I am sure that nobody knows why you are here.

The question, “Why am I here?” assumes there is an answer, that there has to be a reason. I believe there is no reason. Humans are led to assume there is a reason. Believers in theistic religion believe the reason is to worship their imaginary deity. Believers in ideology or religion believe they are designated to spread their faith. Most humans like all members of other sexual species come into existence, reproduce and die. Members of non-sexual species may simply split.

Some of us who recognise the absurdity of the question make up reasons. We want to leave the world a better place. Of course, what makes the world a better place is a matter of contention. Hitler thought the creation of the thousand year Reich would leave the world a better place. Most of us disagree. Alexander the Great, the vainglorious fool, wept because he had no more worlds to conquer. Couldn’t he think of something better to do than to kill many people and subjugate many others?

Some poets recognized the futility of grandiose plans for human existence. Thomas Grey in “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard” wrote:

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e’er gave,
Awaits alike th’ inevitable hour,
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

The words of religious leaders can be questioned. The Synoptic Gospels attribute the following quote to Jesus: "Whoever is not with Me is against Me…” (Matthew 12:30)

I don’t want to follow Jesus. I also don’t want to be an enemy of those who follow Jesus. The words of Jesus call on his followers to make those who don’t follow him the enemy. Much suffering has been caused by those who follow the intolerant words of Jesus.

I find greater inspiration in the words of Jimmy Durante, “Why can't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone."

Yes, david f, for the atheist there is absolutely no reason for why we are here.

Everything – the universe, life - everything just happened unintentionally into being. There is no particular way that things are supposed to be. Therefore, nobody can do anything that is objectively right or wrong.

You don’t seem to think much of Hitler and Alexander the Great but they were no better or worse people than you.

You want to be left alone – yet rather curiously you choose to post comments on a forum – why bother doing that?

And if other people don’t leave you alone, whatever they may do to you, they are not doing anything wrong no matter how much you may not like it.

I guess you can look forward to being dead and then you will be left alone – maybe.

Why am I here?
I once asked my mum to which she replied
'Cause papa's and my life was so humdrum
Then you came along and simply stood out
And taught us both what life's all about
So you see folks and here's the truth
Because they looked after me in my youth
The reason I'm here is to do the same
Look after them as old they became.
The challenge of our lives is how we choose
To live out our existence and not to lose
Our sense of integrity with which we're all born
And to give as much love so we don't end up alone.

Matter has intelligence.
We are a natural product of matter.
The question should be: why is matter here?

Matter, energy, call it what you will.
It has always been here.
There is no reason.

Matter is constantly in flux.
Many forms are possible.
We are one of them.

If I assume, briefly, that a magical entity created matter....
I am led to wonder why there is so much bowing and scraping towards this supposed entity.
I am sure that somewhere, someone benefits from this zombie like approach.

I am saddened that people are locked in to their need to 'follow the leader'.
(When there isn't one, they make one up.)
Superstitious fear does the rest.

It seems to me that we must all acknowledge basic truth.
Lack of truth leads people in different directions.
This can cause discontent and division.
So if it divides, it is likely not the truth?

Dear JP,

I don’t think there is any way objectively to determine what is right and wrong. I think each of us has an idea of what is right and wrong. That is determined by the society around us, our background and our own predilections. How would you determine objectively what is right and wrong?

You wrote: “You don’t seem to think much of Hitler and Alexander the Great but they were no better or worse people than you.”

On what basis do you make that statement? I don’t wish to conquer anybody or to regard anyone who doesn’t follow me as an enemy so I think for that reason I am a better person than Alexander the Great, Hitler and Jesus.

I am a human being, a social animal. I enjoy interacting with other human beings. However, I don’t wish them to do anything except interact with me which you have done, and I thank you for it. If you or anybody else interferes with my remains when I am dead I have no reason to think it will bother me although it may bother my descendants.

Why am I here? Because my parents had a bit of fun one night.

Do I have any responsibilities while I'm here? Only to fill the time with as little pain & as much pleasure as I can, & not hurt others along the way if possible.

Like the pleasure of learning so many things this world offers to learn about.

Like the pleasure of picking the fruit or vegetables you planted a few months or years ago.This made even better when you are showing your grand kids where such things come from.

Like flying a kite with 5 year old grand daughter for the first time

Like the joy of your dogs welcome home, when you've been away for even a short while.

Like the satisfaction of getting the checkered flag at Bathurst in a touring car or an F1.

Like looking down a new fence you've spent a week building after a flood took the old one.

Like knowing your horse will jump that log because he trusts you not to ask for anything he can't handle.

Like the satisfaction of always getting the third wire on the carrier.

Like the pleasure of balancing a yacht surfing down a wave

I have my parents to thank for all the experiences I've had. When I was 12 I wanted a pony. They couldn't afford to buy one, but told me I could have one if I could buy it myself. They would find a way of keeping it. I guess they didn't know how much I had saved from my paper run to buy a new bike.

Just 3 months later I arrived home one afternoon riding my pony, bought for 11 pounds, about a week of the basic wage at the time. I never could afford a saddle, but the American indians didn't bother with them & they rode OK.

They had taught me I could have anything I wanted, if I was prepared to work for it. Luckily I have never wanted to be prime minister.

Ipso Fatso – you seem to think that truth matters. If though, as you say, there is no reason for anything, then why should truth matter? So what if people go off in different directions?

You say “matter has intelligence”. Can you prove that? Atoms seem unintelligent to me. Just because you have billions of “dumb” atoms joined together in the human brain does not establish that it is the dumb matter that has somehow “become” intelligent. Maybe there is something more than just matter that enables intelligence?

david f – you say, “I don’t think there is any way objectively to determine what is right and wrong”. If it is not possible to determine what is objectively right and wrong, then effectively, there is no objective right and wrong. That is why I say that Hitler and Alexander were no better or worse people than you (or me). No one, on those terms, can be said to be meaningfully good or bad.

We can say that we don’t like what they did, but that is not the same as saying they committed objective wrong.

You say that you are a “better” person that Hitler, Alexander and Jesus. Yes, you may have you own criteria for making that judgment, but that is all it is, merely your own personal beliefs or feelings about it. There is no reason why anyone else should agree with you.

Even if others should happen to agree with you, as many would likely say they do, that does not establish anything. It merely shows that many others happen to have the same feelings or preferences about it. Of course, it could be claimed that is all that makes something morally “right” – the fact that the majority of the population happens to prefer one thing over another.

It seems to me that the only possible way for there to be any objectivity to morality is if there is a standard that is greater than, and independent of, mere human preferences. That seems to mean that God is necessary for there to be objective morality.

Why am I here? That answer is simple, because I am not there. If I was there, then I wouldn't be here. That's neither here nor there.

From the title, I expected this topic to be another one of those "religious conundrums" with that never ending argument about God, creation, man, heaven, hell, good, bad, evil etc etc and of course etc.

Hi JP,

"for the atheist there is absolutely no reason for why we are here" That may well be the reality, and if it was so, what would you do about it.

Dear JP,

Humans are ingenious and have invented many things - material objects and concepts. I believe that God is merely another human concept - another fantasy which has no existence outside of the human imagination. I certainly don't think that arbitrary being in the Bible has any reality. I cannot see a reason to prefer the Christian Bible, the Jewish Bible (no New Testament), the Vedas (sacred to the Hindus), the Koran (sacred to the Muslims) or the Tripitaka (sacred to the Buddhists). What you believe generally depends on what culture you were born into and whether you accept the beliefs associated with that culture. Seneca, a wise Roman, said, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”

Dear JP,

The fact there is no objective right and wrong does not mean there is no right and wrong. I want to live in peace with my neighbors. Therefore I generally accept what my society has determined is the law and what my neighbors regard as good behavior. I think slavery is immoral and wrong. In the Confederate States of America Christians fought to preserve slavery as the Bible nowhere condemned it, and they believed in the morality of the Bible.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery:

“Early Christians reputedly regarded slaves who converted to Christianity as spiritually free men, brothers in Christ, receiving the same portion of Christ's kingdom inheritance. However, this regard apparently had no legal power. These slaves were also told to obey their masters "with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 KJV) Paul the Apostle applied the same guidelines to masters in Ephesians 6:9: "And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality."

Nevertheless, verses like Ephesians 6:5 were still used by defenders of slavery prior to the American Civil War. Slaves were encouraged by Paul in the first Corinthian Epistle to seek or purchase their freedom whenever possible. (I Corinthians 7:21 KJV).

Avery Robert Dulles said that "Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either. In a paper published in Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles notes that, while he often encountered the claim, "not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery"; moreover a number of his stories are set in a slave/master situation, and involve slaves as key characters. Giles notes that these circumstances were used by pro-slavery apologists in the 19th century to suggest that Jesus approved of slavery.”

Biblical morality is often not up to the standards of the world we live in.

david f – let us take it that you are correct that God is just a figment of human imagination. If so, for the reasons that I gave in my last post, we should logically abandon any belief in objective morality.

That is a huge aspect of our understanding and experience of life to have to abandon. It is relatively easy to say that we don’t believe in objective morality but it is very difficult, if not impossible to consistently live with that as being true.

For example, what do we make of a baby being tortured for pleasure, or one’s daughter being brutally bashed and raped –is that something that is just a matter of personal preference? – the perpetrator happens to like doing that while others just prefer it is not done? The notion of “evil” would be meaningless.

That is very tough to accept but if there is no God and thus no objective morality, the reality is that personal preferences are all we are left with. Of course, we can codify our preferences into law and punish people who have different preferences to our own but that still doesn’t mean they have acted immorally.

Paull405 – you ask me what I would do if atheism is true and thus there is no reason for why we are here. That is an interesting thought experiment. If everyone in the world did conclude that atheism is true and fully appreciated the implications of that, then I think it would be a much, much more difficult world to live in.

At the moment I think most people still live, in many respects, as if God is real. As I have said above though, no God, no objective morality. We live as if there is some purpose to our existence, as if the possibility of progress is real, as if things we do actually matter, as if we have some responsibility to one another and the planet. But in an atheistic universe, none of that would be true – just every man and woman for themself. Scary.

As I grow older
I've come to see
That not everything is
As I'd like it to be

My back hurts more
My legs are sore
And it gets harder
To wash the floor

What brings me joy
And great delight
Are my four grand-kids
Who make things right

I'm very happy to be here
And this may sound a little queer
But I'm not looking forward
To be below the ground

It's not there I want to be found
At least not yet - which may sound queer
That's why I don't question
Why I'm here?

<<I find greater inspiration in the words of Jimmy Durante, “Why can't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone.">>

As a vegetarian, I wish the majority of Australians would do the same and leave the multiple animal species that exist alone, not have them killed and Australians move towards a plant-based diet.

Unlikely to occur I know, but as humans we all select what we consider right versus wrong. No one can truly claim directly or indirectly to have a value that is above and beyond someone else. I would argue only the arrogant take such a position and that is a selective view of mine in its own self, and I expect people to come out and deny anything put out that is a questioning of their own self - including me - by throwing a whole heap of red herrings into a discussion.

Dear JP,

I think it wrong to torture a baby for any reason. I don’t need a God or objective morality to think that is wrong. I empathise with the suffering of a baby. I would not want my children or anybody else’s children to suffer. I don’t need a God or objective morality to be horrified by a woman being brutally bashed and raped. Do you mean to tell me that those things would be ok with you if you didn’t believe in God? Do you think that people went around torturing babies and bashing women before there was any belief in God? Do you have any evidence to show that people who don’t believe in God behave any worse than people who do?

We live in society and depend on each other. That is true regardless of what we believe. As long as there is society there will not be every man and woman for themselves. I believe in being kind, being skeptical and questioning authority. I believe in being kind because I think it’s a better way to live in the company of my fellow human beings. I think faith can cause one to accept monstrous acts. I don’t need a religious belief to act decently. Maybe you do. Maybe you feel that you would go wild and be a horrible person if you didn’t believe in God. That’s your problem, and I feel very sorry for you if you only act well because you have a superstitious belief.

The morality of atheists and religious believers has been compared:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210224143306.htm

“Analysis of the results suggests that theists are more inclined than atheists to endorse moral values that promote group cohesion. Meanwhile, atheists are more likely to judge the morality of an action based on its consequences. However, atheists and theists appear to align on moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, liberty versus oppression, and being epistemically rational, i.e.: believing in claims when they are evidence-based and being skeptical about claims not backed by evidence.”

You don’t have to believe in a deity to be good.

david f – you miss my point. In an atheistic universe there is no way to define what is “good” or “right”.

Yes, you have your particular preference for what you want to say is good or right but on every single issue there will be people who disagree with you. On what basis can you say that your particular preference is right or good and their preference is wrong or bad? Please tell me.

As I have said previously, if atheism is true then this universe and everything in it was not purposely created. It just happened into existence. There is no ultimate goal or meaning for the universe, for our planet or for our own personal lives. Things are not supposed to be one way rather than another. Do you dispute that? If you do, please tell me why.

If things are not meant to be one way rather than another, then there can be no objective “good” or “right”.

When we say that a certain behaviour is good or bad, right or wrong, we are measuring that behaviour against a standard. We can, of course, make up our own standards, and measure behaviour against those, but that is all they are – made-up standards. In an atheistic universe other people can make up their own standards too and often they will be different to yours.

At this point, if you don’t like their standards, you can claim that your made- up standards are better than their made-up standards. You can become very self-righteous, call them names, and abuse them. That may make you feel good but it does not make you “right” or “better” than them because there is no objective way to measure right or good in an atheistic universe.

That is why I say, without wanting to be rude to you, that, if atheism is true, then you are no better a person than Hitler. That is because the terms, better, worse, good bad, right and wrong are ultimately completely meaningless if atheism is true. That hurts, but logically it unavoidably follows.

I think we all have some understanding and awareness of who we are.
This leads to a personal 'philosophy' which helps us to understand and navigate life?
This philosophy needs to be based on truthful and logical principles.
Only these will allow us to make sensible and realistic decisions about living.

In our early years, we are guided by the philosphy of others.
But as we age, experience and awareness enable us to develop our own ideas.
At the same time, we are motivated by natural instinct, the pre-programmed responses we make to various stimuli.
These responses usually manifest themselves as emotions.

Principles based on truth are necessary for our survival.
Far too many grown persons continue to accept and follow the principles of others.
They don't question these, even when those principles are demonstrably wrong.
This leads them to a 'zombie' like state, which I view as rather nasty and demeaning.

Those with less than adequate basic principles will tend to make irregular decisions.
They are trying to live life according to a set of principles which are not fact based.
They are also likely to be driven more by emotion than reason?
Life for them is not as stable or productive as it could be.

This affects others.
It can cause unrest and discord amongst the people.
Somewhat like water trying to flow in many directions at the same time.
Though I doubt we could all embrace a life lived by reason only.
Emotion is too important.
But at least we can ponder the wisdom of it?
And modify our behaviour to achieve less conflict?

Just another thought or two.
Around us is matter.
We are made of it.
It moves constantly.
That is what change is: the movement of matter.
There is no good change or bad change.
It is all just things that happen.
We really need to get used to that idea.
There is no NATURAL good or bad, right or wrong.
People need to stop propagating such silly ideas?

Some changes benefit us, and some don't.
Those that do allow us an advantage must inevitably cause disadvantage to something else?
We clear the land to plant crops, which is to our advantage.
This displaces and causes loss for another group of living things on this planet.
And so it goes.
We use reason to plan changes that benefit us.
We call those changes the good ones.
A mistake causes an aircraft to crash.
We call that a bad thing.
In fact it is all just change.
But all change is not good for us.

Dear JP,

I get your point. However, there is no way to define what is good or right in a world where everyone believes in God because the different Gods that people believe don’t have the same rules. The Jewish God prescribes various dietary laws that Christians don’t follow. The Muslim God is not a Trinity like the Christian God. All the Gods are creations of the imagination in different cultures.

There is no one God who all people who believe in God believe in. The God of the Jewish Bible has different rules from the Christian God. One example is the Sabbath. Jews believe the Sabbath is from Friday at sundown until Saturday at sundown. The Christian God has the Sabbath on Sunday.

Which God should people follow? Your standards are not universal standards since there isn’t a universal God. Your God is the probably the God of your parents, and that is probably the God of most people in the society you were born into.

The way I see it right and wrong is determined by my society modified by my cultural background and personal preferences, and right and wrong is determined by the God you believe in which is determined by chance – the chance that you were born in a particular society of particular parents.

It is wrong to torture a baby or anybody else. That is in my moral code, and I don’t know why any God has to be involved in that belief. I don’t have to believe in a God to give meaning to right and wrong.

From https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=belief+in+god+by+country

10.2 Percent of Swedes said they were certain of God's existence. From what I know of Sweden it is a caring society. It does not logically follow that it is necessary to believe in God to have a decent society. In fact considering religious wars and persecution of people believing in one God by people believing in another God it is better to live in a society where fewer people believe in God.

Dear David F., JP and Ipso Fatso,

I am yet to contribute on this great and vast topic and I hope to find the time to do it the justice it deserves. For now, however, I will limit myself to your particular sub-discussion on good and evil.

My position is that goodness is not just an opinion - goodness exists.

Goodness permeates creation in like fashion as the North direction permeates the cosmos (or at least this planet and its vicinity).

But unlike the North, goodness is too subtle to be measured objectively - it can only be discerned subjectively with different degrees of accuracy.

Regardless whether one is a believer or an atheist, one's level of discernment of goodness does not depend on beliefs, ideas or other mental gymnastics - only on the degree of purity of their heart.

This means that an atheist can potentially be as good as a believer and a believer can potentially be as bad as an atheist.

Also, goodness is not a competition but an individual pursuit to excel: claiming that "I am more good than Hitler" has no substance outside social conventions - you have no way to tell what would you be doing had you found yourself in Hitler's exact circumstances (including having his exact mind, his exact intellect and his exact memories).

I agree with JP that morality makes no sense without God, that morality is derived from God.
I agree with David that you don’t have to believe in a deity to be good; also that the fact there is no objective right and wrong does not mean there is no right and wrong.

---

Dear David F.,

«There is no one God who all people who believe in God believe in.»

Please consider this: the actual God which different people believe in is one and the same, independently of what people ascribe to Him - what people differ about are just the attributes they assign to God: perhaps God ordained the Sabbath on Friday/Saturday, perhaps on Sunday, perhaps God exists, perhaps He doesn't: all these are merely attributes!

Dear Yuyutsu and JP,

The God you believe in has no existence outside of the human mind. When our species becomes extinct so do the deities that our species have invented. As we enjoy the beautiful and entertaining myths created by the Norse, Greeks, Romans and other ancient peoples future generations may enjoy the myths of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other peoples of our era. They may create and believe in their own myths. Perhaps another species will arise that will also create Gods.

However, there is not a scintilla of evidence for the existence of a God. Belief is not evidence.

Dear David F.,

Have I ever claimed that God existed?

We corresponded about this issue for years over these pages, but it seems that I still must state it again, perhaps I should do so three times:
God does not exist - neither in the human mind nor anywhere else.
God does not exist - neither in the human mind nor anywhere else.
God does not exist - neither in the human mind nor anywhere else.

Go ahead and search the human mind as much as you like - all you will ever find there are thoughts and ideas, not gods!

For some reason you then turn the conversation and speak instead about man-made deities - why is it that almost whenever I discuss God, you instead reply about deities?

While some people may believe (rightly or wrongly) in deities, God is not and cannot be a deity. In fact, that ridiculous notion as if God were a deity leads into every possible logical contradiction. I have made that clear too in our past conversations and I bear no responsibility over the ideas of others, theists or atheists, who make such a beginner's mistake of considering God to be a deity.

Yes, as you say, once humans become extinct, man-made deities would become extinct as well, but what in hell has this to do with God?

Now shall we get back to the topic of morality, good and bad?

Dear Yuyutsu,

It would be better if you forgot all your God crap and looked at the real world.

Dear Davif F.,

When one looks at the world, one can either see it as the crap it seems to be, for it all is helplessly bound to decay, none of it is going to remain; or one can instead see it for the manifestation of God it is: the worldly forms, the particular manifestations, will keep changing, they all come and go according to the laws of nature, but the essential, eternal, unchanging truth of what they are remains: this Truth I refer to as 'God' - the true reality of the world, of which it is made.

David f – you say you get my point, but you then go on to claim once again that you know what is right and wrong. My point though, as I have set out a couple of times is that, if atheism is true – which you indicate is your position - then notions of right and wrong are essentially useless and meaningless.

You then make the correct observation that there are many different religions which make different truth claims. It does not follow from that though, that just because there are many different views that they all must thereby be wrong. Logically it is quite possible for one to be right and the others to be wrong. The challenge then is to consider the respective beliefs to see which, if any, is true, rather than simply dismissing them all out of hand.

You make another correct observation that many (but certainly not all) people tend to stay with the beliefs they were taught when growing up. Again though, this does not tell us anything about whether any one belief is right or wrong. I think it is likely that most people don’t really bother to consider very deeply what they believe and it is simply easiest to just go along, often at just a superficial level, with what they have been told.

It never ceases to amaze me that, from my experience, most people don’t seem to want to make the effort to seriously consider the most important questions in life: how have we come to be in existence? is there any meaning or purpose to my existence? are we morally accountable beings? do we have free will? etc. Perhaps you would like to look at my website: www.atheismforkidsandteens.com

Yuyutsu – I don’t believe it is possible for all religions to be going in the same ultimate direction as they clearly making completely contradictory truth claims. At times you say “perhaps God exists” and then you say with great emphasis that “God does not exist”. Hmmm.

Dear JP,

I think there is no objective way to determine what is right and wrong. I have my opinions as to what is right and wrong. God-given opinions are merely the opinions of people who claim their opinions come from God. If most people in my society share the opinions of right and wrong that becomes what is right and wrong in my society. If my opinion as to what is right and wrong in my society differs from the law or the opinion of most people I may have a problem. If it is a trivial matter, a difference my society allows me to have or something I have no choice in I will live with it. If I feel I must do something about it I will try to change the law or commit civil disobedience. I appreciate living in a society which does not expect one to conform in thought and behavior and can change. When I was a young man I never thought about the possibility of same sex marriage. However, the needs of a part of society that has previously been reviled and condemned has been considered and accepted. I think the change is right.

I have thought much about these matters. I was raised to accept certain religious beliefs and, after much thought, have decided I cannot accept them.

I accept no religion founded on supernatural belief. None of them are based on evidence. It does not seem reasonable to me to follow any of them. The concept of God is a human creation, and I do not think any such entity exists.

I have considered why we are here and accept the scientific view that we have evolved from other forms of life. I don’t think there is meaning or purpose to any form of life including ours outside of the purposes we choose to give to it.

I have thought on the problem of free will versus determinism and have decided I can’t decide that question but will act as if I had free will.

Possibly more discussion is pointless.

We need to be aware of those that deny moral idealism, as it is they who have no qualms to kill or rape your wife.
The question to be asked is Who am I? If you are merely the cells forming your body, you have failed - the cells of every part of your body are replaced every 21 years from the things you have consumed. What is you are the life you have lived and the impressions you have made while alive, and it is these things that will determine your purpose in His Story. It is this that would allow others to judge who you are, and the contribution you have made to our history.

I don't quite understand why the discussion has become about an entity referred to as a god.
Surely it should be about truth?
Then we might well achieve some kind of result?
When the focus is upon observable truths, there is no room for fabricated entities.
Those ideas will fade in to the background, or dry up and blow away like tumbleweeds in a strong wind?
They disappear from your mental horizon, completely.
Truth is demanding. It demands a clean slate.

Surely a belief is something which is considered more likely than not to be true?
That being the case, there should be observable truth which supports a belief?
But for fictitious ideas, there isn't, is there?
So why harbour a kind of obsession about something which has no basis in fact?
Cease clogging your mental processes with absurdities, and free your mind for the real stuff.

There is no good or bad process in nature: things that happen are just different.
We benefit from something, so we call that good.
But another part of 'nature' might well call the same thing bad?
When we generate new 'happenings' that favour us, we might unnecessarily disrupt the natural world?
So a good idea would be to minimise our use of favourable happenings?
Live a quieter more thoughtful existence?
And always face the truth.

david f – you have added a couple of new points.

Firstly, you claim that majority opinion in a society establishes right and wrong. So, if most Germans had agreed with Hitler about the destruction of the Jews, would that have made such destruction “right”? Would those who opposed that majority opinion and tried to save the Jews have been acting immorally? I would be surprised if you would be happy with that but it necessarily follows from your claim.

You do say that in some circumstances you would be willing to engage in civil disobedience and perhaps that would be one of those instances, but, on your terms, it still would be the case that you would be the one who was acting immorally, not those who were destroying the Jews.

Secondly, on the subject of free will, you say that you have decided to “act as if I had free will”. That can only make sense if it is the case that we actually do have free will. Nobody makes decisions if determinism is true – things just happen as the unconscious laws of physics act upon matter, not because we choose them to happen. If this is an atheistic/material universe though, it is hard to see how free will is possible - as virtually all secular philosophers have concluded.

If you can show how both atheism and free will are true, I would be interested to read your explanation.

Dear JP,

«Yuyutsu – I don’t believe it is possible for all religions to be going in the same ultimate direction»

Well, while they obviously don't all go in the same direction, all true religions lead to the same place, to union with God.

Think of it as a wheel - if we start at different points along its circumference, then we need to take different directions in order to reach its center.

«as they clearly making completely contradictory truth claims.»

God sees to our hearts, not to our words. Please allow me repeat what I wrote yesterday:

"Regardless whether one is a believer or an atheist, one's level of discernment of goodness does not depend on beliefs, ideas or other mental gymnastics - only on the degree of purity of their heart."

«At times you say “perhaps God exists” and then you say with great emphasis that “God does not exist”. Hmmm.»

This idea about the presumed existence of God is modern and secular: it is neither religious nor Biblical!

God cannot exist because existence itself is in God.
To claim that God existed would mean to subject Him to His own creation - how ridiculous!
(and I wonder why the Church has not already denounced that stupid idea as a heresy).

Ipso Fatso – you seem to believe that God and truth are mutually exclusive. If there should be a God, which is certainly a logical possibility, then the existence of God would be a valid truth claim.

You say, “there should be observable truth which supports a belief”. Many atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, believe that the universe began with the big bang. Perhaps you believe that too. Dawkins has written, “the universe evolved out of literally nothing”. Have you ever seen anything come from nothing? No, and no one else has observed that to have happened either.

So we have a choice between believing that everything we see around us has spontaneously happened into being from literally nothing or believing that God has deliberately brought things into being. Neither option has been observed so the atheist has no sounder foundation for his belief than the theist.

If there is no “supernatural” as you assert, then by definition everything is “natural”, including human beings. You say there are no good or bad processes in nature, just different processes. Presumably it then follows that should a human being brutally torture a baby they would not have done something good or bad, just something different - something “natural”. If someone did that to your child, are you seriously saying that you would just say that was not a bad thing, just something different, a natural act?

Yes, we should face the truth.

Hi JP,

<<"the universe evolved out of literally nothing”. Have you ever seen anything come from nothing? No, and no one else has observed that to have happened either.>>

To simply apply unsubstantiated reasoning; "So we have a choice between believing that everything we see around us has spontaneously happened into being from literally nothing or believing that God has deliberately brought things into being." That is as reasonable as believing all things were created by the Giant Sloth, or the Fat Turtle, because we can't think of any other explanation.

A man demonstrate an internal combustion engine. He asks; Do you know how it works? I say; No, so therefore it must work because of the hamster on a wheel inside of it, there can be no other explanation. That is just as logical as what you are saying.

A JW asked me recently; "Do you believe in God?", I replied; "Do you mean Zesu"....."No THE GOD" he said...I replied; "I'm in Ancient Greece, Zesu is THE GOD."...The conversation didn't go much beyond that point.

Let's get something clear.
We are not material: we are intelligence.
We are the output of a computer programme.
This runs on a computer we call a brain.
Our brain has RAM and ROM and can process data.
It has an operating system.
Just like any computer.
The difference is that the brain cannot be restarted when it ceases to function for more that a short time.

A brain is not self-sufficient.
It needs a support system.
The physical body fills that role.
It supplies energy to the brain.
It has sensors which trigger appropriate responses from the brain.
The body is used for defence.
It will probably be used to procreate.
It is used for communication.
And so on.
It is the brain's interface with the world around it.

Others cannot see your brain working.
They can only observe your 'interface'.
So they treat that as being the person they know.
When the brain stops permanently, we, the person, cease to be.
Our body is then no longer a useful interface.
Instead, our remains can only be a reminder of who we were.
These will degrade naturally, and the material will be recycled.

I think far too much emphasis is placed on what remains of us when we die.
Intelligence is gone, and our physical remains are only a temporary factor.
We have ceased to live, totally, absolutely, and irrevocably.
But I do understand the natural grief of those who remain.
Those who were part of the dead person's life.

To JP and others.

We are not here to enter in to debate.
We are not 'jockeying' for some kind of supremacy.
We are just saying what we think.
We are just expressing an opinion.

The pooling of ideas widens our view on a particular matter.
It allows us to draw on a wealth of life experiences.
This should result in a greater understanding, and ultimately the making of wiser decisions?
It is consensus which gives democracy its strength?

Peaceful disagreement is fine.
As is the need to comply with majority thinking in daily life.
But, should we 'downgrade' another person, merely because he express a different point of view?
I rather think not.

And if I may make so bold...
I cannot help but notice that you frequently answer your own questions.
Which leads me to believe that you have a far greater understanding of the subject than you allow others think you have. ^_^

Paull405 – you seem to think that there is another possible explanation for the origin of the universe than the two I gave – either the universe was deliberately brought into existence by some being (God) or the universe simply happened unintentionally into existence (perhaps by the big bang or some other naturalistic means).

Can you tell me what other alternative there is?

Ipso Fatso – you say, “the need to comply with majority thinking in daily life” is fine. No, I don’t think there should be an obligation to comply with majority thinking. As the saying goes, “five million Frenchman can be wrong”.

I think we should seek truth wherever it leads, even if that means being in disagreement with everyone else.

I certainly do agree with you that we should not downgrade anyone who disagrees with us. I hope I have not been guilty of doing that and apologies to anyone I may have inadvertently offended.

Dear JP,

The majority opinion and those in power in a society establish what is right and wrong in that society. That is true for the Nazi society. It was right for most Germans at that time. Those Germans who opposed that would have been acting wrongly in the eyes of those who supported the prevailing opinion. What people in other places thought did not determine what was accepted in Germany. Most Germans and most German churches supported Hitler. One man who didn’t support Hitler was Franz Jägerstätter. His conscience would not allow him to support Hitler. His conscience was at odds with the consensus of his society. He was a Catholic and representatives of his church tried to persuade him to serve in Hitler’s army. He refused and was beheaded. To me he is a heroic figure. “In Solitary Witness” is a book about him. However, to his society at the time he was a criminal and acted immorally. He refused to serve his country. I was not happy with the Nazi society, but those in control and the prevailing opinion in that society decided what was right and moral for that society. Had the Nazis won WW2 Hitler’s birthday would probably be celebrated in many countries.

I protested the Vietnamese War early in the war as I thought it was wrong. At the beginning many were hostile to me because of that. Later opinions changed. I don’t have to accept what most people think is right or wrong, but what most people think is right and wrong determines what is right and wrong for their society.

I have not decided between free will and determinism.

I have never been presented with any evidence which seems reliable for the existence of a God so my conscience tells me I must be an atheist. I must accept the truth as well as I can determine what it is. I feel we would be better off without religion.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

I don’t think we know enough about the brain to assume that the brain is analogous with a computer.

David f, why don't you join a Nation of atheists rather than a nation built on Christian morality and laws? You would not have to deal with the ignorant theists by trying to prove your case for atheism? God is not an external and remote being, God is internal to all Creation to create change in the DNA of life.

Dear Josephus,

I appreciate living in a country with people of differing opinions on different matters expressing those opinions freely. The Australian Constitution mentions neither Christ nor Christianity so I think that people in Australia are free to have any opinions concerning religion that they choose. You are free to believe in God. I am free not to believe. You don’t have to adopt my viewpoint, and I don’t have to adopt yours. There is no evidence that God has anything to do with our DNA. However, since you mention DNA I assume you are aware of the role it plays in our being.

Perhaps you would be interested in the religious views of Crick who worked with Watson to discover the structure of DNA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535570/

“Francis Crick was an evangelical atheist. He believed that scientific understanding removed the need for religious explanations of natural phenomena. From James Watson's and his early work, the structure of DNA explained the origins of life. This was a starting point; from the elucidation of the structure of DNA, there was an explosion, a massive diversity of science that in part removed the need to postulate a creator or a creation myth. Francis still felt that life was no less astonishing just because it was biological and natural in origin. He had a consistent and completely rational world view without a need to invoke vitalism, or any non-material force (M. Crick 2004). And in the last decades of his life, he applied this philosophy to consciousness.”

I am not an evangelical atheist. I am an atheist and mention my views but don't expect or pressure you to adopt them.

Josephus,

Why don't you join some fudo Christian cult, if you haven't already done so, where your bigoted intolerance is welcomed. What "Christian morality" are you referring to, the raping and buggering of children which has been the common practice of the Christian faith in Australia since 1788! I have asked you before, and you don't have the guts to answer; How many Paedophiles have been uncovered in YOUR Church? Then we can gauge YOUR Churches morality, which I suspect is rather non-existent.

p/s Josephus, you wont even name what Church you are a member of, you must be ashamed of their past record on "morality".

Dear Paul1405,

I wish to disassociate myself from your attack on Josephus. As far as I know he has no connection with pedophiles and it is wrong of you to bring that into our discussion. He attacked me for my atheism as though I had no right to my views and should not be in Australia. I found that objectionable. Although he is intolerant to me I don’t have to be intolerant in return.

Connecting him with sexual abuse of children is wrong. I can defend my views, but it should be an honest defense. Bringing in ugly practices that Josephus may have no connection with is unfair to Josephus. Let us argue fairly.

Josephus has a right to his views, and I have a right to mine. Josephus, you, Paul and I are human beings and should be considerate to each other.

Paul1405, Christian morality has no condolence with sexual immorality, read the Christian scriptures. My religious affiliation has been with many denominations except Roman Catholic, Mormon and Charismatic. Though I class myself as a New Testament Church member.

Communist China and North Korea are examples of practicing atheism as a Nation. That is the morality of atheism, the religious opinions of individuals are to be eradicated as the Unity of the State is more important than personal views.

Twain's question was answered by by Charles Darwin, another historical figure of some importance who wrote a weighty tome. Now it's been answered its nothing but a rhetorical question and irrelevant question. What will I do while I am here is more interesting.

>Especially, older Australians will have the opportunity to return to the work force

As someone who is now 56, who quit full time work at 30 and quit part time work at 35, the only thing that would make me contemplate suicide is 1. forced to watch a Coronation, or 2. having to return to work. Work is where you go to waste your life and that's a horror to big to contemplate.

david f – don’t you see how moral relativism (your position) gets you tied in knots? I have also read a book about Jägerstätter – I don’t recall if it is the same one you mention – so I am familiar with his life story. It seems your position leaves you saying that for doing the same actions he was both an immoral and moral person simultaneously – immoral in the eyes of the majority of Germans and moral in your eyes. Presumably though you think that you are right and the Nazis were wrong – but why would that be so? Or do you think that both you and the Nazis are both right? Does that make any sense?

By the same reasoning, Hitler genuinely was both a “good” man and a “bad” man for the exact same things he did. It seems to me that “moral”, “immoral”, “good”, and “bad” lose all meaning at this point.

You note that different societies choose different moral values, eg, some societies allow the majority to enslave a minority. Does another society which rejects slavery have any right, in your thinking, to criticise those societies that allow it? If so, why? After all that is what the majority in that society want.

You say, “I have not decided between free will and determinism”. As I noted earlier, by saying that you think you can make decisions, you are saying you already believe in free will. If determinism is true we make no decisions.

You say that you have seen no reliable evidence for the existence of God. As I have said to another person on this thread, we really have only two options: either this incredible universe including the world and humanity came into existence by chance or it was deliberately made by someone; either there is meaningful objective morality or meaningless relativism; either we are free agents or we are deterministic robots; either our lives are ultimately meaningless and valueless or they have meaning and value. In the end I believe God is a better explanation than lifeless, unconscious chance.

Thanks David,

I posted that last night, when I returned from a "night out" with friends, it was somewhat intemperate of me, but no excuse. Therefore I will retract what is inappropriate comment towards Josephus.

p/s A good night out it was indeed, much singing and dancing, and a little drinking as well.

Dear All,

I feel we mostly just restate our opinions and don’t examine ourselves and our motives. Paul1405 is one of the rare persons who have done so.

I feel the workings of nature are wondrous, and that wonder doesn’t need the intervention of a deity. The workings of nature are not mere chance. They follow scientific principles. Darwin said it well.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

In the above Darwin doesn’t make a judgment on the original forms of life. Others have done so.

https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/origins-life-earth

Science has discovered what seem to be the earliest traces of life on earth. We cannot reproduce the conditions in which those forms appeared. I feel they proceeded from natural causes. Others may feel they are due to the work of a God. Take your choice.

Josephus,

Article 36 of the Chinese constitution says that citizens “enjoy freedom of religious belief.” It bans discrimination based on religion and forbids state organs, public organisations, or individuals from compelling citizens to believe in—or not believe in—any particular faith. China's five officially sanctioned religious organisations are the Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, Islamic Association of China, Three-Self Patriotic Movement and Catholic Patriotic Association. It surprises me that religion practice is tolerated in China, but it is. In 2018, the Chinese government declared that there are over 44 million Christians in China. More Christians in China than in Australia.

North Korea is another john dory, I don't know much about that state, none of us do.

When someone describes something to us, their description usually compares the unknown with something we do know.
They use analogies to describe size, colour, weight, use, and so on.
An explanation also usually follows logical steps, leading to a conclusion.
So understanding descriptions relies on us knowing about a lot of stuff already.

Were we to pluck a person out of a crowd from 100,000 years ago, and were somehow able to communicate with him, we might find it hard to describe to him the use and functions of a modern mobile phone.
In our turn, if we don't have a framework of ideas to which we can relate descriptions, we might be hard pressed to follow a new line of thinking.
Difficulty absorbing a new idea does not mean we not intelligent.
It means we have not yet developed a suitable 'mental framework' to support that understanding.

If I say to you that matter didn't come from anywhere because it was always here, is that hard to accept?
If I say to you that matter doesn't fill space, it creates space?
That where there is matter there is space, otherwise there is nothing at all, not even unused 'space'.
That zero is a mathematical quantity only, and in reality doesn't exist?
That one over zero (infinity), whilst infinitely great, is thus also limited?

Those ideas are not some new revolutionary theory.
They are merely ideas which I am using to demonstrate that new concepts are not always easy to grasp.
I am sorry if I haven't expressed this all very well.
I do admire those who can think ahead, break new ground, develop new ideas, and do so without a clear path to follow.

david f – you say, “The workings of nature are not mere chance”. As far as evolution goes it does rely on chance, or at least there is no intentionality in what happens. The key element of evolutionary change is mutation. Offspring can vary slightly from the parent because mutations occur in the genes.

When mutations occur they do not do so with any intention or plan to cause a creature to evolve into something different. They just simply happen, with the vast majority of mutations being either neutral or detrimental in their effect.

“Nature” is not a force and neither is it trying to achieve anything, be that change or even survival. If atheism is true then the living world with its incredible beauty and complexity, along with the humans who have consciousness, intelligence, language and culture are just fantastic flukes that just happened to arise from mindless physical laws.

As you say, take your choice. (Again I would point out that we can only make choices if we have free will and free will is incompatible with atheism.)

Yuyutsu – the best I can make of what you are saying is that you believe that God is everything/ everything is God. Is that right?
If so, then it would seem to follow that God is both the rapist and the person being raped. That God is both evil and good.

I have probably misunderstood you but you seem to write in riddles. Is it possible for you to set out a simple, clear outline of your beliefs?

Dear JP,

«Yuyutsu – the best I can make of what you are saying is that you believe that God is everything/ everything is God. Is that right?»

To fully explain the rationale of my statements about God would require deep and thorough scriptural study of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, so my skimpy OLO comments, within the limitations of time, context and word-count, are obviously lacking in depth and only present the final summary of the observations and contemplations of sages, rather than the full process of how they got there.

Nevertheless, my short answer to your question is that there is nothing but God.
To speak of anything outside God, would [mentally] introduce a competition to God, a limiting factor, which would mean that what we innocently thought of as 'God' is actually limited and not the final Truth - why would anyone want to worship a limited god anyway? The Bible gives a name to the worship of limited entities - idolatry!

This means that everything is God.
It does not, however, mean that God is "everything".
If it helps you to understand the above, you could say (metaphorically of course because God has no size) that God is much much bigger than "everything".

«If so, then it would seem to follow that God is both the rapist and the person being raped. That God is both evil and good.»

God is neither the rapist nor the raped, but both the rapist and the raped ARE God. This is the best short answer I can give without filling up many pages.

If you are pure and devoted enough, you could find God in both, the rapist and the raped - as did Jesus, but for practical reasons, most people would find it easier to find God in victims than in perpetrators.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

Dear JP,

I think there is neither an objective morality nor a God. You apparently think there is both. Our positions are contradictory and cannot be resolved. I think it pointless to continue our discussion.

Why am I here.

I have been pondering.
And the short answer is: 'I don't really know'.
But I think the truth is that life is inherent in matter.
When conditions are right, life will flourish.
This time, along with all the other plant and animal life around us, it produced the human race we know.

I think we see this world as 'beautiful' because for us it is 'normality'.
Had we been born in another place, perhaps on another planet, we might have different standards?
We might think that orange skies with a blue sun were delightful?
Along with purple grass and grey trees to add to our enjoyment?

Of all the things we do with our ability to think and assess, I fear that organised religion was not our best effort.
It is in effect a form of (unsolicited) government. There is emphasis on control and money.
And worse than that, it is a dictatorship.
It can behave in a very 'unforgiving' way when one of its members doesn't adhere to its rules?
Not all religions are the same of course. Some are docile and placid compared to their brethren.
But I think that this is because democratic laws are able to keep them in check?

The only authority it has for its attitudes is a book of 'stories'.
Supposedly written long ago.
Written by man about man, and re-interpreted by man on dozens of occasions?
I do think those who gathered the stories in to a book meant well at the start.
But it has got out of hand.
Luckily democatic processes keep it in check in most countries.
Where organised religion has overtaken a government, their is no one to rein in religious excess.
It must be mentally debilitating to exist in those places?

Hi IF,

"Luckily democatic processes keep it (reeigion) in check in most countries. Where organised religion has overtaken a government, their is no one to rein in religious excess. It must be mentally debilitating to exist in those places?"

Human beings are very adaptable, and the vast majority in countries ruled by religious authoritarianism, don't give a thought to what we see as injustice, knowing no other, they are simply accepting of their situation, and often happy with it. That's why education is always a casualty when those in authority see what a danger it is to them. As the saying goes; "ignorance is bliss".

Paul 1405 wrote:

“Human beings are very adaptable, and the vast majority in countries ruled by religious authoritarianism, don't give a thought to what we see as injustice, knowing no other, they are simply accepting of their situation, and often happy with it.”

The above is questionable. Humans can give much thought to the tyranny that rules them. However, in many cases they may feel that the tyranny is so encompassing that their only reasonable alternative is to shut up and endure. Early in the history of Christianity there were many sects and divisions among Christians as there is now. Most sects were intolerant of other sects to a much greater degree than currently. In many Christian countries one sect ruled other sects, and their rule was harsh. That explains the ease of the early conquests of Christian countries by Islam. Early Islam was not a missionary religion. They regarded their faith as a religion for Arabs. From MacCullough’s book: “The Muslim conquerors did little to explain their faith to their new subjects or to convert them to it.” As long as Christians paid their taxes and accepted Muslim rule they were left in peace to practice their various Christian faiths as they wished. This was much preferable to the restrictions placed by one Christian sect on another. Muslim rule was less burdensome than the rule of another Christian sect. Several centuries later Islam became a missionary religion and emulated the Christian intolerance.

Hi David,

I don't agree, one needs to understand the alternative before one can become discontented with what exists. Take American slavery for example, I don't believe the majority of slaves were constantly thinking about escaping to freedom, as they had no concept of freedom. if you are born into slavery, and know nothing else in life, then most likely you become passively accepting of what is your reality. The danger for the slave owner is the slave will become educated to the alternative, that is why it was the law not to teach a slave to read and write, are allow them more that a limited distance from the plantation etc. Ignorance is bliss, when many slaves in the south were pronounced "free", they didn't shout "hallelujah", but rather milled around in bewilderment

There are apparent reasons given in Genesis 2 by the Hebrew Fathers of the purpose for humans.
1. Manage and care for the Earth, and everything living.
2. Produce food from gardening.
3. Procreate children in your image - educate them.
4. Identify all things as suitable with relationship to humans.
5. Sanction the relationship of man and woman - husband and wife.

Atheists will ignore these principles as irrelevant, but they have served a healthy society for thousands of years

Dear Paul,

Many slaves were not born into slavery but were forced into slavery. They knew what freedom was. Those who were born into slavery had language and culture. Their parents could tell them of their history. Slaves were not mindless automatons. They often preserved memories of their religions, and not the slave master’s religion. Where they took on the slave master’s religion they emphasized those parts of it such as the exodus they found relevant. It buttressed the apologists for slavery to promulgate the myth of the contented and happy slaves.

Slaveholders were afraid of slave revolts and with good reason. There have been slave revolts throughout history even the slaves suffered horrible penalties for their revolts.

Google ‘slave revolts’, and you will read of the many slave revolts in history.

There was an article in the Washington Post on the reaction of slaves to getting their freedom. They knew what it meant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/emancipation-evoked-mix-of-emotions-for-freed-slaves/2012/09/07/57ad5184-f15a-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html

“Interviews with historians hired during the Depression to record the experiences of former slaves show the gamut of emotions they felt. “After surrender, I can remember the negroes were so happy,” recalled Hamp Santee, who had been enslaved in Mississippi. “They just rang bells, blowed horns and shouted like they were crazy. Then they brought a brand new rope, and cut it up into little pieces and they gave everyone a little piece. And whenever they look at the rope they should remember that they were free from bondage.” To Lafayette Price of Morgan County, Ala., the jubilation of emancipation meant that “I’m free as a frog because a frog had freedom to jump when [and where] he please.” Yet many newly freed realized that this was a time of great uncertainty and danger. To W.L. Bost, freedom meant being “just like a turtle,” cautiously peeking out of the shell to “understand the lay of the land.””

Dear Josephus,

We atheists live in society. Don’t you think we care for each other and for other living things? I am a happily married man with three children and nine grandchildren. I love my wife and my descendants. I don’t need the Bible to tell me that. People of non-biblical religions don’t need the Bible to tell them that. People lived in families before the Bible was written.

I question some of the 5 things you mention. Some atheists care very much for the earth, are aware of the damage done by humans to the earth and find that people can find in the Bible pretty much what they want to find.

All things are not suitable for humans. One way to preserve endangered species is to reserve habitat for them. The Bible states:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The above verse of the Bible encourages damage to the earth. It encourages human to breed without considering the capacity of the earth to support humanity. It discourages a rational population policy. It is wrong in my estimation for humans to act as though they rule the earth and have dominion over all other species.

All humans including some Christians are not heterosexual. They should be able to have their unions recognized in law. The Bible would see them condemned to death. Do you believe homosexuals should be condemned to death?

The Bible would have people condemned to death for violating the Sabbath. What is the Sabbath? Religious Jews observe it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Most Christians observe it on Sunday. Would you have religious Jews killed because they don’t observe the Sabbath you observe?

The fact is that we can’t live by the Bible. One part of it contradicts another part of it. The Bible is not a fit guide for our society.

<<I feel we mostly just restate our opinions and don’t examine ourselves and our motives.>>

David, I would suggest you take that principle and apply it to yourself. Based on your writings so far, I doubt though that is going to happen.

As a person who aims as much as possible to be on a plant based diet, I find the consumption of meat in principle vile in the context a living creature is put to death when it doesn't need to be. We have so many plants to eat.

In no way though will I lecture others over the issue. Such a move to a vegetarian/plant based diet is something to be taken on by one as a realisation that it is the right way forward, which of course it is.

There are other factors to consider though other than what I may want alone. This includes a basic principle of freedom of choice, realising others have differing lives, principles and values and when it comes to food consumption respecting people who eat meat, although I have no time anymore for such an outdated practice.

It took time to realise such old, out of date consumption practices were not fine. I suspect people like yourself (assuming you eat meat, and I'll say you do as most in Australia do) will continue to be the same, restating opinions in that area, with no examination of anything, including motives.

For me it is not worth trying to change minds on a plastic forum like this one. I can and do put my energy towards things that are real and dynamic and change lives whatever spectrum they come through - and for some this includes God, religion or something else.

David f,
The English word dominion you take it as meaning abuse. No such connotation is associated with the meaning of the word. It means it is part of the kingdom in which you are King. A wise King does not abuse things in his kingdom but cares for them.

NathanJ,
Man was originally given to eating fruit and leaves, before the fall following that he was given permission to eat seeds, following the flood he was to eat clean animals, the NT gives sanction to eat all foods suitable for human consumption, because they were going to Gentile nations.

Allow me to step back a few days into the discussion about free will.

I think we can all agree that we EXPERIENCE having free will.

We also commonly EXPERIENCE that when thoughts run in our minds, it is us who think, when words come out of our mouths it is us who speak and when actions are done by our bodies it is us who act.

When our words and the bodily actions seem to produce consequences, we commonly EXPERIENCE the consequences of these actions to be the consequences of our actions.

Combining the above, whether or not we actually have free will (or even any will at all), our EXPERIENCE is that we have at present at least some control over our future experiences, that we have at least some capacity through choice to increase future pleasant experiences and to reduce future painful experiences - and should we fail to apply this capacity correctly, we would experience regret.

While I believe that there is no human will in existence and that the will I experience is in fact the will of God, nevertheless, to the extent I still have this lingering itching FEELING that my choices and actions are my own and free, to that extent it is also my duty to make these choices and try to make them the best ones.

Dear JP,

«It never ceases to amaze me that, from my experience, most people don’t seem to want to make the effort to seriously consider the most important questions in life: how have we come to be in existence?»

How we come to be in existence? Well ARE WE in existence?
No doubt we experience that we are, but is that the truth?
Thus your question ought to be: "How do we come to experience ourselves to be in existence?"

«is there any meaning or purpose to my existence?»

There are many meanings and purposes, but they are all relative - relative to your experience of being in existence.

«are we morally accountable beings?»

Human beings are morally accountable, thus again, relatively:
to the extent that we experience ourselves as human beings, to that extent we are accountable.

«do we have free will? etc.»

God's will alone is being done, no if's or but's, so the answer to this question depends on what you think you are:

If you consider yourself a human, then the answer is NO, you have no free will.
Yet so long as you have any doubts and believe that you as a human still have some free will, then to that extent you must use that will the best way you can.

---

Dear Josephus,

«The English word dominion you take it as meaning abuse. No such connotation is associated with the meaning of the word.»

Unfortunately, the original Hebrew word in Genesis 1:26, then 1:28 means "tyrannize". The English translation has been softened.

In verse 26, the word is "Veyirdu" and in verse 28, "Wurdu".
The root of this verb 'Y-R-D' means do descend, or literally to "come down on", so in verse 26, "and they will come down on the fish and the fowl..." and in verse 28, "do come down on the fish and the fowl...".

The Hebrew word for 'Tyrant' is 'Rodan'.

Hi David,

I have the video about "Depression Slaves" (the last people living who were slaves in the US South), very interesting and enlightening. I was trying to make the point if one, knows no other life, then its impossible to crave a different unknown existence. I'll agree at the end of the American Civil War there were thousands of ex-slaves who celebrated their freedom, but on some plantations there was bewilderment amongst ex-slaves, as they knew no other life than slavery. I don't want to appear as an apologist for American slavers, I am not, despite their best efforts to maintain total ignorance amongst slaves about the outside world they failed.

Let me give a "hypothetical"; There is a village where everyone has only one arm from birth, no one with two arms has ever been born or encountered. All the village tasks, like in any other village are performed, but only with one arm. In another village unknown to the one armed villages are people all with two arms, they are performing the same tasks as the first village, but far easier, because they all have two arms. Are the two arm people happier than the one arm people, do the one arm people pine away everyday, wishing they had two arms? We realise the two armed people are better off, but how does that impact the one arm people?

Thanks for your attempts to explain your position Yuyutsu. However, to be completely honest, I don't feel like I have any clearer understanding of what you are saying. Sorry.

Dear NathanJ,

One of things I try to live by is to have a minimal impact on the environment. I have little choice in the matter. I live in an old people’s home euphemistically called a retirement village. I think the lawns are mowed and the shrubbery is clipped too often with an excess use of fossil fuel. Our wastes are disposed somewhat wastefully.

Next month I will be 97. I believe that is due to the genes I have inherited, and a fairly abstemious life style.

I will put a cockroach to death if I find one inside the house. I will swat mosquitoes if I can’t let them out. I avoid killing anything outside the house.

However, I have an interest in non-violence, and that is connected with a vegetarian life style. The people most concerned with ahimsa or non-violence seems to be the Jains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

“The practice of non-violence towards all living beings has led to Jain culture being vegetarian. Devout Jains practice lacto-vegetarianism, meaning that they eat no eggs, but accept dairy products if there is no violence against animals during their production. Veganism is encouraged if there are concerns about animal welfare. Jain monks, nuns and some followers avoid root vegetables such as potatoes, onions, and garlic because tiny organisms are injured when the plant is pulled up, and because a bulb or tuber's ability to sprout is seen as characteristic of a higher living being. Jain monks and advanced laypeople avoid eating after sunset, observing a vow of ratri-bhojana-tyaga-vrata. Monks observe a stricter vow by eating only once a day.”

I avoid milk because the production of milk means a cow has been bred, and a calf has been slaughtered. I eat other dairy products, and so am inconsistent. I will also indiscriminately eat vegetables. I rarely eat meat.

My younger son is a strict vegetarian who avoids dairy products. My daughter is a vegetarian except for eggs and honey. My older son eats anything edible. He is an anthropologist who has lived with tribal people who eat anything except their totem animal.

Dear Paul1405,

In regard to your hypothetical I would assume that one is not happier than the other.

When I went to high school, Freddy Haines, at least I think that was his name, was apparently born with one hand. I don’t think he lost it in an accident. He was a cheerful fellow and a good trombone player. He used to press the stump against the instrument and finger the keys with his good hand.

Nantucket Island before the influx of outsiders used to have about 1 fifth of population deaf-mutes. People knew who was a mute and who wasn’t. When a group of people with normal hearing and speaking were gathered and a deaf mute joined them they switched to sign language which everyone knew.

I am old and hear poorly. My wife has a very soft voice. She forgets I can’t hear and talks to me. I get exasperated that she doesn’t write. She gets exasperated that I don’t respond. We get angry and then apologize to each other for getting angry. So it goes. If I heard well I would probably spend less time on olo.

Hi David,

The point I was trying to make is ignorance makes people accepting of their situation. If you do not know freedom, or you do not know liberty then you can't hanker for such things. In a religious context, those millions of women in the third world oppressed in our view by Islam and male domination through the religion, they are like the one arm people in my hypothetical, through ignorance, not in a derogatory senses, but in a natural sense, are accepting and comfortable, and possibly happy with their lot in life. Agree? I must say education would be the key that changes everything. My dear friend a Muslim woman, well educated, is as militant and demanding as an other when it comes to women's right and social justice.

Dear JP,

«Thanks for your attempts to explain your position Yuyutsu. However, to be completely honest, I don't feel like I have any clearer understanding of what you are saying. Sorry.»

OK, so let me try again to explain in the most simplest way I can:

Free will is a subjective experience.
Free will neither truly exists in an objective manner, nor is it fake or a lie because we truly feel that we have it.

We therefore ought to make good choices AS IF we have free will.

Dear Paul,

I accept your point of ignorance promoting acceptance. An example is the Cairo population conference.

https://www.prb.org/resources/what-was-cairo-the-promise-and-reality-of-icpd/

From that website:

“A central sticking point is whether abortion can be interpreted as a component of reproductive health and as a universal right. The Cairo conference forged a consensus with carefully crafted language stating that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning,” and that “in circumstances in which abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe.” This consensus, however, has not held firm over time.

Debates also continue about the importance of controlling population growth and whether the entire Cairo agenda is feasible. Because large numbers of young people are in or approaching their childbearing ages, world population will continue to grow well into the 21st century. Recent survey data from Bangladesh and Egypt show that average family size hardly declined at all in these countries in the second half of the 1990s.

These findings were surprising given that the drop from 5 or 6 children to 3.5 children on average occurred fairly rapidly between the 1970s and 1990s. It is possible that the two-child average is still a long way off, or will never be reached, in some societies.
And while advancing women’s health and rights may well contribute to the transition to smaller families, the goal may also require long-term efforts in the poorest societies. After all, women in the poorest societies suffer the greatest health problems and have the most limited opportunities.”

The reality appears to be that representatives of the Vatican made a deal with representatives of the Muslim countries. The Muslims would not support abortion if the Catholics would not support education for women.

Yuyutsu – if, as you assert, free will does not “truly exist in an objective manner” then it is literally impossible for us to “make good choices AS IF we have free will”.

If we have no free will then everything is determined – either by the mindless laws of physics acting on matter, or by God. If it is the laws of physics or God causing us to act as we do, then by definition we are not the ones controlling our choices.

Just because we may feel like we have free will makes not make the slightest difference. It is only if we actually do have free will that we can genuinely make choices.

So, if you don’t believe you have free will, what do you believe is actually controlling you? I presume you will say God, but then again, maybe not, since you have most emphatically written: “God does not exist - neither in the human mind nor anywhere else”.

You continue to leave me puzzled.

Dear JP,

As in your own words: «It is only if we actually do have free will that we can genuinely make choices.»

We as humans do make choices, that cannot be denied, only that on a deeper look, these are not genuine choices.

Since God's will always prevails, how could human will possibly override it?

However, genuine or otherwise, the consequences are going to come...
and so long as you believe that your human choices are genuine, so the consequences too will feel genuine.

---
This was my simple answer, but now I go a step deeper:

You asserted:
«If it is the laws of physics or God causing us to act as we do, then by definition we are not the ones controlling our choices.»

Indeed, it is by God alone, also (but perhaps not exclusively) through God's laws of physics, that the human body/mind acts.

However, your "by definition" conclusion comes about due to your incorrect definition, where you mistakenly define yourself as a human body/mind who is separate from God, thus helplessly subject not only to God but even to the laws of physics.

Once you understand that there can be nothing but God, thus you too are God, it will be clear to you that nothing can control you and it is by you that all is controlled: it is by You that the world is created (including its laws of physics); it is by You that the world and all the bodies within it are run; it is by You that the world will eventually be dissolved.

I don't understand why some want to treat atheism and organised religion as if those two things are in a contest.
The truth, and hence True Atheism, has no rivals.
When you follow truth, there is nothing else to consider.
Only the truth matters.

The world is what it is.
Where religious 'beliefs' run contrary to reality, then those 'beliefs' are ineffective.
They cannot and will not change anything that is fundamental in this world.
Some pursue their false ideals, but every move they make must come to nought.
They might think they are succeeding, but that is only a story they tell themselves.
Everything that is fundamental continues, unchanged, around them.

We need to be mindful that those who ignore truth are human beings too.
We can be sad for them, and bemoan their befuddled state.
We do this because we understand they know no better.
But they must be the ones to lift themselves out of their senseless condition.
They must face up to reality.

Yuyutsu – you make a lot of assertions but provide little, if anything, to back those assertions up.

Please tell me, why should anybody believe any of what you say is true?

As I have said before, if God is everything then God must be both good and evil.

Why is nothing as it appears? Why should everything have to be reinterpreted through your assertions?

Ipso Fatso – I think everyone would agree with you that “only the truth matters”.

The important questions are though: what is the truth? how do we determine what the truth is?

You simply seem to assume that atheism is The Truth and that asssumption is all that is needed. As I have tried to show, those who don’t accept atheism do so for reasons. You have largely not engaged with the things I have raised.

Anyway, it was kind of you to acknowledge that, as one who “ignores the truth” of atheism, I am still a human being!

Ipso Fatso wrote: The world is what it is.
Where religious 'beliefs' run contrary to reality, then those 'beliefs' are ineffective.
They cannot and will not change anything that is fundamental in this world.

Dear Ipso Fatso:

I wish what you wrote is true. One can ask, what is fundamental in the world?

Crusades have been fought. Wars of different varieties of Christianity and Islam have been fought. They are fought over nonsense – over different fantasies.

Many people have been killed for non-religious nonsense – Nazi racial theories – Lysenkoism.

It is possible that beliefs which deny reality are the greatest force for social change.

The Crusades to my way of thinking were completely irrational, wrong and bloody. However, contact with Arabs brought the thought of the ancient world back to the countries of Europe. The ancient writings and the ancient philosophies of stoicism, cynicism and Epicureanism had been preserved in the Muslim dominions. Contact with the Arabs brought Indian mathematics which included such concepts as decimal notation and the zero to Europe.

That sparked the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution..

WW2 was a continuation of WW1 and also completely irrational, wrong and bloody. Atomic power (a mixed blessing), the United Nations, the decolonization of the European Empires, electronic progress such as computers, space travel and the net were some of the consequences of that conflict.

I think that the Christian religion is nonsense which any reasonable person would reject. At the moment I am reading “Religion and the Rise of Capitalism” by Tawney. The rise of capitalism is a fundamental change in the world, and it is intimately connected with the Christian religion.

From my reading of history irrational religious beliefs contrary to reality have resulted in fundamental changes.

Dear JP,

«Yuyutsu – you make a lot of assertions but provide little, if anything, to back those assertions up.»

I know, that may take quite a bit of time, and intellectual effort on your side.
As you can see, it takes that much just to understand this information, which is so different than the prevailing materialistic model people got used to. No point in trying to back up something before you even understand it.

«Please tell me, why should anybody believe any of what you say is true?»

Why believe? Belief is overrated and often, undeservedly, mistaken for faith - first listen, study, contemplate, ask questions as necessary and observe how it may apply to your life.

«As I have said before, if God is everything then God must be both good and evil.»

Everything is God, not vice-versa.
Good and evil are parts of creation.
It makes no sense to consider good or evil outside creation.
Creation depends on God, but God does not depend on His creation or any element thereof, including good or evil, so it is nonsensical to think of God to be tainted by properties/qualities of His own creation.

In practical terms, when we claim "God is good", normally we don't mean to make an accurate theological statement, but simply to say: "I have faith in God that everything will end up well". To this I wholeheartedly agree.

«Why is nothing as it appears?»

Because our senses evolved to survive in this world, not for finding the Truth, which in worldly terms seems impractical and not worthy of spending resources on.

«Why should everything have to be reinterpreted through your assertions?»

Definitely not *everything*: if you are looking for worldly results then you better stick with material science and if you are looking to become a better person, but not beyond, then you better stick with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But once you feel that you had enough of the world and want to know the ultimate Truth behind it (which is God), then it will help you to investigate these assertions.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«I don't understand why some want to treat atheism and organised religion as if those two things are in a contest.»

When you speak of "organised religion", you first need to consider whether it still is a religion (assuming it once was) - or whether it became an empty shell, religious in name only. It is not surprising that organisations vie with each other for power.

«The world is what it is.
Where religious 'beliefs' run contrary to reality, then those 'beliefs' are ineffective.
They cannot and will not change anything that is fundamental in this world.»

Very well: religious beliefs are not meant to be effective in the sense of changing the world. Religious practice is meant to transform the character and soul of their practitioner.

Religion (but not necessarily every organisation which calls itself "religious") does not run contrary to reality, but rather looks at the underlying deeper aspects of reality.

Let me give you an example: a golden wedding ring.
It has a shape, it has a name ("wedding ring"), it has qualities (smooth, heavy, etc.) and it has a purpose (to be presented at weddings). That is one reality, which is rightfully used in worldly transactions.

But that ring also has a deeper reality: gold!
Even if you melt the ring, gold remains. Shape that gold into a necklace or a watch, keep it in bullion or shape it into thin microchip connectors - gold remains. Gold is one underlying reality of the wedding ring.
Metaphorically, religion is interested in the gold rather than in the ring.

«We can be sad for them, and bemoan their befuddled state.»

We can be sad for materialistic people who only seek the ephemeral, who only invest in such stocks that are bound to crash completely.

---

Dear David F.,

«The rise of capitalism is a fundamental change in the world, and it is intimately connected with the Christian religion.»

The rise of capitalism may be intimately connected with the Christian Church(es), but is/are today's Christian Church(es) still religious?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Christian Churches are by definition religious. You may have a different definition of 'religious' as you have a different definition of many things. I have given up trying to find meaning in your statements. Sometimes you sound coherent. Sometimes not. I have learned from you. I think you are well-meaning. I do not enjoy interacting with you and did because I thought it courteous to respond to your question. I may not respond to future questions.

Dear David F.,

Thank you for replying.

You don't need to respond to me, but would you ask yourself,
"what is it that makes Christian Churches religious?"

As far as I am concerned, being religious cannot consist of just making any empty proclamations that include the word 'God' (and note that Buddhism doesn't do even that): to be considered religious, similar to being considered a doctor or a plumber, there must be some substance, not just words - what is this substance? what would the minimal requirements be?