Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[DNB]

Might I just point out that you and those like you only CLAIM to "comprehend a spiritual entity." Nothing about what you write here suggests that you actually do, that it's anything more than your imagination.

Ah, but you reveal your obtuseness.

 

[DNB]

My beliefs are bolstered by empirical evidence and extensive evidence, færie tales are not.

Must spirituality include belief in a god?

Hear hear! So how is your theology not a færie tale, if it's unfounded, ie: not based on objective evidence?

Oh, look at that, we have ourselves an extremely perceptive person here, who claims that if it is not evident to them, then it therefore does not exist.
Always priding yourself on your rationality and sober approach to investigation.

I would strongly challenge your ability to perceive what is around you, and also to interpret it.

 

[DNB]

The 'spiritual dimension' is, I believe, purely a result of our imaginations. It can help with social coherence in medium to large groups, but increases inter-group hostility.

knock it off - love rules, and only humans seek it. No one appreciates a depraved and selfish person, except for the non-humans.

 

[DNB]

What lines? Yes, I look to what can be seen and understood to describe what I consider to be mythology.

You don't know which lines - where do you think that the spirit resides?

 

[DNB]

Like religions.

It's the atheists who need a placebo; theists are humble and reverent towards their Maker.

 

[DNB]

If something exists within our universe, then it is physical. If it is physical, then it is measurable and testable. How do we observe or measure or test for the spiritual, if it exists?

You don't know the difference between wickedness and righteousness: where it comes from, what it stands for, and what it leads to?

 

[Polymath257]

You don't know which lines - where do you think that the spirit resides?

I don’t think spirits exist at all.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't know the difference between wickedness and righteousness: where it comes from, what it stands for, and what it leads to?

Evil comes from selfishness and a lack of compassion. Even other sprees have that.

knock it off - love rules, and only humans seek it. No one appreciates a depraved and selfish person, except for the non-humans.

You have clearly never had a dog.

Love is an emotion. It happens in our brains, just like all other emotions.

 

[Little Dragon]

You don't know the difference between wickedness and righteousness: where it comes from, what it stands for, and what it leads to?

I know that those things are abstract human fabrication, mere ideas or opinions. That arise naturally from societal and environmental needs and pressures.
Your definition of righteousness, or that which is good. Is not mine. Your concept of wickedness, or that which is evil. Is not mine.
Your morality, is not my morality.
Your God, is not my God.
Your Bible, is not my Bible.

In my view, Good = Things I approve of and Evil = Things I do not approve of
My mind is what I use to determine the difference. I use various processes to do this. None of them involve the Bible or any holy book.

 

[Little Dragon]

You have clearly never had a dog.

Exactly. One of the most loving species you will meet on this world.

 

[Polymath257]

It's the atheists who need a placebo; theists are humble and reverent towards their Maker.

But arrogant and haughty when it comes to other people and in thinking they know the truth.

 

[Little Dragon]

It's the atheists who need a placebo; theists are humble and reverent towards their Maker.

Why? You didn't ask to be born did you, why be humble and reverent? You don't owe it anything. That's how I would see it, if I believed in your God.

 

[Polymath257]

It's the atheists who need a placebo; theists are humble and reverent towards their Maker.

As opposed to being humble and open to the evidence. Letting the universe around us speak for itself by giving us the evidence to understand what is here.

And yes, that includes allowing the evidence (or lack thereof) to determine if there even *was* a 'Maker'. Instead of arrogantly *assuming* there was, let's be humble and seek and see what we find.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, look at that, we have ourselves an extremely perceptive person here, who claims that if it is not evident to them, then it therefore does not exist.
Always priding yourself on your rationality and sober approach to investigation.

I would strongly challenge your ability to perceive what is around you, and also to interpret it.

Interesting that our ability to perceive has worked so well to promote science and technology. That computer you are using is because we interpret the evidence and understand it. We can then use that understanding to make our lives better. This works much better than sitting and praying.

Again, if you have an insight, please point out the *evidence* and most atheists would happily change their minds *if* the evidence says that we need to do so.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's the atheists who need a placebo; theists are humble and reverent towards their Maker.

In this series of 6 posts, the last thing we see is "humble and reverent." I make an observation, you call me "obtuse." (That's a personal remark, not an argument.) You accuse @Little Dragon of not knowing "the difference between wickedness and righteousness." (Ad hominem, isn't it?)

And so forth.

Oh, look at that, we have ourselves an extremely perceptive person here, who claims that if it is not evident to them, then it therefore does not exist.
Always priding yourself on your rationality and sober approach to investigation.

I would strongly challenge your ability to perceive what is around you, and also to interpret it.

But this, to @Valjean says it all. Because, I put it to you, if you don't accept the existence of fairies, it's because they are not evident to you. And by your own argument, you are priding yourself on your rationality and sober approach to investigation.

You see, you have all these things in your head, and you accept their reality. Some of us don't have those things swimming around in our minds. What should we do -- accept yours as the only "real mind?"

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly. One of the most loving species you will meet on this world.

I trust a dog for character evaluations more than I do most people.

 

[Polymath257]

I know that those things are abstract human fabrication, mere ideas or opinions. That arise naturally from societal and environmental needs and pressures.
Your definition of righteousness, or that which is good. Is not mine. Your concept of wickedness, or that which is evil. Is not mine.
Your morality, is not my morality.
Your God, is not my God.
Your Bible, is not my Bible.

In my view, Good = Things I approve of and Evil = Things I do not approve of
My mind is what I use to determine the difference. I use various processes to do this. None of them involve the Bible or any holy book.

My morality is based on compassion, a sense of fairness, and a requirement to think through the consequences of my actions.

No deities required.

 

[Little Dragon]

My morality is based on compassion, a sense of fairness, and a requirement to think through the consequences of my actions.

I like the phrase, live and let live. It sums my up moral philosophy quite well.

 

[Little Dragon]

I trust a dog for character evaluations more than I do most people.

Too right, a dog can literally sniff out a bad egg.

 

[Little Dragon]

You accuse @Little Dragon of not knowing "the difference between wickedness and righteousness." (Ad hominem, isn't it?)

It's ok. I get that a lot.