If God didn't exist, should we all kill each other?

[JohnEngland]

Why would you go around shooting people? If you only lived once and it was over, then it seems like you would want to take advantage of the time you had while you were here and have a good time.

But why bother "take advantage" of that time? Indeed, why not take adventage of that time by killing others?

 

[JohnEngland]

Or...I'll turn your query around and ask, if we assume God does exist, why is it that so many people still kill others? Why is it that some Catholic Priests molest little boys? Why is it that a good church going man will still go home and beat his wife after chugging some whiskey? Why are things the way they are? Why aren't they different?

lol @ your nonsense.

I would argue that people still kill each other because mankind is flawed and all of us are prone to immorality, whether that is murder, adultery, molestation etc.

 

[JohnEngland]

Morality, which forms the basis of the decision not to mass murder, is an evolutionary trait, developed over time, which has helped our species survive. Caring for one's brother or neighbour implies reciprocity, thereby ensuring the survival of the family, tribe, or a community as a whole.

As a former Catholic, I would turn the question around, asking a present Catholic, why does a Catholic not engage in mass murder when the book which is the basis of your religion, the Bible, has clear examples of God commanding mass murder? Quoting the commandment "thou shall not kill" does not count, because clearly, people in the Bible were commanded to kill on occasion. Is it because you have not heard a voice bellowing from the sky commanding you to do so? If you were directly commanded to commit mass murder by God, as people in the Bible were, would you do it? Why or why not?

If morality is evolutionary, then surely we can "progress" past such primitive understandings of morality to something that some would call superior morality.

For example, some may see Jewish people as sub-human and a plague upon humanity. Thus, in order to create a more moral and decent society, we must get rid of the Jews. Or another example, some may say that it is moral to bomb villages and families in a far away country in order to create a safer world.

Talking of the Bible, I'm unfamiliar with much of the Old Testament, so I can't comment. However, certainly murder is not what Christ taught - and Christ is what Christianity is essentially about.

But regardless of Christianity, should there be a Creator, I suspect we can deduce that murder is wrong because it is a violation of the natural law, where the right to property, which is essential to being human, should be protected and sacred.

Now, an atheist may be supportive of the natural law insofar as he believes that there are timeless truths in the universe. However, why should one ultimately follow or support these truths if there were no God? Indeed, it may put the atheist at a disadvantage to follow the natural and moral law.

 

[JohnEngland]

But back to the question... well, it's kind of a pointless question. If you want to live in a society, then you have to cooperate with your neighbors. If you don't care about that and you don't think God exists, then I guess you could go around shooting people, but hopefully you won't get far before armed citizens take down your crazy ass down.

Well this is it. 99.9999% of us want to live in a nice society with each other, but at the end of the day, if there's ultimately no purpose to your life or anyone else's, why not go out with a bang?

 

[JohnEngland]

And here we see, people, the result of Christian extremism. Utter ignorance and stupidity. Nobody respond to this garbage please, you are just giving the idiot more pleasure.

What a stupid thread.

How dare you call me an idiot. This is a reasonable and philosophical question. Shame on you for wanting to silence debate with petty insults. Other atheists have the respect to answer the question. Shame you can't live up to their higher standards.

 

[JohnEngland]

While I agree that the first post isn't great, and no way to spark a discussion, there is something to be said about morality in an atheistic world.

Without God all actions are morally neutral because there are no morals, a mass murderer and a monk have the same moral value. The morals that atheists cite must be admitted to be completely arbitrary.

So while people probably won't run around killing each other in a totally atheistic world, the atheist should have to agree that if someone did, that there was nothing inherently wrong in the action itself, because morality doesn't really exist.

Indeed, this is what I'm getting at. My first post intentionally took the notion of a nihilistic world to its possible ultimate conclusion.

Whilst some, such as reillym, seem limited in their thinking, these are the kinds of questions people ask with regards to philosophy, theology, the meaning of life and so on.

These debates should take place, regardless of how controversal the subject may be and how "idiotic" they appear at first glance.

 

[Bruno]

I don't believe in God, and I'm not running around killing anyone, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, I'm overall a kind person who believes in helping my fellow humans, not kiling them.
I don't want to go to prison, it doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
I don't want to leave my family to mourn my death as a result of receiving the death penalty for murder, nor leave them alone while I am in prison.

If believers are not killing other humans only because they feel that God might send them to Hell in the afterlife, I feel very sorry for those people, yet glad they have a reason in their minds not to kill others.

 

[JohnEngland]

the unstated premise of the OP seems this: i want to kill people. i only don't do it because of religion.

but i don't have that premise. i don't have an urge to go around killing people. it doesn't achieve any of my objectives, so the question doesn't make any sense.

The premise is, in the larger sense, designed to stimulate the discussion as to what the meaning of life is. What is the ultimate purpose of existence?

 

[JohnEngland]

I don't believe in God, and I'm not running around killing anyone, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, I'm overall a kind person who believes in helping my fellow humans, not kiling them.
I don't want to go to prison, it doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
I don't want to leave my family to mourn my death as a result of receiving the death penalty for murder, nor leave them alone while I am in prison.
If believers are not killing other humans only because they feel that God might send them to Hell in the afterlife, I feel very sorry for those people, yet glad they have a reason in their minds not to kill others.

Part of the reason for starting this thread was in light of the shooting in Arizona. What compels a human to do such a thing? Here was a man who, contrary to what you have said Bruno, doesn't want to help his fellow humans, doesn't care about going to prison and doesn't care about his family.

What persuaded him to act in such a manner? Hmm, maybe I should have studied psychology, but I believe the answers may lie in his belief as to the purpose of life.

 

[Bruno]

Part of the reason for starting this thread was in light of the shooting in Arizona. What compels a human to do such a thing? Here was a man who, contrary to what you have said Bruno, doesn't want to help his fellow humans, doesn't care about going to prison and doesn't care about his family.

What persuaded him to act in such a manner? Hmm, maybe I should have studied psychology, but I believe the answers may lie in his belief as to the purpose of life.

Regarding the shooter - hate, search for glory, belief all others were inferior, and mostly schizophrenia.

And prisons are full of people who grew up religious, and still believed in God at the time they commited their crimes. The fact that a startling number of Catholic priests commit pedophilia, some for decades, and some ministers and pastors have stolen from their churches and put out murder contracts on their wives shows that even the strongest of believers are not deterred from doing what they are motivated to do, merely because of their belief in God and punishment in the afterlife.

My wife is reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. She says there is a whole chapter title, The Roots of Morality, Why Are We Good? When she's done, I'll be reading it next, she says it is a fascinating read.

 

[JohnEngland]

Regarding the shooter - hate, search for glory, belief all others were inferior, and mostly schizophrenia.

And prisons are full of people who grew up religious, and still believed in God at the time they commited their crimes. The fact that a startling number of Catholic priests commit pedophilia, some for decades, and some ministers and pastors have stolen from their churches and put out murder contracts on their wives shows that even the strongest of believers are not deterred from doing what they are motivated to do, merely because of their belief in God and punishment in the afterlife.

Regarding the first point - Indeed, I suspect that the shooter had contempt for his peers. However, at the end of the day, what does this say about his worldview, his belief in the value and dignity of each human being? What conclusions did he come to as to the purpose of life itself and man's raison d'etre?

Concerning the second point - Absolutely, lots of people who are in prison proclaim to believe in God. However, personally, I believe that belief in the Creator ultimately has to be based on the solid foundation of reason and thoughtful contemplation. Someone may claim to believe in God, but if this is simply an emotional and unprincipled belief, it is surely likely that that person will violate what is expected of a belief in the God his has professed to believe in - and hence he will steal, lie, murder etc.

This is why I'm a big fan of Ron Paul. His philosophy is a reasoned and principled one. It's built upon a solid foundation and unmoved by emotion and irrationality.

 

[Bruno]

Regarding the first point - Indeed, I suspect that the shooter had contempt for his peers. However, at the end of the day, what does this say about his worldview, his belief in the value and dignity of each human being? What conclusions did he come to as to the purpose of life itself and man's raison d'etre?

Concerning the second point - Absolutely, lots of people who are in prison proclaim to believe in God. However, personally, I believe that belief in the Creator ultimately has to be based on the solid foundation of reason and thoughtful contemplation. Someone may claim to believe in God, but if this is simply an emotional and unprincipled belief, it is surely likely that that person will violate what is expected of a belief in the God his has professed to believe in - and hence he will steal, lie, murder etc.

This is why I'm a big fan of Ron Paul. His philosophy is a reasoned and principled one. It's built upon a solid foundation and unmoved by emotion and irrationality.

Did Pope John Paul II not know about the pedophilia that went on during his tenure? Surely he knew. Many are outraged for that reason that he is being considered for sainthood. Bishops knew. Other priests knew, and they continued to let it happen, for decades, moving the pedophiles from church to church to continue to harm others. To say they all just said they believed in God, but didn't, it merely convenient. People who believe in God still do bad things. Very bad things indeed.

 

[Bruno]

Some thoughts from others on the topic:

"If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - Albert Einstein

"If you agree that in the absence of God, you would commit robbery, rape and murder, you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and we would be well-advised to steer clear of you. If, on the other hand, you admit that you continue to be a good person, even when not under "divine surveillance", you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good." - Michael Shermer

I believe that belief in the Creator ultimately has to be based on the solid foundation of reason and thoughtful contemplation.

“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”

—Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

—Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.

“Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.”

—Martin Luther, Table Talks (as quoted in Religious History: An Inquiry by M. Searle Bates, p. 156).

 

[specialK]

If morality is evolutionary, then surely we can "progress" past such primitive understandings of morality to something that some would call superior morality.

For example, some may see Jewish people as sub-human and a plague upon humanity. Thus, in order to create a more moral and decent society, we must get rid of the Jews. Or another example, some may say that it is moral to bomb villages and families in a far away country in order to create a safer world.

Clearly we haven't then progressed to what some what would call "superior morality". This assumes that "superior morality" would benefit our species. Maybe it would, maybe it would not. Evolution will decide that. Our closest relative, the chimpanzee, also has a moral code, but they will skin one another alive.

Talking of the Bible, I'm unfamiliar with much of the Old Testament, so I can't comment. However, certainly murder is not what Christ taught - and Christ is what Christianity is essentially about.

I'm deeply convinced that if more Christians studied their own holy document, there would be far fewer Christians. Perhaps that is why the Catholic Church doesn't spend a great deal of time on it, but cherry picks mainly NT teachings to discuss.

"I came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it". Therefore, it behooves you to study what Law, and its history, Christ indeed was talking about. To dismiss the OT, or to remain ignorant of it, is to dismiss the very foundation of your belief system.

Now, an atheist may be supportive of the natural law insofar as he believes that there are timeless truths in the universe. However, why should one ultimately follow or support these truths if there were no God? Indeed, it may put the atheist at a disadvantage to follow the natural and moral law.

Timeless truths in the Universe? That is quite a claim when we, as humans, are just beginning to understand the nature of the universe.

 

[AFPVet]

Timeless truths in the Universe? That is quite a claim when we, as humans, are just beginning to understand the nature of the universe.

...and when we do, the game changes. I think that there is so much beyond of what we are and what creates calculated and organized phenomena. Call God what you will, but there is a force which binds us to the universe—and breaking this bond which anchors another human being to the earth causes a negative sociological change. So, no, I do not believe that if God (in the traditional sense) didn't exist, that we should go off and kill one another. We all have something inside of us which connects us and has empathy.

 

[low preference guy]

The premise is, in the larger sense, designed to stimulate the discussion as to what the meaning of life is. What is the ultimate purpose of existence?

"existence" doesn't have a purpose. only human beings have purposes. and each of us has free will to choose our purpose. some people are like the joker and choose destruction as their purpose. others choose the pursue of happiness.

 

[robert68]

Why do Christians assume to have a monopoly on ethics?...

Because their religion is premised on having a monopoly on truth.

 

[Fox McCloud]

"existence" doesn't have a purpose. only human beings have purposes. and each of us has free will to choose our purpose. some people are like the joker and choose destruction as their purpose. others choose the pursue of happiness.

this is heavily debated in the evolutionary biology community an in the evolutionary psychology community--many many of contest that there is a free will, at all, and that it's all deterministic processes in the brain.

Of course, that brings up some interesting conclusions...mainly being that "can we really blame someone for acting in a certain manner if we lack free will?"

 

[low preference guy]

this is heavily debated in the evolutionary biology community an in the evolutionary psychology community--many many of contest that there is a free will, at all, and that it's all deterministic processes in the brain.

Of course, that brings up some interesting conclusions...mainly being that "can we really blame someone for acting in a certain manner if we lack free will?"

yeah, the chemicals in my brain made me type all that stuff about free will. i'm just an automaton.

...

now seriously. the "debate" you're talking about is at best as relevant as a debate among economists about whether war is good for the economy. it's a laughable debate and those who take it seriously make fools of themselves.

 

[Fox McCloud]

yeah, the chemicals in my brain made me type all that stuff about free will. i'm just an automaton.

...

now seriously. the "debate" you're talking about is at best as relevant as a debate among economists about whether war is good for the economy. it's a laughable debate and those who take it seriously make fools of themselves.

Actually, those who don't believe in free will aren't that much of a fringe element; some of the well-respected/established scientists/philosophers don't believe in free will...or merely define free will to the point it's not what you and I think it to be (ie: defining free will as not being hindered from acting), consider looking up Daniel Dennet.

But either way, your first statement, while I know you're being silly, is pretty much what quite a number of them honestly believe.

(disclaimer: I'm not defending the lack of free will, I'm merely providing info).