was supposed to be more about dealings of morality and ethics than god.
( God in the context of this thread was only a comparative analogy.)
How do you know your faith isn’t blind?
Evidence of what?
If somthing isn’t apparent to my visual perceivement I cannot know it. I couldn’t even be able to define it.
If I see a cult of three people claiming to be the three gods of Olympia would that be sufficient to prove the existence of gods?
When did I ever get into a debate about what logic is? All I said what the idea of so called ‘Gxd’ is inconsistent and built on false premises…
So infinity divided by two does not produce infinity? I assume by supreme you mean infinitely powerful, hence if you divide infinitely powerful being into two, you get two infinitely powerful beings. See how absurd the concept of infinity is when you put it on something you regard as ominipotent. Is infinity plus one greater than infinity? The concept of infinity shows how absurd the idea of god is. why does your so called god need YOU to proof he exist, why can’t she prove it herself.
The design argument is the most commonly used but it does not show who designed it. The computer you are staring at could be designed by any body. Just because you see it, does not tell you who designed it.
This is wierd, you say, ‘All I have IS evidence in the form of behavior’ and ‘is a matter of logic’, ‘NOT evidence’ how can it be evidence and no evidence at the same time?
Again, you do not understand the metaphysical concept of the mind. I think and I interact with others with the appearance of intelligence, now the intelligence maybe AI or human I do not know. BUT I do know through interaction that the entity has intelligence because it can interact with it in an intelligent understandable way.
Mind is really a signifier for an intelligent being you can interact with. God on the other hand, you can not interact with at all. In fact, you can not interact with something that does not even exist as a valid concept.
Mr Doom You are right
If you examine history, you’ll see that God is created to justify men’s own morality. Men believe in certain things, and they create a divine being whom only they are in contact with, to justify their own morality.
Mormon believe in gangbang, so they created a god that allow polygamous relationships. It’s like saying to your fellow 2nd graders, ‘Though Ms Snowball is in hospital, she said you all must give me $2 of your lunch money’.