Luigi Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 I essentially agree. This is why it was necessary for God to remove us from His presence and remove our memories of Him in order to test our character. In an environement where we must beleive in God with faith instead of have a true knowledge of Him our true character is indeed revealed.So God meant for us all to be atheists (since that would reveal our true character)? But then you state:Jeffrey Dahmer realized the truth behind atheism - if we (individually and collectively) will be nothing in the space of a few years, then nothing we do now ultimately matters, and we have no reason not to do whatever we feel like and can get away with.Or maybe 'whatever we feel like for some or even most of us is actually a good thing. Maybe I feel like making my children happy and being responsible so that I maintain good relationships with other people. Maybe I feel like finding work which fits my talents and interests so I make a meangingful contribution to the soceity I'm in. Maybe I feel like respecting what is mine and what is yours so that we get along. Maybe I feel like helping my neighbors, friends and family. Do you think that if you did 'whatever you felt like' you'd behave like Dahmer? Link to comment
emeliza Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Jeffrey Dahmer realized the truth behind atheism - if we (individually and collectively) will be nothing in the space of a few years, then nothing we do now ultimately matters, and we have no reason not to do whatever we feel like and can get away with.I thought Dahmer did what he did to have those people stay with him and be apart of him. I also thought he was a psycho path. Most atheist I know aren't anything like that. This seems like it is completely a Godwin's Law issue. Link to comment
Luigi Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 If I thougt Tarski could be convinced, or even you, I might say something different. If I cared whether I appeared to win or lose, I might say something different.As it is, I will simply note, again, once one assumes there is no God, there can be no evidence, in principle, to the contrary; an implication of atheism is that Tarski, you, and Jeff Dahmer are precisely morally equivalent; and I view it as a good thing that most atheists, unlike Dahmer, do not embrace the full moral consequences of their philosophy.Apparently you didn't get it the first time: Don't give us that atheist religion leads people to be like Dahmer nonsense. Need I remind you of all the people who have killed believing it was God's will? Here's one you might be familiar with:There are plenty of countries chuck full of atheists where people don't go around destroying each other. Sweden, for example, is the most atheistic according to adherents.com but has a murder rate of 2 per 100,000 (and some contend 1 per 100,000 since Sweden stats include alleged murders of Swedes outside of the country) while the United States has a rate of 5.5 per 100,000. To take one homicidal maniac and to suggest it reflects the 'religion' of all atheists is like someone comparing all theists to Bin Laden-either is irresponsible and absurd. Link to comment
Jason Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 So God meant for us all to be atheists (since that would reveal our true character)?No, God meant for us all to be agnostics - in other words, for us to not be sure whether there was really a God or not.Or maybe 'whatever we feel like for some or even most of us is actually a good thing. Maybe I feel like making my children happy and being responsible so that I maintain good relationships with other people.By the atheist view, your children and other people you meet now will all be dead and gone in a few years. Your efforts at making them happy and maintaining good relationships will be completely forgotten and consequenceless. Maybe I feel like finding work which fits my talents and interests so I make a meangingful contribution to the soceity I'm in.By the atheist view, in ten thousand years the society you contributed to and your contribution will amount to absolutely nothing.Maybe I feel like respecting what is mine and what is yours so that we get along.Which is where the "what I can get away with" part comes in. Maybe I feel like helping my neighbors, friends and family.By the atheist view, your efforts at helping your friends and family will all be forgotten and meaningless, as they also will have been forgotten.Do you think that if you did 'whatever you felt like' you'd behave like Dahmer?No, but I recognize the possibility that I might eventually come to do things like what Dahmer did if I really felt that all we have is a few years and then oblivion. Link to comment
Log Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Apparently you didn't get it the first time:Apparently, you can't read OR you don't get it at all. Link to comment
Tarski Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 As it is, I will simply note, again, once one assumes there is no God, there can be no evidence, in principle, to the contrary; an implication of atheism is that Tarski, you, and Jeff Dahmer are precisely morally equivalent; .Flatly false.You just assert this as if it were obvious. But, it is actually obviously wrong. Very wacky! You haven't shown it. Indeed you can't. Your problem is that so many incorrect things just seem obvious to you so you just keep asserting them.Repetitive bare assertions do not amount to arguments and certainly aren't convincing to anyone willing to think about it. Link to comment
DerAlte Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 I essentially agree. This is why it was necessary for God to remove us from His presence and remove our memories of Him in order to test our character. In an environement where we must beleive in God with faith instead of have a true knowledge of Him our true character is indeed revealed.Jeffrey Dahmer realized the truth behind atheism - if we (individually and collectively) will be nothing in the space of a few years, then nothing we do now ultimately matters, and we have no reason not to do whatever we feel like and can get away with.At the very least, this atheist would like to leave wonderful memories and wonderful genetics, I might add, for those following after me. To be a part of making history, genetically and 'memetically' (is that a word?), is enough for me.What a great reward! And I came to this all by myself, with no prayers to a fuzzy, inconceivable entity hanging out somewhere in the sky, near Kolob. Link to comment
Luigi Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 No, but I recognize the possibility that I might eventually come to do things like what Dahmer did if I really felt that all we have is a few years and then oblivion.Well if you feel this way maybe you'd better stay a theist and I suppose as long as your the tolerant kind then good for you. Link to comment
Tarski Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 ...and....Note that this talk of "ends" equivocates on the sense of the word end. Think of ends and means. An "end" in that sense does not have to be temporally final. For example, the means my be a democratic world and the "end" or purpose may be to create a certain type of world history--even if that history is finite. One we see this, we realize that not all actions have the same end in an atheistic universe since some sets of actions result in one type of history and others to a totally different history. Consider the two possibilities. A. The world is destroyed by nuclear holocaust in 2010.B. Society continues for millenia and we eventualy reach the stars, overcome poverty and much human suffering.These are not equivalent even if the second one cannot last for a literal eternity. One may reasonable take the second as an "end" or desired result (a good history of the universe). To achieve this one needs appropriate actions. What we do will make a difference as to whether A. happens or B. happens. This gives meaning to all those who care to take it onboard. To say "yes but I will be dead" is just infantile and selfish.To say "yes, but this better universe and better society may not last forever" is equally infantile. Link to comment
DerAlte Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Well if you feel this way maybe you'd better stay a theist and I suppose as long as your the tolerant kind then good for you.Wow! Well, when I lost my faith in God, I did do some things that I wouldn't have done, otherwise, probably. But, I never, for even a split second, thought about such a thing, nor that I could ever do such a thing in the future. Yikes! My respect for life, all life, has increased since I lost a faith in God.You just haven't tried it. Jump in! The water is not so bad here on this side. #####Sorry, I meant this for Jason (the post above Luigi's). Link to comment
Luigi Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Apparently, you can't read OR you don't get it at all.I never saw where you made a convincing argument for the whole Dahmer thing that I refuted with the empirical example or Sweden but since you seem to feel you've refuted that argument you could maybe point it out to me? Oh, and by the way, should I consider Andrea Yates your moral equivalent? Link to comment
Tarski Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 QUOTE(Jason @ Aug 22 2008, 02:53 PM) No, but I recognize the possibility that I might eventually come to do things like what Dahmer did if I really felt that all we have is a few years and then oblivion.I see this as evidence of what kind of being you already are deep down.Whether God exists or not doesn't change whether I am kind or not, whether I am selfish or not, whether I am fair or not. Even if God should not only exist but should in fact come down and commanded me to be cruel, it would not change my desire to not be cruel. If you really need God hanging over your head to keep you from being a cruel killer, then you already are, latently, such a person. Link to comment
Mudcat Posted August 22, 2008 Author Share Posted August 22, 2008 God would only be responsible for our evil if he had created us ex nilhlo or out of nothing, with full knowledge and aforethought, as it seems a lot of Christians think. We believe that we have always exsisted as separate intelligentces.That is a concept, I can't quite fathom. If we have always existed as separate intelligences, then how could we be the children of God. Did he select us out of the intelligence pool? I was under the impression there was some sort of spiritual procreation, that LDS believed in. Am I wrong, if not, I don't understand the correlation.I'm bumping this, because I am curious for a response...anybody.and I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle of the "Athiest fight at the MADB Corral!" Link to comment
Jason Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 You just haven't tried it. Jump in! The water is not so bad here on this side. #####Sorry, I meant this for Jason (the post above Luigi's).Thank you, but I am quite happy where I am. Link to comment
DerAlte Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 That is a concept, I can't quite fathom. If we have always existed as separate intelligences, then how could we be the children of God. Did he select us out of the intelligence pool? I was under the impression there was some sort of spiritual procreation, that LDS believed in. Am I wrong, if not, I don't understand the correlation.I'm bumping this, because I am curious for a response...anybody.and I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle of the "Athiest fight at the MADB Corral!"Well, certainly B. H. Roberts believed that. And he derived his beliefs from the King Follett funeral sermon, I believe. There is also some scripture that speaks of intelligences, and some being higher than others. At the same time, I'm not sure that is doctrine. You have to bring BCSpace in to figure that out.I'm not sure if McConkie believed as Roberts did, but I can't remember. You forget a lot when you lose your faith in God. Link to comment
Jason Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 I see this as evidence of what kind of being you already are deep down.Do you think that someone who is basically good deep down can never be evil? If you really need God hanging over your head to keep you from being a cruel killer, then you already are, latently, such a person.I wasn't arguing that God keeps me honest. I was arguing that atheism is ultimately bleak in its outlook, and that someone who pursues it to its logical conclusion, and believes that everything they do eventually will be nothing might adopt a somewhat despairing attitude that allows the sort of things that Dahmer did. Link to comment
DerAlte Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Thank you, but I am quite happy where I am.Well, just so you can't say I didn't offer. Link to comment
Mudcat Posted August 22, 2008 Author Share Posted August 22, 2008 At the same time, I'm not sure that is doctrine. You have to bring BCSpace in to figure that out.Thanks for the thoughts DerAlte.Maybe the LDS Marshall will show up. Link to comment
Tarski Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Do you think that someone who is basically good deep down can never be evil? I wasn't arguing that God keeps me honest. I was arguing that atheism is ultimately bleak in its outlook, and that someone who pursues it to its logical conclusion, and believes that everything they do eventually will be nothing might adopt a somewhat despairing attitude that allows the sort of things that Dahmer did.Nope.Look, I wonder, do you every plant flowers in your garden? Why would you do that knowing they will not survive the winter?I think the trouble is that theists are not good at following atheism to its alleged "logical conclusions". Being a professional mathematician, I am faily good at logical conclusions. But, for the life of me, I can see how atheism has the logical conclusions that theists claim it does.I think it just doesn't. Link to comment
DerAlte Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Do you think that someone who is basically good deep down can never be evil? I wasn't arguing that God keeps me honest. I was arguing that atheism is ultimately bleak in its outlook, and that someone who pursues it to its logical conclusion, and believes that everything they do eventually will be nothing might adopt a somewhat despairing attitude that allows the sort of things that Dahmer did.As I said before, I don't believe that everything...will eventually be nothing....Who are you arguing against? I am part of the mosaic that is history; a very real part. That is exhilarating! Why would I want to add a Dahmer element into the beauty that I am enjoying creating? and being a part of?There is simply no chance.What is your definition of evil? Link to comment
Tarski Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Well, just so you can't say I didn't offer. I guess he will miss out on all the continual wild parties with beautiful sexy women in the playboy mansion that all atheists enjoy. Link to comment
Jason Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 To say "yes but I will be dead" is just infantile and selfish.To say "yes, but this better universe and better society may not last forever" is equally infantile.Infantile or realistic? From what I can tell you are refusing the logical ultimate implications of the atheist philosophy - that is, that nothing you do will possibly matter for more than a limited span of years. It may be a longer or shorter span depending on your contribution, but that is all. Link to comment
Uncertain Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 If I thougt Tarski could be convinced, or even you, I might say something different. If I cared whether I appeared to win or lose, I might say something different.As it is, I will simply note, again, once one assumes there is no God, there can be no evidence, in principle, to the contrary; an implication of atheism is that Tarski, you, and Jeff Dahmer are precisely morally equivalent; and I view it as a good thing that most atheists, unlike Dahmer, do not embrace the full moral consequences of their philosophy.Hi Log,Hmm, I am not sure I agree. Consider in LDS theology it is my understanding there are certain eternal and uncaused moral laws that exist independent of God. In such a system morality is not necessarily determined by God since God did not make the laws. The laws are a brute fact of the universe like gravity. Hence even if God did not exist morality would still be around because the moral laws were not caused by God and exist independent of his existence. Therefore in the LDS paradigm God is not necessary for meaningful moral laws.All the Best,Uncertain Link to comment
Jason Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 As I said before, I don't believe that everything...will eventually be nothing....Who are you arguing against?Why don't you believe everything will eventually be nothing? Don't you believe in the laws of thermodynamics? The big crunch? By science's view everything must eventually become nothing.What is your definition of evil?At it's simplest, "that which is morally wrong." Link to comment
DerAlte Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 I guess he will miss out on all the continual wild parties with beautiful sexy women in the playboy mansion that all atheists enjoy. Thanks for reminding me. I lost all track of time. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to run and jump onto my Ducatti and skadattle across town to Hugh's mansion and snort some party powder and hang out with all the people that are.....well, people. Where I feel comfortable. Of course, with no helmet! Crazy atheist that I am. It doesn't matter if I get there, right? Yeah, forget the helmet. Off I go! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.