Godless PM

[loCAtek]

Alice: Granted, but one particular God was not my position in this debate; neither was any particular religion. I've stated that all religions are based in spirituality, not science. I've been using 'God' or belief in God as one form of spirituality, but not to discount all the other forms. Spirituality comes from within and is unquantifiable because of it's infinite nature.
At its highest degree, it is possible to love the whole universe.


The debate seems to claim atheism to be more accurate because of the available physical evidence provided by science. Since it is evidence of God or spirituality, that runs through the whole universe; then the whole of the universe needs to be examined before this claim can be more than a hypothesis.

Also, I make no claim that this applies, or should apply to everyone, but;

'Knowing there is no God'; simply feeling 'separate from God'; 'loosing one's faith' are considered very negative states to be in. That state, for many people, can lead to great anxiety, and for some, to great despair. Loosing that connection to spirituality in whatever form, is a state of losing hope. Some people in that state can completely loose the will to live, and suicide. This can happen to people regardless that their physical needs are being met. This illustrates that for many there is such a thing as 'spiritual need'.

Different than psychological depression, you can be in a otherwise good emotional state, but still be experiencing a 'Dark Night of the Soul'. While it can be a difficult process, it's also described as a significant stage in spiritual growth. Some Buddhist schools fully expect sincere students to go through this.
'Knowing there is no God' is not the conclusion for everyone, but a hypothesis that is just part of their overall spiritual studies.

[Crackpot]

Some religions don't care what type of person you are - you can be the most giving and forgiving, caring and sharing person in existence, but if you don't follow their religion you're screwed.

It that per people or per text?

[Crackpot]

Gob

Your issue has long been with how people use god rather than with who or what god truly is.

[Sue U]

Respectfully, in asking my question, I was not seeking a justification of anyone's belief or non-belief in a god or gods. My question is really very simple, and very specific: Assume that as a factual certainty there is no god; what would you do differently, and why?

So far, only Gob has answered that question directly (because that is his assumption anyway), and alice I think has answered indirectly.

[Big RR]

Some religions don't care what type of person you are - you can be the most giving and forgiving, caring and sharing person in existence, but if you don't follow their religion you're screwed.

It that per people or per text?

Both in my experience. And you'll find it in many religions, from the "born again" christians to the right wing moslems to the havily orthodox jews (I imagine hindus as well, although I really don't know; never really heard of buddhists being this way). Not all religious people and, IMHO, not anywhere near a majority, but they are there. As Monty Python's Life of Brian showed, even with the same "teacher" people will choose to fight over trivial matters, like whether to follow the gourd or the sandal; they'll eventually choose to condemn everyone who isn't just like them. How lucky we all are that god is not that way.

[loCAtek]

Respectfully, in asking my question, I was not seeking a justification of anyone's belief or non-belief in a god or gods. My question is really very simple, and very specific: Assume that as a factual certainty there is no god; what would you do differently, and why?

So far, only Gob has answered that question directly (because that is his assumption anyway), and alice I think has answered indirectly.

To be perfectly frank, since I've been through this recently; not that I 'knew there was no God' but that I feel separated from the spiritual. The separation is Hell enough, if I knew there was no God and connection was never possible- I'd have ended it. Material existence without spirituality seems pointless.

[Big RR]

Lo--do you think the existence of a supreme being is necessary for a spritual existence? IMHO it is not; one can be connected to the universe on a physical and a metaphysical/spiritual level without needing the presence of any god--all that is needed is the understanding that we can and do interact on many levels including one which we call the spiritual one. Indeed, don't ome of the buddhist teachings refer to the spritual realm as a collective consciousness rather than the abode of a supreme being?

As for your characterization of the spearation from the spiritual connectivity as a "hell", I believe I can understand and sympathize with that. Indeed, I think achieving this spiritual connectivity is the ultimate aim of existence, a way of transcending the discrete separateness of each of us within our physical world, and the spearation as a form of hell which can only be remedied when the connectivity is achieved. IMHO, achieving this will enable us to understand and experience all.

[loCAtek]

Yes, that is my hope.

[Crackpot]

Some religions don't care what type of person you are - you can be the most giving and forgiving, caring and sharing person in existence, but if you don't follow their religion you're screwed.

It that per people or per text?

Both in my experience. And you'll find it in many religions, from the "born again" christians to the right wing moslems to the havily orthodox jews (I imagine hindus as well, although I really don't know; never really heard of buddhists being this way). Not all religious people and, IMHO, not anywhere near a majority, but they are there. As Monty Python's Life of Brian showed, even with the same "teacher" people will choose to fight over trivial matters, like whether to follow the gourd or the sandal; they'll eventually choose to condemn everyone who isn't just like them. How lucky we all are that god is not that way.

The text simply doesn't support that conclusion.

[Crackpot]

Respectfully, in asking my question, I was not seeking a justification of anyone's belief or non-belief in a god or gods. My question is really very simple, and very specific: Assume that as a factual certainty there is no god; what would you do differently, and why?

So far, only Gob has answered that question directly (because that is his assumption anyway), and alice I think has answered indirectly.

It's not a simple question that's why I asked for clarification. A historic "there is no God" quite frankly would lead to a world completely dissimilar to the one we have today. So that could be safely ruled out where the question really needs clarification is if this proof is personal or universal. If the former I suppose I'd shift slightly to a more Randian objectivist outlook on life since self interest/self preservation would reign supreme. Something that would be much more extreme if the latter ruled the day.

[Sean]

Respectfully, in asking my question, I was not seeking a justification of anyone's belief or non-belief in a god or gods. My question is really very simple, and very specific: Assume that as a factual certainty there is no god; what would you do differently, and why?

So far, only Gob has answered that question directly (because that is his assumption anyway), and alice I think has answered indirectly.

I don't think I would do anything differently Sue. The moral code I live by is my own. I don't do or say anything to please or in deference to a deity.

[Crackpot]

I disagree I think eventually Logic would win out. Without the "just in case" excuse altruism would be severely curtailed.

[loCAtek]

Granted, without the 'compassion and divine oneness';I'd exterminate every last one of you mother-fuckers!!!!

[Big RR]

I disagree I think eventually Logic would win out. Without the "just in case" excuse altruism would be severely curtailed.

I don't agree Crackpot; we are social creatures and rely upon one another for our survival. Rand and the so-called objectivist thinking aside, I think logic would dictate that we would have to develop social conventions (morals) for our mutual benefit, and to mutually care for one another as part of a society for our mutual protection. Absent that, I think the human race would eventually cease to exist. Clearly appeasing an all powerful god "just in case" is one of the reasons some altruistic acts occur, but in the absence of that reason, I think ogic would dictate much the same thing.

[loCAtek]

The reality is that only works in small societies; social behavior developed to protect the family group, and that included protecting it from outsiders.

[Crackpot]

That's why I don't think they'd be eliminated. But absent any reasoning otherwise True altruism would die out Since logic would dictate serving ones one interests first. And like it or not there are causes that wouldn't raise enough of an eyebrow to trip serving the greater good switch.

Not to mention as logic serves as a temperance to religion, religion serves as a temperance to logic. If nothing else the concept of "God" instills in us a sense of humility checking the excesses we create when we think we are the apex of the universe.

[loCAtek]

Humility and compassion. According to 'survival of the fittest', compassion isn't logical; humanity shouldn't allow our weak, elderly or sick to survive. Without empathy, Might would be Right, and only the strongest would be allowed to live.

[Andrew D]

... humanity shouldn't allow our weak, elderly or sick to survive. Without empathy, Might would be Right, and only the strongest would be allowed to live.

I disagree. Caring for the weak, the elderly, and the sick is rational on at least two grounds. One, specific to the individual being cared for, is that that person's wisdom, depth of experience, etc., provide benefits which outweigh the detriments of having to care for that person. The other, not specific to the individual being cared for, is pure rational self-interest: If I contribute my part to a social structure in which the weak, the elderly, and the sick are cared for, then that social structure (assuming that it survives long enough) will also provide care for me when I am weak, elderly, or sick. Empathy is not necessary to either version of self-interested behavior.

[loCAtek]

Granted, however the weak and sick also include the young (orphaned)and/or handicapped that have a high risk of not necessarily contributing significantly to society. Historically, these 'spared' individuals usually became part of the slave or servant class, since they also became indentured to whomever paid for their care.

The other: contribution to the social structure- assumes the structure already has compassionate interest. Modern society, particularly America, as it becomes more secular, has opted to warehouse the elderly. Choosing instead to ignore the emotional bond and 'not care' about them anymore.

[Big RR]

"Not care" about the elderly anymore? A substantial amount of our resources is dedicated to the care of the health and well being of the elderly. From social security and medicare, to pensions and retirees health benefits, the needs of the elderly demand a significant poertion of our resources, and this amount is only increasing. Yes, they may be "warehoused" and placed in institutional care rather than cared for at home, but this is a consequence more of our lifestyle and the requirement that two parents must generally work in a family to provide a "comfortable" life for their families--no one is available to care for them. The same is true for children BTW, who are routinely placed in day care and after schoold programs, etc.

However, the basic physical needs of the elderly are provided, and woe be it unto anyone who seeks to reverse this. Even commenting that providing sophisticated healthcare procedures to the very old (like bypass surgery to those in their 80s) is a waste of resource will result in a strong backlash; and don't even mention choice options ala physician assisted suicide. I think Andrew is right, we all know we will be among the elderly one day (if we are lucky), and realize that unless we keep the conventions in place to care for them, there will be nothing to provide for our own care. It's not altruism, but enlightened self interest.