Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Trailblazer]

In what way doesn't it make sense exactly? You've already accepted that it is as possible. I think you mean it is an uncomfortable and disconcerting concept (and I agree) but that is just something we need to deal with. I don't think it's healthy to try to pretend negative possibilities or realities simply don't exist.

I said "that makes no sense to me." I did not say it was not possible. Anything is possible unless you can prove it is impossible. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to me because of my preexisting belief that humans were created for a purpose so I have a bias.

In what way do they have a purpose (in the grand context we're talking about here)? There are things we use them for but that isn't the same as them having a fundamental a purpose. Also, humans are animals so why wouldn't we have the same kind of purpose as (other) animals, albeit maybe on a different scale?

By purpose, I meant they serve a purpose because they are used for certain purposes. I did not mean they have fundamental purpose as I believe humans have. Humans have some of the same purposes as other animals; for example, procreation and continuation of the species. That is our purpose as a physical being, but we have another purpose as a spiritual being, a purpose other animals do not have. I believe only humans have an eternal soul that continues on after the physical body dies, so the purpose of this life is to acquire the spiritual qualities (qualities of character) that we will need in the next life.

I don't think we can know, even if (we think) we want to. That was the whole point of my initial post. Lots of people believe, assume or claim different fundamental purposes for humanity (or a subset of it) but they're all ultimately speculation (or lies) based on their individual preferences or motives and thus no more (or less) worthy than any other human ideas.

No, we cannot know, we can only believe. People believe various things about the purpose of our lives, none of which can be proven.

I don't think we can know anything about God. Indeed, I think the concept is typically constructed in that way, that's why several religions literally have some kind of concept of God being unknowable or fundamentally beyond us. That is precisely why faith is a key requirement. It isn't about answering the big questions, it's about closing them off and not worrying about them.

I believe that the Essence of God (God's intrinsic nature) is unknowable and fundamentally beyond our understanding. That concept can be found all throughout the Writings of Baha'u'llah. There is no point worrying about what we cannot know, and I don't think we need to know the Essence of God in order to believe that God exists. According to the Abrahamic traditions God has certain attributes such as Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Immaterial, Sovereign, Eternal, Holy, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, All-Good, All-Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient. , but that is all we can ever know about God.

Again, you believe that but you can't know. It is perfectly possible that there is something (God or otherwise) out there that needs or uses human belief or faith in some way, and it may or may not be for good reasons.

I believe even though I cannot know in the sense that my belief can ever be proven to be true.

Yes, there could be aliens from another planet who sent men we believe are Messengers in an effort to deceive humans. Anything is possible unless it can be proven impossible.

What we end up believing is what makes the most sense to us. Christians believe in things that Baha'is do not believe in, like Satan and and that heaven and hell are literal places we go to when e die.

I agree, but I do think this is one of the intentions for the creation of religions and that can often play a practical role in supporting a good society. The problem is that, like any tool or system, it can also be misused for harmful or selfish purposes too.

Religion has been used for both good and bad purposes, for selfish and selfless purposes.

That is still essentially the same arrogance though. Raising humans as being somehow more important than anything else essentially comes from the same place as assuming there must be some kind of fundamental purpose to our existence. We feel the need to believe that because the alternative is depressing.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I never felt a need to believe that, I just came to believe it as a teaching of my religion. I cannot say what I would believe if I had never stumbled across the Baha'i Faith. I never thought about the purpose of life before that.

The alternative, that there is no purpose for our existence, is depressing, if you think about it. If there is no purpose then we may as well just eat, drink, and be merry. Why even care about altruism if we are not accountable to anyone higher than ourselves. We would just be doing good deeds out of the goodness of our hearts, and I doubt as many people would be as good as they are now.

I don't think that is true. Many animals do horrific things for no apparent benefit. Of course, they generally aren't consciously aware of that but act out of instinct that is just misplaced in context (for example, domestic cats will kill small birds and rodents and bring them home as instinctive hunting behaviour, even though it isn't necessary for them to do so).

Animals do these things out of instinct, not as a free will choice, and that is the difference between humans and animals. Only humans have free will to choose between good and bad behavior.

Humans have similar instincts and we still act on them (more often than we realises). We uniquely also have the creative intelligence to wilfully act against those instincts or indeed follow through with them but in expanded and developed ways. The consequences are different (and often more significant) but as a core principle, we're really no different to the cat proudly dropping a dead bird on the doormat.

Since humans have an animal nature they also act on instincts, but humans also have a spiritual nature and free will to choose, so they have the capacity to rise above their animal instincts. If humans did not have that capacity to choose they would not use any discretion in their sexual behavior, they would have sex with anyone who comes along.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nonsense.

Why?
You might say that God "created time" as in the time we measure here in this universe .. but time is relative in any case .. it doesn't follow that time cannot exist outside this universe.

"God" can refer to so many different concepts that I have to, for the sake of argument, narrow down the concepts to the most widely used ones.

Right .. so I agree that a definition of omnipotent that includes the logically impossible .. is .. illogical .

 

[Ella S.]

Right .. so I agree that a definition of omnipotent that includes the logically impossible .. is .. illogical .

Glad we agree.

 

[Trailblazer]

You cut off the most important parts of the explanation of what an Argument from Ignorance is. "In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof." and "the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.

Well, you have three examples. It's used to shift the burden of proof.

I do not see it that way. There is no burden of proof unless someone is trying to prove something, and I am not trying to prove anything since I did not even make a claim.

But even if I was trying to prove that scriptures have a divine source, that can never be proven. Thus it falls under categories 3 and 4 below. There can be no 'burden to prove' what can never be proven, that is nonsensical.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

If I claimed that the scriptures come from a divine source is true because that has not been proven false, that is an argument from ignorance.

If you claim that the scriptures do not come from a divine source is true because that has not been proven false, that is an argument from ignorance.

I am not claiming that the scriptures come from a divine source is true because that has not been proven false.
I am saying that whether the scriptures come from a divine source or not is unknown to be true or false because it is unknowable, since it cannot be proven either way.

When you reject the best explanation because it isn't an absolute proof or you affirm the truth of something because it has not been disproven, that is an Argument from Ignorance. So, if you're going to bolster your claim that these scriptures have a divine source by pointing out that I can't disprove that, then you are the one making the Argument from Ignorance.

What is the 'best explanation' for these scriptures is nothing more than a personal opinion.
In my opinion, the best explanation is that they come from a divine source.
In your opinion, the best explanation is that they were the product of humans with no divine guidance.

As I said above, I am not making an argument from ignorance because I am not claiming that these scriptures have a divine source by pointing out that you can't disprove that. I am saying that whether the scriptures come from a divine source or not is unknown to be true or false because it is unknowable, since it cannot be proven either way.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can provide proofs that God does not exist. These proofs are subject to being disproven through counter-argument, but they remain proofs nonetheless.

You cannot prove that God does not exist, not anymore than I can prove that God exists.
I am not going to try to disprove what you have not and never can prove.

If God is the creator of the universe, then that means he created time, since spacetime is the fabric of the universe. Under modal logic, this is temporally impossible, because causes always precede their effects at a prior point in time. In order to cause time to exist, it would already have to exist before itself, which is a contradiction.

If God is omnipotent, then can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Could God then lift that rock? This demonstrates an inherent contradiction of omnipotence, which is often used as one of the defining traits of God.

If God is omnipotent, then nothing is necessary for him. If God is omnibenevolent, then God would desire to relieve all unnecessary suffering. Since there is suffering, we can only assume that such a God does not exist.

If God is supernatural, then he can be disproven using Bayesian epistemology. Every supernatural claim that has been thoroughly investigated has turned out to be false, which means that the prior probability of any supernatural claim being true is incredibly low. This means that the likelihood that God exists is lower than the likelihood that he doesn't.

Those are just my four favorite ones. None of them are the Argument for Parsimony that you seem to be attacking here, which is used by a variety of agnostic atheists. I am not an agnostic atheist, though. I am a strong atheist. I claim that I know that there is no God, and these above proofs are some of the major reasons why I am confident in saying that.

You cannot use human logic to try to prove that God does not exist for the simple reason that God is not subject to logic.

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to human logic because one cannot encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

The only way humans can ever know anything about God is through the revelations of God that come to man through Messengers of God, which are recorded in scriptures of religions.

God is omnipotent does not mean God 'can do anything', it means God is all-powerful. There are things that God cannot do and still be God. For example, God cannot be less than omnipotent or less than omniscient and God cannot become a man because God is not a man, God is spirit.

There are no scriptures that say that God is omnibenevolent. They say that God is benevolent. There is no reason to think that a benevolent God would desire to relieve 'all unnecessary suffering.' Nobody can even know what suffering is necessary or unnecessary, only God knows that since only God is all-knowing. As such, whether suffering is necessary, what kind and how much, is nothing more than a personal opinion. As a personal opinion that is not based on facts and proofs, so it has nothing to do with logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

As for prophecy, most of the prophecies Jesus supposedly filled were not considered to be prophecies about the messiah, but were instead attributed to him by Christians post-hoc, whereas most of the actual prophecies about the messiah went unfulfilled by Jesus with a promise that he would fulfill them after his Second Coming.

That is correct, and Jesus never returned did He?

It is important to note that Jesus never promised to return to this world.
Jesus said that His work was finished here and He was no more in the world (John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30)

The only reason that Christians 'believe' that Jesus is going to return is because they misinterpreted the scriptures.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is correct, and Jesus never returned did He?

It is important to note that Jesus never promised to return to this world.
Jesus said that His work was finished here and He was no more in the world (John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30)

The only reason that Christians 'believe' that Jesus is going to return is because they misinterpreted the scriptures.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

If you look at the passage in Daniel 7, it starts off with metaphorical animal creatures who represent different nations. then it tags on "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence." So rationally, the son of man would have to be a metaphor for another earthly kingdom. Which kindgom do you think would be elevated to the metaphor of a human being? The People of Israel.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you look at the passage in Daniel 7, it starts off with metaphorical animal creatures who represent different nations. then it tags on "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence." So rationally, the son of man would have to be a metaphor for another earthly kingdom. Which kingdom do you think would be elevated to the metaphor of a human being? The People of Israel.

I believe it is about another earthly kingdom, the Kingdom of God on earth that Jesus promised would come:

Matthew 6
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

However, please note that nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus ever promise to be the one who would build that Kingdom, as many Christians believe.

I do not believe the Son of man is a metaphor, I believe the Son of man is referring to a man. Please note the him and the his in the following verses.

Christians believe that the following verses are about Jesus, but if Jesus was the Son of man, as Jesus claimed to be, the following verses cannot be about the Jesus.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Baha'is believe that these verses are about Baha'u'llah who was one like the Son of man.

We believe that Jesus ascended into heaven in the clouds. Baha’u’llah, one like the son of man, descended from the clouds of heaven of the Will of God, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. These verses are about an earthly Kingdom, not a heavenly Kingdom. Jesus’ Kingdom is in heaven, Baha’u’llah’s Kingdom will be on earth, after it is built by humans.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

[F1fan]

When it comes to believing in God, it is not just about logic and analysis of data, it is about what is in our "hearts" also.

There is no logic and analysis that will lead a rational mind to a conclusion that a God exists, expecially the Abrahamic versions. What you could mean by writing "hearts" is how emotion plays the most significant role in why humans believe in their cultural lore.

If one analyses data, the result will vary, depending on the initial hypothesis.

Theists don't apprach their belief with objective analysis.

If we start with an initial hypothesis of "God does not exist", it is unlikely that any data can prove it to be wrong.

The problem is no critical thinker would approach the idea of any God this way. You can't prove the non-existence of things that are not known to exist. There are thousands of God concepts, and no agreement of what any are that critical thinking could use to determine if it exists or not.

..and if we have an initial hypothesis "God exists", it then becomes an issue of which scriptures are more likely to be true or false .. a different question.

Hypothesis is the wrong word. You would assume a God exists and then find ways to justify belief.

 

[Ella S.]

What is the 'best explanation' for these scriptures is nothing more than a personal opinion.

No, it isn't. Best explanations are based on logical analysis, not personal opinion. They are objective. There is an objective way to evaluate the likelihoods of competing claims. We have a whole field dedicated to doing this called probability theory.

You cannot prove that God does not exist, not anymore than I can prove that God exists.
I am not going to try to disprove what you have not and never can prove.

You cannot use human logic to try to prove that God does not exist for the simple reason that God is not subject to logic.

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to human logic because one cannot encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

The only way humans can ever know anything about God is through the revelations of God that come to man through Messengers of God, which are recorded in scriptures of religions.

If God is not subject to logic, then that makes God's existence impossible and therefore necessarily false, which counts as a logical proof that he does not exist. God might not be subject to logic, but proofs are.

As I said above, I am not making an argument from ignorance because I am not claiming that these scriptures have a divine source by pointing out that you can't disprove that. I am saying that whether the scriptures come from a divine source or not is unknown to be true or false because it is unknowable, since it cannot be proven either way.

If you aren't making a claim, then there's nothing to debate. We both agree that the claim that these scriptures have a divine source does not meet the burden of proof, and I'm alright ending the discussion on that agreement. The topic was only brought up because other users were implying that I should recognize that it's true that certain scriptures have a divine source, and that this is clear evidence of the existence of God, both which are claims that need to meet the burden of proof.

 

[Ella S.]

If you look at the passage in Daniel 7, it starts off with metaphorical animal creatures who represent different nations. then it tags on "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence." So rationally, the son of man would have to be a metaphor for another earthly kingdom. Which kindgom do you think would be elevated to the metaphor of a human being? The People of Israel.

I actually think there's good reason to believe that the Gospel of Mark was entirely a parable, that Jesus was meant to represent Israel and that the 12 apostles represented the 12 tribes. This is especially evident in the story of the fig tree.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that explanation. The first time I heard it, I thought it was insane, but the more I look into the historical-critical analysis of the text the more plausible it seems.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Hypothesis is the wrong word. You would assume a God exists and then find ways to justify belief.

Something like that, yes.

If you would prefer to assume that there is no reason for our existence, then that is your prerogative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something like that, yes.

If you would prefer to assume that there is no reason for our existence, then that is your prerogative.

Why jump to faulty conclusions? Perhaps you should be asking questions instead of constantly using poor "logic".

One does not have to assume anything. Why not just follow the evidence?

 

[muhammad_isa]

One does not have to assume anything. Why not just follow the evidence?

Well, that is what I do.
I don't expect to "see God" in a physical sense, so it is up to the individual to decide what evidence they consider to be reliable, and coherent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that is what I do.
I don't expect to "see God" in a physical sense, so it is up to the individual to decide what evidence they consider to be reliable, and coherent.

What "evidence"? There does not seem to be any.

Do you even understand the concept?

 

[F1fan]

Something like that, yes.

If you would prefer to assume that there is no reason for our existence, then that is your prerogative.

Thanks for being honest. Yes it is my perogative to make assumptions that are baseless and self-serving. I could assume the existence of life or humans or whatever has a reason other than just nature doing its thing. But why? Just because there are religioius traditions that say humans are special and that a God exists? These ideas lack adequate evidence to warrant any such assumption. I have no impulse to assume any such thing due to social pressure and the need for conformity. I have no emotional need or insecurity that fooling myself about purpose would mask. If I have anxiety I prefer to face it head on and deal with the causes directly. If I opted to only mask anxiety with unwarranted religious ideas I would make my circumstance worse. I prefer an authentic understanding by following evidence and using reason.

You seem to suggest that you prefer to assume there is a reason for our existence. Why? What need do you have that motivates you to assume such a thing? Be aware that you could be mistaken, so why gamble on your meaning like this? Could it be that religious worlds are so murky and lack evidence to a degree that you have a safe illusory bubble to occupy?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You seem to suggest that you prefer to assume there is a reason for our existence. Why?

I always have done, from the age of 6-8 years old.
I'm just not able to accept that life, and all that goes on around me, is some kind of gigantic coincidence.

What need do you have that motivates you to assume such a thing?

I had no need to do so .. I had a secure home until I became a young man.

Be aware that you could be mistaken..

Can't we all?

 

[F1fan]

I always have done, from the age of 6-8 years old.

So you heard about these ideas at a very impressionable age. You were too young to read and understand complex abstractions that religious texts convey. So who influenced you?

I'm just not able to accept that life, and all that goes on around me, is some kind of gigantic coincidence.

This idea of a coincidence is also spread by religious disinformation. Nature working the way it does is just how things are. There is evidence of nature evolving in a way that humans evolved from more primitive species. There is no evidence that any of the many creation accounts are true or even plausible. So not believable from a purely rational approach. Religious people don’t use reason or logic to justify their beliefs.

I had no need to do so .. I had a secure home until I became a young man.

Yet here you are holding religious beliefs that you can’t explain as a reasoned conclusion via evidence. Your own testimony suggests you were indoctrinated and were committed by the time your brain fully developed. There is no indication that you understand how critical thinking works.

Can't we all?

I am following evidence to inform my judgments. Thus far theists are unable to present adequate evidence to persuade critical thinkers that their beliefs are valid and true. Theists don’t seem interested in understanding why they believe what they do.

 

[F1fan]

Well, that is what I do.
I don't expect to "see God" in a physical sense, so it is up to the individual to decide what evidence they consider to be reliable, and coherent.

Then anyone with a desire to have a certain opinion and conclusion can justify being biased. Notice how critical thinkers are always advocating for high evidentiary standards and objective reasoning. This is to follow evidence to truly reliable conclusions.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Dis-belief isn’t always evil, but it is not meant to be spread to everyone, because it is painful.