what is real?

If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?

Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not "real" but illusionary.

But how many Atheists would really allow such an existential crisis to happen in their scheme of things? Look at 667joe talking about "moral progress" - what morals? one might ask.

There can be no actual real "morals" in the middle of an existential crisis. Only illusions , evolutionary drives and human imaginings. The idea of moral "progress" would just be illusionary.

I suspect the reason why Atheists do not do this is because it's far too emotionally disturbing - which is fine - but then they always accuse Christians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?

Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not " ...[text shortened]... stians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".

A universe without God is an empty universe. By empty I mean not having absolutes. Without absolutes one is free to imagine whatever they want without boundaries. In other words, one is free to decide what constraints govern their actions, if any.

The logical conclusion of a reality without absolutes is...... what?

It puzzles me how one can function in such a reality.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination, then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?

Do morality or values posit the existence of an entity?

Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not "real" but illusionary.
So why don't we?

But how many Atheists would really allow such an existential crisis to happen in their scheme of things?
What about theists? You are claiming that morality and values are the product of evolutionary drives and the human imagination. You feel that that warrants throwing them out. Why don't you?

Should we throw out love, happiness, laughter and all those other things that humans do?

There can be no actual real "morals" in the middle of an existential crisis. Only illusions , evolutionary drives and human imaginings. The idea of moral "progress" would just be illusionary.
I agree that there can be no absolute morals, but that doesn't rule out relative ones.

I suspect the reason why Atheists do not do this is because it's far too emotionally disturbing - which is fine - but then they always accuse Christians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".
So you agree that your belief is based solely on the fact that not having it would be emotionally disturbing?

Originally posted by josephw
A universe without God is an empty universe. By empty I mean not having absolutes. Without absolutes one is free to imagine whatever they want without boundaries. In other words, one is free to decide what constraints govern their actions, if any.

The logical conclusion of a reality without absolutes is...... what?

It puzzles me how one can function in such a reality.

Why do you conclude that God is the only possible absolute? What an odd belief.
If an atom exists, surely its existence is absolute regardless of the existence of God?

As for imagination, surely that is also boundless regardless of the existence of God? Though you wouldn't think so considering the shockingly poor imagination of some theists on this site.

The extent of your imagination however is not solely what governs your actions. for example, just because God doesn't exist and you can imagine pigs flying doesn't mean they can.

So what were you getting at? If God didn't exist, what in your opinion would be the consequences?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?

Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not " ...[text shortened]... stians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".

'Morality' and 'values' are observable via the conscience. They are simply 'personal preferences' as some theists have derisively put it. However they are instinctive preferences, like the preference for eating or having sex, not minor preferences like the preference for blue over red.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?

Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not " ...[text shortened]... stians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".

Morality is not fixed or absolute, but it is real nonetheless. It is a product of human convention. A socially derived process that has evolved, and continues to evolve, over time. What is 'moral' in one era is 'immoral' in the next. We see this within the bible itself. Slavery is endorsed within the bible, but no Christian would (I presume) endorse slavery today.

Originally posted by rwingett
Morality is not fixed or absolute, but it is real nonetheless. It is a product of human convention. A socially derived process that has evolved, and continues to evolve, over time. What is 'moral' in one era is 'immoral' in the next. We see this within the bible itself. Slavery is endorsed within the bible, but no Christian would (I presume) endorse slavery today.

What is 'moral' in one era is 'immoral' in the next.

I think this is more accurately put as

What is 'moral' to one person is 'immoral' in the next.

With the understanding that social pressures on moral development are different in different times and places.

There is no god,i believe this to be fact,no one as ever changed my view on this......You do not exsist,your mum&dad by having sex create you,you exsist,you live,you die,you do not exsist...it`s as simple as that.Live your life and make the best of it, it`s all you get,nothing more.

Originally posted by mofferman
There is no god,i believe this to be fact,no one as ever changed my view on this......You do not exsist,your mum&dad by having sex create you,you exsist,you live,you die,you do not exsist...it`s as simple as that.Live your life and make the best of it, it`s all you get,nothing more.

Moral relativism. Nothing is real. This is exactly the mindset that atheism produces.

Originally posted by josephw
Moral relativism. Nothing is real. This is exactly the mindset that atheism produces.

He neither endorsed moral relativism nor claimed that nothing was real.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do you conclude that God is the only possible absolute? What an odd belief.
If an atom exists, surely its existence is absolute regardless of the existence of God?

As for imagination, surely that is also boundless regardless of the existence of God? Though you wouldn't think so considering the shockingly poor imagination of some theists on this si ...[text shortened]... at were you getting at? If God didn't exist, what in your opinion would be the consequences?

"If an atom exists, surely its existence is absolute regardless of the existence of God?"

Is that a question?

"If" an atom exists? Does it? If so, then how, when, where, and why does it exist?

If an atom exists, then it is an absolute that atoms exist. It follows logically, that, if atoms exist absolutely, the question of their origin comes into play.

1. Did the atom always exist? If so, how? What explanation can be given?

2. Did the atom have a beginning? If so, how did that happen?

The evolutionary hypothesis cannot account for the origin of the atom. (As an aside, the theory of evolution is disintegrating under scientific scrutiny as we speak)

The only logical, rational, conclusion to this discussion is this question; Did man create God, or did God create man?

We can't prove it one way or the other. But if there is, "God", then only He can prove anything.

And He has.

Originally posted by rwingett
He neither endorsed moral relativism nor claimed that nothing was real.

In your opinion.

But as I see it, denying the existence of God and assigning us to "nothing" is relativism pure and simple.

Here we go again. Down into the depths of meaninglessness.

Originally posted by josephw
Moral relativism. Nothing is real. This is exactly the mindset that atheism produces.

Nonsense.

Originally posted by josephw
In your opinion.

But as I see it, denying the existence of God and assigning us to "nothing" is relativism pure and simple.

Here we go again. Down into the depths of meaninglessness.

Is your religion really just a need to have some authority figure tell you you're a bad boy but Daddy will let you get away with it because he loves you?

My beliefs are based on what I think is most likely, not what I'd like.

Originally posted by rwingett
Morality is not fixed or absolute, but it is real nonetheless. It is a product of human convention. A socially derived process that has evolved, and continues to evolve, over time. What is 'moral' in one era is 'immoral' in the next. We see this within the bible itself. Slavery is endorsed within the bible, but no Christian would (I presume) endorse slavery today.

Slavery is endorsed within the bible, but no Christian would (I presume) endorse slavery today.

I, however, do accept slavery to some extent. I accept penal slavery, that is, slavery as a form of punishment for criminals. I also accept slavery as a legitimate response to human exigencies, such as for example, when early settlers colonised new territories and suffered limited resources. Should global warming become catastrophic, I would also recognise the right of the state to impose some of servitude on the population. I do not, however, accept slavery when racially discriminatory or when it is hereditary.