Does Life Have Inherent Meaning Without Belief In God?

ISBN: 1598182617

How would you feel if you spent most of your life working, having children, and trying to make a difference, only to come to the conclusion in old age that it was all for nothing and that there was no meaning to your life at all? That’s exactly what happened to Leo Tolstoy, who wrote a book called A Confession to describe his existential crisis and what he did in an attempt to resolve it.

Today or tomorrow sickness and death will come (they had come already) to those I love or to me; nothing will remain but stench and worms. Sooner or later my affairs, whatever they may be, will be forgotten, and I shall not exist. Then why go on making any effort? How can man fail to see this? And how go on living? That is what is surprising! One can only live while one is intoxicated with life; as soon as one is sober it is impossible not to see that it is all a mere fraud and a stupid fraud! That is precisely what it is: there is nothing either amusing or witty about it, it is simply cruel and stupid.

Back in his time of the 19th century, he saw four ways that people were handling this problem.

1. Ignorance. “It consists in not knowing, not understanding, that life is an evil and an absurdity. People of this sort — chiefly women, or very young or very dull people — have not yet understood that question of life which presented itself to Schopenhauer, Solomon, and Buddha.” Believers in God fit within this category.

2. Epicureanism and pleasure. “[This] is the way in which the majority of people of our circle make life possible for themselves. Their circumstances furnish them with more of welfare than of hardship, and their moral dullness makes it possible for them to forget that the advantage of their position is accidental, and that not everyone can have a thousand wives and palaces like Solomon.”

3. The “strength” to commit suicide. “Having understood the stupidity of the joke that has been played on them, and having understood that it is better to be dead than to be alive, and that it is best of all not to exist, they act accordingly and promptly end this stupid joke, since there are means: a rope round one’s neck, water, a knife to stick into one’s heart, or the trains on the railways.”

4. Weakness. “It consists in seeing the truth of the situation and yet clinging to life, knowing in advance that nothing can come of it. People of this kind know that death is better than life, but not having the strength to act rationally — to end the deception quickly and kill themselves — they seem to wait for something.”

Tolstoy came to a conclusion that many of us have realized, but forcefully pushed to the wayside by distracting ourselves with various goals and entertainments. We have erected walls around our minds that prevent us from asking the big questions and acknowledging life’s meaninglessness, and instead have embarked on an escalating hunt for satisfying pleasures and achievements. I did this myself for over a decade until I reached a limit of what pleasure could give me.

Tolstoy stumbled upon an interesting paradox whereby human reason is the rejector of life. The argument follows thusly…

1. There is nothing higher to a human than his reason. Without reason, a man could not perceive or sense life.

2. Reason is therefore the creator of a man’s life, because it allows him to experience it.

3. Reason is also what allows a man to reject his life and commit suicide, thereby ending it.

4. Reason is both the creator and destroyer of life.

He concludes that the best way to prevent a man from prematurely ending his life is to believe in “irrational” beliefs such as God. Therefore man must trick his reason to believe in “myths” that allow him to continue valuing his life and existence. This suggests that having too much reason is harmful to your life, and may end it prematurely.

Rational knowledge presented by the learned and wise, denies the meaning of life, but the enormous masses of men, the whole of mankind receive that meaning in irrational knowledge. And that irrational knowledge is faith, that very thing which I could not but reject. It is God, One in Three; the creation in six days; the devils and angels, and all the rest that I cannot accept as long as I retain my reason.

While Tolstoy portrays having faith as ignorant, he concedes that it appears to be a necessity for human life to prevent the suicidal tendencies that he found himself in.

Faith still remained to me as irrational as it was before, but I could not but admit that it alone gives mankind a reply to the questions of life, and that consequently it makes life possible.

[…]

Looking again at people of other lands, at my contemporaries and at their predecessors, I saw the same thing. Where there is life, there since man began faith has made life possible for him.

Faith is therefore a requirement of life. If you reason yourself into forgoing faith, in which you scientifically conclude that there is no rock-solid proof of God, you will certainly face an existential crises that makes you question your own life and how to live in a way that doesn’t cripple you, take you down the road of senseless hedonism, or motivate you to commit suicide.

Tolstoy argues that outside of faith, it’s impossible to find meaning in your life that justifies existence. Many men have tried but have not come up with something greater than faith in allowing humans to live with purpose while being free of debilitating malaise and fatalism.

He decided that he was in no position to examine the meaning of life because he was actually an aberration, an absurd entity, for denying life in the first place. He was not qualified to arrive at the correct answer. In other words, if you are pursuing the sins and evils of life, it will be impossible for you to see life’s true meaning.

What if an executioner passing his whole life in torturing people and cutting off their heads, or a hopeless drunkard, or a madman settled for life in a dark room which he has fouled and imagines that he would perish if he left — what if he asked himself: “What is life?” Evidently he could not offer reply to that question than that life is the greatest evil, and the madman’s answer would be perfectly correct, but only as applied to himself. What if I am such a madman? What if all we rich and leisured people are such madmen?

You would not ask a parasite, which he considered himself, what life is, because it is a parasite that tries to hurt others or steal from them. He then compares us to laborers who angrily question the farm owner (God) why a certain task on the farm must be completed without seeing the complete picture of how the farm works. We are only exposed to a tiny part of the farm, and after not liking what we see, or not doing the job the owner demanded, we declare the whole thing as a sham, jumping to conclusions from limited information and experience.

Tolstoy then made the conscious decision to seek out God:

Though I was quite convinced of the impossibility of proving the existence of a Deity (Kant had shown, and I quite understood him, that it could not be proved), I yet sought for god, hoped that I should find Him.

[…]

Every man has come into this world by the will of God. And God has so made man that every man can destroy his soul or save it. The aim of man in life is to save his soul, and to save his soul he must live “godly” and to live “godly” he must renounce all the pleasures of life, must labour, humble himself, suffer, and be merciful.

He was unable to suspend his reason completely, and had disagreements with the Orthodox Church for perverting Christ’s teachings. This led him to eventually form his own sect called the Tolstoyan movement, which was based on passivity and lack of private land ownership.

Tolstoy’s deus ex machina transformation into a believer will probably not be sufficient for atheists today who lack meaning in their lives. As a man who is in between atheism and faith, his arguments do not easily allow me to jump into faith, but at this point I wonder if I even need further justification.

I know that for the health of my sanity, my tribe, and my nation, faith will be required, especially since a strong and healthy nation without faith is a fantasy concept that history has not shown to be possible, at least not in the modern era. Whether God is the absolute truth or not, He seems to be a requirement for a sane and purposeful life. I want to believe, and maybe one day, I just will.

Read More: “A Confession” on Amazon

Related Posts For You

newest oldest most voted
Avraham rosenblum
Guest

Belief in God is rational. Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore God, the first cause, exists. QED. (You could prove the first step a priori that everything has a cause by noting that nothing can come from nothing. This makes it a priori, not just an empirical observation).

The idea here is to limit the number of causes. I am not saying everything needs a cause. I am saying just the opposite. That there must be a limit or else nothing could exist.

The idea is similar to what you have in logic concerning the infinite regress.

The quantum mechanics that I am aware of does not say something can come out of nothing. Rather before something it measured it is just a probability.

For those it might be helpful here to look at this from the standpoint of Kant. Unconditioned realities exist but their character is part dependent on the subject and part on the object.

NaturalSelector
Guest
NaturalSelector
Offline

God does not solve that dilemma, now you have to answer what caused god?

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

There must be a first cause and it can not have been caused (god). No harder to accept that than “poof it all happened” it all was here for no reason or purpose, it just was.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

It is harder to accept. Not knowing something doesn’t mean an infinitely complex inteligent being did it. We just don’t know yet, and maybe never will.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

By that standard you of course would have no opinion on anything that is unproved. And as science seems to be showing that humans do not have free thought. Without that you can not really claim that anything you believe is proved. Only that your biological computers programing sees it that way. Its only purpose is your DNA’s survival.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Yeah, all we have to percieve reality is in fact our five senses. Also reason and evidence. We cant know for sure about anything beyond that. We don’t have the tools. But as you say, nothing can be proved with a 100% certainty. Thankfully its not a black and white matter. There are diferent levels of certainty. And by that standard I am almost sure that there is no god because nothing even points to it. Faith is just an excuse people give for wanting to believe something without evidence.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Well if you look around a little bit you’re going to see a comment I left where I showed evidence that points to it. There’s a lot of evidence that points to God. but I’m assuming your biological computer will not let you see it. Odd as atheism is closed to a death sentence for your genetic line as few of you reproduce. You can address my evidence for God or a long list of other evidences for God. I just don’t think you want to see it

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

I asume you are talking about that comment in which you say that faith is healthy and rational?. That is not evidence for the truth of the statement of god’s existance.

Also I don’t think atheism is determined by genetics man. Either your are joking, or your don’t understand how genetics work. I was catholic for most of my life and have a minor in theology so I know what I’m talking about to some extent. This article resumes our world view, but I don’t think you want se see it: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

You actually think gentics hard to understand? it’s one of the easiest subject of them all. Oh and thanks for the atheist website link. I now realize just how religious you are in your face. oh I’m sorry anti faith faith

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

I don’t think it’s hard to understand, I think you just don’t understand it.

And NP for the link. It’s just a rational point of view about common “arguments” given by weak minded religious people. But of course you won’t read it. it just hurts to much your inner convictions. Doesn’t it?

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Oh I know your mind is too close to see it. but you basically sent a link to an atheist equivalent of the Bible. I know you don’t see it, it’s okay not everybody can see everything. Some people are color blind you know and can not see red. Usually people like you are a little bit nerdy, don’t get along with people too well. mind blindness is an issue you know borderline autism. The fact that I’m not being very careful writing this, bugs the hell out of you. you know things must always be the same repetition is nice. the fact that atheists tend to be so similar to each other would indicate that it’s more of a mental disorder than an actual philosophy. Now not knowing, being a skeptic, agnostic, etc. these things are Perfectly Natural, logical ways of seeing the world. but atheism I’m sorry I don’t have anything good to say about it. It’s an emotional based philosophy mostly held by people with some mental issues

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

You got it all wrong man. You have some kind of irrational prejudice against a group of individuals that think different from you, putting me in the same category. Im not nerdy at all, and I get along quite well with people of all faiths. That is precisely because I welcome critizism to my ideas, and any evidence that could change my mind. It’s actually when I started doing that, that I became an atheist, coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence to back up my beliefs, even if they gave me comfort. You seem to be the one who is mad for some reason.

Also just to clarify, there are diferent “types” of atheism. I would describe myself an agnostic atheist, as no one can prove that anything doesn’t exist. I can’t prove that there is no god as I can’t prove there are no unicorns. But I think it is REALLY improbable that a god exists. Im not assuring anything. That is the same as not knowing.. but with a heavy inclination to the “I don’t think there is” side. Most probably there is no god so I live as if there was not. Again, it’s not emotional, it’s exactly the opposite. If you come to me with proof of your claims, I just might change my mind. But the things you have said, or what it was said in this article about the supposed “need” to believe in god to not commit suicide or something is not proof of reality and frankly utter bullshit of a weak minded confused individual.

Wes
Guest
Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline
Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Meme wars!

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

hahaha I don’t think you can win this one

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

I already did

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline
Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Remember less is more you cannot overwhelm a particularly good mean by sheer numbers. okay Jesus in sunglasses was pretty good. But it was a mere reaction to one that was better in context

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

There are proofs that god doesn’t exist. Plenty. If we are talking about the god as humans define god, then this kind of god does not exist. And I can point thousands of proofs.
If you now come and tell me there is some kind of higher being that you cannot define and created all of these, then yes I can’t prove it.
But a god that created only humans on planet earth and cares for them and loves them and want to see their best is just a plain childish fairy tale. And it amazes me that in 2016 people still believe in such a stupid myth. People also waste their entire being in false beliefs. Imagine if that belief was shaken down without a doubt when you become 70, how stupid you will feel? I would have shot myself right there and then, wasted my life believing in such a fairy tale.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Yeah I agree. Its a matter of concept. I dont think you can prove 100% that anything doesn’t exist. Either god or leprechauns. However, it is highly improbable as you say that they exist, so live your life as if he doesn’t of course.

James Adams
Guest

And we REALLY care what you think loser.Are you as awkward with women as you are writing?(signs point to yes indeed)

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Nop. No problem with woman. My writing may seem weird to you, maybe because english is not my native laguage.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Sorry my writing bothers you dude. You see, english is not my first language. Do you speak other languages?

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Oh I get it you didn’t really have a reason to say what you did you are just thrashing at the wind. I guess I attacked one of your principles faith

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

No you don’t get it.

James Adams
Guest

Oh please pseudo tough guy,we weak minded people just wish we were so intellectual and self assured as you.Hope you don’t die in your sleep bitch.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

I wouldn’t mind dying in my sleep dude. I wouldn’t notice, and probably won’t have a fairy tale “next life” to think what I could have done if I hadn’t died. That is a weak minded fantasy.

John
Guest
John
Offline

Yeah, genetics is super easy and straightforward, especially when it comes to solving problems like cancer and aging.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

That is what is called a “clueless” remark.

John
Guest
John
Offline

Intelligent people are far more skeptical than the dumb, especially when confronted with grandiose claims with no factual basis in reality.

“The more education a person receives, the more likely they are to become atheists (1). Non belief also increases with intelligence and income. Residents of more educated countries see religion as less important in their daily lives (2).”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201402/why-are-educated-people-more-likely-be-atheists

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Yeah I’ve always found a bassless assertion of a great intellect is a trademark of a fundamentalist atheist. I’m pretty sure it’s an insecurity issue with them

John
Guest
John
Offline

It’s pretty comical for a believer to try and pull the fundamentalist card on an atheist. I’ve never even met an atheist who denies a supernatural god could in theory exist, but countless religious fundamentalists and moderates alike who are 100% certain that a god does exist.

There is one single fundamental required to be an atheist and that is to be “a” (without) “theos” (a god). Until there is strong evidence for a god, it is the far more sensible and open minded option to go without one.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

yep this is amusing

James Adams
Guest

No wonder you are a fool,you were part of the Catholic Church aka the homo,power seeking hypocrites.Noone cares about your minor in theology either,education has become a joke.Your professors were probably gay atheists getting that paycheck.Hey the college system is so much like the Catholic Church,a bunch of idiots claiming to know what you need to think and charging you heavily for that.You impress me as someone who is very confused so you try to hide behind the “my answers make no sense but that’s just because I’m highly intellectual and you aren’t”facade.Wake up,God is real,Jesus is real.You probably are as horrible at finding relationships with women as you are at telling everyone else about the meaning of Creation.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

LOL. You’ve been posting crappy comments and responses for a while now. No one is taking you seriously since you restort to insulting and cowering in your petty fantasies instead of actually trying to understand the contrary position.

Im not saying I’m more intelligent or anything. Maybe I’m wrong in fact. But oh well, statistically, religious people are in fact dumber. As for women, I don’t get why you insist I have any problem with them. On the contrary, I do fairly well. And as I said before, I don’t think there IS a “meaning of creation”. There doesn’t need to be. “Meaning” is a human construct. Women actually dig the confidence of someone who doesn’t need faith and fairy tales to live. Or the need to feel the comfort of a higher power controling their lives.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Are you guys for real? You believe in God to get you through the day?
You are miserable. Yes poof it all happened. Study a bit of science. You
do not matter, enjoy your life at its fullest and don’t think for a
second that you matter.

There is no single evidence that god exists. Not a single one. Everything is just a fairy tale, created by people like you who can’t separate the reality from fake.

I’ll just point out something that proves there is no god(your god)..If your god existed, then what was the point of dinosaurs ruling the earth for millions of years? Did he killed them with a meteroite so that we rule the earth later? How retarted is that?

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

That has got to be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard what is the point of God creating anything? what is the point of you creating anything unrelated to comfort food or sex ? you’re asking for a third party to decide your motivation. And making this emotional argument of yours. you’re invoking the science that some magic talismans if you use it. No there is not a single scientific study of any sort that even comes close to Disproving God .

Ask you there’s no proof of God? you need to get out more do a little reading. the evidence for there being a God is abundant. Though you don’t accept it or are too blind to see it. Your ignorance is not an argument for anything other than your ignorance

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

You didn’t answer my question about dinosaurs. Please answer the motivation behind it. And stop answering with meaningless questions.
Give me the abudance evidence about the existence of god. I can’t wait to see your silly evidence.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Why would I bother answering that question? it doesn’t make a point. you can’t see a reason for dinosaurs, but then again you can’t see a reason for Why God would make man. So what’s your point? The existence of God is Not based on you agreeing with what he decided to create and what he did not decide to create. because God is not meeting your rather weak minded expectations of what God should do. I doubt your mind works well enough to realize just how funny your question is. All you’re doing is exhibiting a very narrow and weak mind. In other words that’s a stupid question why should I answer it? try one that makes a point.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

I gave that question to YOU, not to me. So if you find reason behind god making man, give me the reason behind making dinosaurs. Of course I expected the answer of “you don’t understand god’s will” typical answer you people give when you have nothing rational to answer. Because oh wait YOU understand god’s will more than me!
Yes his will is not to question his motivation, what he does only he understands. It amazes me that you people call yourselves adults.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Seriously you don’t get it. the question is irrelevant it makes no sense so far as the topic is consurned. you’re just showing yourself to be of less than intelligent. man think a little deeper, do yourself a favor ask some real questions. If you know how

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Oh of course it doesn’t make sense, whatever suits you better…

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

No it doesn’t I’m sorry for you. You not having the ability to understand why a Creator would create dinosaurs. Tgat proves nothing other than you have a lack of imagination and you don’t seem to understand but that does not address the point of the existence of God in any way.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

And I’m asking YOU. YOU, who you say you understand why a creator, who his sole purpose was US, created the dinosaurs.
I’m open minded enough in hearing your explanation. So forget what I believe and have the balls to answer the question instead of avoiding it. Or your answer will be something of the like “I don’t know why, his majesty works in mysterious ways.”?, which is fine not to bother answering.
Also do you have any idea that this question was the primary reason Darwin rejected the Bible? He must have had a very low IQ.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

You do realize you’re trying to make an argument based on the Creator’s motivatio ( an emotional argument). when you can’t possibly claim to know all of his motivations. No one claims to know all of his motivations nor can you even understand whether it would have been necessary or not. you are creating an entire world an entire ecosystem. what was necessary to create the ecosystem we have today? That’s right you don’t know. nobody really knows, but we do know that everything that went before today, created today. so it’s safe to say it was probably necessary

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Hilarious answer. You claim to know his motivation. That you are special in his mind and that your life has meaning and purpose because of him. So if you claim everything he created he created for us, is like claiming that you know a big part of his motivation. In doing so it is correct to have logic(no emotional argument as you claim, but logical argument) and this logic demands an answer for why a species that ruled the earth long before man and million and millions of years only to be wiped out completely from earth.
I know the answer and god has nothing to do with it. Dinosaurs were simply a part of the evolution and chance/probability killed them off. I give you the facts and you tell me that god threw a meteorite on some species he didn’t need in the first place. You give me fairy tales I give you facts. Who has the lowest IQ?

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Do you project much dear? You need to make a real argument not something you’re pulled off an atheist website use your brain you’re the one who claim ts one can know God’s motivations and what needed to do to create today’s ecosystem and life.

I never made such claims so keep your words in your mouth and again try to make an argument that says something you’re being stupid.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Atheist website? Are you illiterate? The existence of dinosaurs(millions of years ago) is proven beyond doubt by paleontologists. That a meteorite killed them of is proven beyond doubt again. Almost every known scientist lays out roughly the same way, how the universe evolved.
I don’t claim to know gods motivation, I claim god is a fairy tale created by illiterate, lazy and ignorant people like you.

Yes call it projection, it makes me angry to see adult men that claim to be clever enough and have no idea about evolution or history of the universe. Or do not bother learning about it because they prefer sitting on their couch jerking off complentating why life has no meaning for them and seek for god to make them one. Because if you did know about it, you would have known that your life has no meaning and you make the meaning for yourself. You do not seek approval from some magical being on how to walk your path. This is your only chance in life and it saddens me to see people throw it away and blame everything on “It was god’s will”.

You never made such claims? So you do not believe that you are the special species of god, as the bible claims? Or you believe in some other god I’m not aware of?

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Oh good God this is funny did you look up “the train is fine” or maybe you’re trying to imitate that video

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

What is funny is that you try to look cool with these comments, but you are not. Keep on doing what you do puppet.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Sure and you know what “the dinosaurs are fine” you just keep running that through your head. Not That you have a choice

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

I’ll do that puppet.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

I knew that

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

I mean are you unable to see that someone saying that proof there is no God is “why did God make dinosaurs” maybe you should just admit that that was a stupid question. I hope you have a better one in mind. Something that shows that you have an IQ over 3. Or that you’ve even given this any consideration before and this is not your first time

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Really? Logic: The planet is billions years old and we lived on this planet for few thousand years. Dinosaurs lived for million years they were wiped out by a meteorite. And god created us so that he will love us, we are his children and so that we become his image.
And my IQ is low…keep on going with that, I love it.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Good God you have a narrow mind if you have a higher IQ I think you might also have a thing called mindblindness. It’s a lack of empathy it tends to lean towards Asperger’s Syndrome. There are just things you can’t understand

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Go to Google type in “the train is fine”

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Almost nobody says that God exists simply because we *don’t know* how caused things were caused. We are saying that we *do know* that there must be a first and uncaused thing, and that the qualities it would possess in order to be an uncaused, universal cause, make it a Supreme Being.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Hello Aurelius. I have read a couple of your articles, and I like them, they make me think. Keep it up.
Now about this subject:
So you *know* there must be a first and uncaused thing?. How do you know?. Maybe it doesn’t need to be. That is what im saying. We just don’t know. And even if it was, then comes the problem of describing that sumpreme being. Is it a god?, which god?.

I posted a quote in another comment below about the problem of the first cause argument. Take a look. The link to the full article is in that same comment. Just to think for a bit.

Tom Kaye
Guest
Tom Kaye
Offline

Let me propose an idea to you.

A cause must be greater than its effect. Something caused this universe to come into existence. This universe includes near-infinite complexity that includes consciousness and the reality of free will. Something that CONTRADICTS the law of cause and effect. The Law that governs the entire physical universe. Therefore, there must be something beyond this physical universe because free will is not a part of this physical universe.

Whatever caused this near-infinitely complex universe to come into existence MUST be greater than the entire universe put together and must include something greater than personal consciousness.

That sounds like the infinite-personal God of the Gospels.

Oh, and by the way. It’s not a case of believing in one of many concepts about infinite-personal gods. There is only ONE. In all of philosophy, in all of religion, there is only ONE infinite-personal God talked about anywhere.

Socrates, the greatest logician in history, the Father of Logic, was able to logically deduce His existence. Yet atheists say they can’t.

I think the deficiency in intelligence is with them. Not Socrates.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

There is so much wrong with this idea. As I said before, the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for particles and events to have no cause.

By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, “before” does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.

This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

About free will (or the ilussion of it), it’s nothing more than a result of the way our brains evolved. Our consiousness and free will is contained in our material and physical brains in the form of chemical processess and electric reactions.

The concept of god also applies the same to every other of the thausands of gods that humanity has invented. You can’t distinguish beteween them.

Tom Kaye
Guest
Tom Kaye
Offline

There is so much wrong with this idea in don’t know where to begin.

If you deny free will all conversation ceases. Period. Nothing you say after that has any content. Without free will there are no facts. There is no truth. There is only that which you were compelled to think, feel, say, and do.

You misunderstand the argument for a First Cause.

It does not say, everything must have a cause. It says, everything that has a beginning MUST have a cause. Since God has no beginning He does not logically require a cause.

And if we know anything cosmologically we know the universe had a beginning. The evidence of entropy is everywhere. If the universe is running down it must have been wound up in the past. Since energy is not infinite there was a beginning to the universe, ergo the universe must have a First Cause, i.e. God.

Your argument only works if you throw logic and reason out window, which is what philosophers have been doing for 100 years! So good luck.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Im not denying free will man. Im just saying it can exist within the physical universe, because it does. It don’t see why it would require a non physical reality or god to exist. Again, that we don’t know exactly how it workds doesn’t mean a god did it.

Again why do you suppose that everything that has a beggining has a first cause?. You can’t talk of a beggining with no time. And time came to be with the big bang itself. Remember that in the bottom level everything is goverened by quantum mechanics. In this level this happen or “begin” without a cause all the time.

Also, you should know that the total energy of the universe is believed to be 0. Since gravity is negative energy it tends to sum 0.

Tom Kaye
Guest
Tom Kaye
Offline

I do not say free will necessitates God. I say free will necessitates the existence of a dimension outside our universe of cause and effect from which consciousness of our free will originates. To be truly free our will must not be “determined” by any physical law. That this is possible is evidenced by the latest researches into the power of the mind to alter our brain’s neurological pathways. The neurologist Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz has written that the fact that the mind can change the brain demonstrates conclusively, or it ought to, that the mind is not the brain. It is something other than the brain because it changes the brain.

That everything with a beginning must have a cause is an axiom of logic that has NEVER been challenged by anyone who understands the questions! It is the foundation of all physics. It is called The Law of Cause and Effect. Now you cannot challenge self-evident truths of logic, axioms of science believed and accepted for a couple thousand years by everyone up to this present day, with an, “Oh yeah! Says who?” When you do, you just sound silly.

Also, saying, “You should know. . .” is not the same thing as saying, “This is an accepted law of physics.”

But even this hypothetical zero energy universe “answer” begs the question:

“The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a TINY BIT of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.”

There’s a saying ironically attributed to cosmologists, “Just give us ONE FREE MIRACLE and we’ll explain the rest.”

Check out the book “The Science of God” by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. (MIT). Or better yet, his youtube videos.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Maybe I’ll check it out when I have time. Though im sure iv’e heard the arguments before.

Again. We don’t yet fully understand the nature of free will or consiousness. But assuming that there is something supernatural or another dimension is just speculating. There is no real evidence.

I know the Law of Cause and Effect is a law in phisics. But in Newtonian physics (physics that make sense). However, Newtonian physics does not control the universe at the bottom level; quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity do. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what are known as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.

Richard Feynman wrote, “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd.”

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

There was no space/time at the “time” of the big bang, so you cannot define the beginning of the big bang . Energy is infinite, energy cannot be destroyed.. Learn your science.

Tom Kaye
Guest
Tom Kaye
Offline

To assert that energy is infinite is patent nonsense. To say it cannot be destroyed is not the same thing as saying it is infinite. It is only within our space-time continuum that energy is never destroyed. This universe HAD a beginning, ergo, energy had a beginning.

Besides, you’re dodging the question I raised above. Do you have a free will? How? If all that exists is matter in motion governed by the law of cause and effect, whence comes Free Will?

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

I do not assert. Universe is infinite. Infinite is something your mind cannot comperehend, infinite can be 100000000000000 but it is still a number. Energy is infinite because even if you take a dump, your dump will become some other energy. And again, no universe had no beginning because there was no time/space at the “time” of the big bang. How can you say something has a beginning when you cannot define the time and space of it?
My free will is a complex combination of matter and elements that in turn create some biochemical reaction depending on my experiences. Those things were build upon trillion and trillion and trillion of years. It is part of the evolution. Just like gold was created after the death of trillion and trillion of stars. The element gold did not exist at the beginning of time. It needed fusion etc.

Do you have some other question?

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

I told you, the total sum of energy in the universe is 0. Gravity is negative energy. So there is not an energy requirement for the start of the universe.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Socrates believed in Gods, not God. Namely the 12 Gods of Olympus. His favourite was Apollo, he never deduced that Apollo was the only God.

Tom Kaye
Guest
Tom Kaye
Offline

That he was speaking of Apollo is a deduction made by scholars with some validity, but it is not explicit in any texts, nor does Apollo bear any resemblance to “the god” whom Socrates says gave him his mission in life. Also, there are many places in the dialogues where Socrates challenges the sufficiency of the Greek gods since they are created, morally deficient, and fallible. Socrates believed “the god” was much more than that.

There was sufficient doubt about Socrates’ belief in the gods of Athens, whether he publicly supported for them, and the accusation that he preaching “new deities” in Athens to get him convicted and put to death. “The god” whom Socrates speaks of during his trial and in his dialogues bears besides bearing no resemblance to Apollo, is recognized by many scholars to be Socrates “reaching after” the idea of a “sufficient god” with the inherent nature, power, and, most importantly to Socrates, the moral character worthy of respect and worship. Therefore, these scholars believe Socrates could well be considered the first pagan monotheist. Or, if not a monotheist, then a believer in a god more worthy of worship and moral emulation than Zeus and the gods of the pantheon.

SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Guest
SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Offline

of course there must be a first cause, but why do you delusional fuckers believe it has to be ‘God’? You just repeat the word ‘God’ for everything you don’t fucking understand, which is really stupid, not just irrational and delusional. You have the mind of a child. PS. ”poof it all happened” does NOT mean it was all here for no reason. Science tells you EXACTLY what the reasons are, but because you people are half baked sods, you just put words into science’s mouth because you are not prepared even for level 0 science crash course. And don’t confuse ‘reason’ with ‘purpose’, they aren’t the same fucking thing, and just because there is a reason for something, doesn’t mean there’s a PURPOSE, you half baked sod. Do that: learn what science says about life instead of talking shit, listen to some Stephen Hawking lectures, THEN you tell me if you still believe in God. Because if you do, you must be braindead. As a last quick argument to destroy your argument that ‘believing in god is no harder than believing that poof it all happened”, your logic is incredibly weak and truly ridiculous. It’s like saying that your mind, instead of looking first for realistic explanations that you can prove about something, you look instead intio all sort of bullshit that you can’t prove. Trust me, the ‘miracle’ of life on Earth, for science, is nothing special at all, and it’s perfectly explainable. But it’s nobody’s fault if you ignore these things and you delude yourself your whole life, which is what 98 per cent of religious people do. The other 2 per cent at least have the guts to question their beliefs, which is something that only the most evolved minds can do. Which isn’t the mind YOU have. Ultimately, I don’t care what you believe, it doesn’t change reality.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

It’s funny reading this extremely emotional response. so full of anger. Supposedly you’re talking about reason. LOL. Do you really believe science has given us the reasons? The answers to the questions the how’s even whens. If you believe that then you know nothing of science. you don’t know the theories, you do read much of the science that you hold such reverence. Science doesn’t claim to have said any of the things you’re getting it credit for. none of them. It has come up with ideas, stories of what might have been. it has givin us a lot more questions. science has given us no answers, not in the topics are are addressing.
Go read of your holy books iof science. for you are speaking in ignorance on your own theology.
Yes you’ve turned science into a religion and have created a theology around it. I’m sorry that’s not what science is

SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Guest
SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Offline

Hitchens’s razor: The burden of proof
or onus in a debate lies with the claim-maker, and if he or she does
not meet it, the opponent does not need to argue against the unfounded
claim. “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence.”

source: wikipedia

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Quoting from The Atheist holy book of Hitchen

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Now some of us would quote a not so holy book. Train Occam’s razor in that case I would say the best answer to the appearance of design would be a designer. And you would make a long convoluted guess about how it could have been something much more complicated. And unlikely

SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Guest
SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Offline

PS. by the way, I am not an ‘atheist’. 1.I simply have never heard or seen any proof of ‘god’, and as I don’t want to be delusional, I cannot believe anything that has not been proven. In fact, god is not even WORTH debating, see ‘Newton’s laser sword’ concept. 2. I can’t rule out the existence of god entirely, simply because I cannot prove it does NOT exists, but just because I can’t prove it does not exists, doesn’t mean I should believe it exists. 3. It’s all stacked against’ god’s existence: earthquakes, tsunamis, the Holocaust and all the genocides that have happened. Even the Jews in concentration camps, BELIEVERS, started conducting trials against god. Of course, I would have done the same. Therefore there is more proof that god does NOT exists, especially when (in you case don’t) know that life on Earth happened for explainable reasons, yes because of CHANCE. CHANCE. Anyways, I have wasted enough time now. Be delusional if you like, it’s your life. ‘Amen’

Shamati
Guest
Shamati
Offline

1: Everything which has a beginning has a cause
2: The universe has a beginning.
3: Therefore the universe has a cause.

God has no beginning – God is another name for the First Cause. If we suppose the cause of the universe itself had a cause then that must have had a cause & that cause must’ve had a cause ad infinitum. An infinite regress of causes means that there would be nothing at all, because there would be no original cause to set the whole chain of causes in motion.

Time is linked to Space. Before the universe began there was neither time nor space & the cause of the universe must necessarily transcend time & space.

It’s like contingent beings who are not independent; I received my life from my parents & my life is sustained by me ingesting animals, plants, water & air – all of which are also contingent beings & therefore depend on other contingent beings for their existence – they don’t have being in themselves but depend on other things to have it. Because they depend on other beings to have their own being, there must be an Ultimate Being that is necessary & independent that is the 1st cause & sustainer of the contingent beings so as not to have an infinite chain.

some random dude
Guest
some random dude
Offline

Wouldn’t a creator god be outside the bounds of our natural laws?

Much like King Lear asking “and what accounts for this Shakespeare fellow?” Something from outside the narrative would be unable to be explained in terms from within the novel (space, time, laws of physics etc.)

Reasonable Conservative
Guest
Reasonable Conservative
Offline

That there is a mind that can conceive of God must necessarily have been made by God.

yup
Guest
yup
Offline

“Solving” is a Problem humans Face, deciding what created God is simple thought for Simple Creatures. If God is Truly omnipotent and has Power Well beyond Human Comprehension and Imagination. It is Very Possible God existed Infinitely without a Creator. The Parameters Which humans perceive Reality, does not apply to God.

Yahya
Guest
Yahya
Offline

This is a red herring. The question is : “is there a god?”. Once arriving at the conclusion that there is, the question is answered. “what caused god?” is a completely different question. It’s neither an answer to the question nor a rebuttal to an argument.

SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Guest
SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Offline

believe it or not, that’s the question I posed to my schoolteacher when I was 6. She said we are all born from ‘God’ (whateverthat means, i.e. does ‘god’ has a vagina, etc), and when I asked her who or what was God born from, she answered ‘from nothingness’. Clever answer, but I wasn’t so convinced….in the first instance, how does her or anyone else knows anyhting about a supposed god. Not only that, even where god was BORN from. People just like to fucking delude themselves, it provides them comfort because they have the mind of a child, i.e. incapable of entertaining ideas that our life is very short, reality is brutish, and life happened because of mere chance…..aminoacids came from stars on Earth and it all made a primordial soup from which life started. Chaos and chance, that’s the only ‘gods’ in the universe. Shake an universe for an eternity, you might be surprised about what happens. Yet, whatever happens seems a lot more significant to ourselves, much less so to the universe. But, hey, to lots of delusional people, the word ‘aminoacids’ doesn’t sound as glamorous as ‘God’, so they delude themselves for their whole pathetic life, thinking that there’s a Kingdom of God in the sky, and all that preposterous bullshit. Ah ah

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Actually, God only complicates the problem even more. What created God?. We still don’t know for certain, but quantum phisics may actually explain something coming out of nothing. Assuming a god caused the universe only complicates the problem and limits out curiosity and understanding in order to investigate further. Its anything but rational.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline
Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

What. Atheists dont think causation presupposes time and space as Dr Craig claims. The big bang theory states that even time came to be with the big bang itself. Now, why it happened is not yet known to a full extent.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Asking the question “Who created God” is presupposing causation is prior to time and space.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Asking “who created god” is just a way to show theists that their logic of “everything has a cause” doesn’t make any sense. This article explains it better than me: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm.

“The main problem of the First Cause Argument is the idea that every event has a cause. As we discovered in the 20th century, the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for particles and events to have no cause. An obvious example of quantum mechanics in action is the radioactive decay of a uranium atom. There is no previous cause for each such event, and we can only predict it with probability. The averaging of quantum effects gives us the Newtonian experience that we have. However, Newtonian physics does not control the universe; quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity do. We now know that the universe has an intrinsic, bottom level of uncertainty that cannot be bypassed. Quantum mechanics also shows us that particles can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what are known as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.

Quantum mechanics shows us that subatomic particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons can disappear and reappear in a different place, without existing in the intervening space. Such particles can even be in more than one place at a time, if that time is brief enough. Perhaps even stranger, an electron can travel between two points by taking all possible paths simultaneously.

I’d like to emphasize that quantum mechanics doesn’t make sense in our experience of the world. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd.”

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Theists don’t say “everything has a cause.” They say “everything which begins to exist, has a cause.”

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

They don’t know that. Not everything which begins has a cause. As we are learning thanks to science and skepticism. However it seems so complicated and out of our understanding that we may never be able to know. Thats the beauty of it. Inventing myths and stories to explain it is another thing. You can do it if it brings you comfort. Im just stating the fact.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Give me an example of something which begins to exist, yet which you think is uncaused.

ShadowRising
Guest
ShadowRising
Offline

Quantum particles pop into existence from seemingly nowhere.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

“Seemingly.”
I often mark that many use Quantum Theory as an atheist version of the “god of the gaps” theory! Certainly there is a powerful animus in modern science against religion, which doubtless colors their own observations and hypotheses, and the way they use what they discover legitimately. I fondly remember Hubble’s remarks when his observation of the infrared shift phenomenon seemed at first to imply that earth was at the center of the universe!

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Radioactive decay for example, suggests that there might be exceptions to the “law” of cause and effect. It doesn’t have a cause at all.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

“Suggests” that there “might be.” I don’t know a lot about Quantum Mechanics, but I do know that there are debates over what unseen causes may or may not be involved in the phenomena for which they cannot account, including multiverse theories and the like. The fact that a process is not well understood by us at present, and so gives an appearance of random occurrence, is by no means a disproof of the obvious principle that, wherever there are true changes of state (effects), there are causes.
And of course, one must distinguish between causality and determinism. Related thereto, one must keep in mind that the concept of “cause” as I’m using it, involves all of Aristotle’s causes (material, formal, efficient, final), not just the notion that “x causes y to happen.” It is possible for quantum effects to have causes irrelevant to the progression of time.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Ok. Let’s assume it is likely that there was a cause. You think it was a supreme being, or you know it was?. I don’t know yet, and neither do almost all the scientists that are into this. If they “know” it was a god they would probably not be into theoretical physics to start with. That is why we say “suggests” or “might. Because we observe and we formulate hypothesis, and then try to demonstrate those hypothesis.
There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise and expand from nothing but a random quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, via natural processes and with a total energy of zero. This is called the Inflation Theory.
I suggest you read “A Universe From Nothing” from Lawrence Krauss. I might re-read Aristotle to see if I can find any sense of the First Cause argument in his words.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

I read Hawking’s work; I suppose I should read Krauss’, if only to keep up on the latest talking points. Wherever there is a change in state or a coming to be, there is a cause; randomness is not indicative of a lack of causation.

Yes, just as a matter of reason, we know that tracing the chain of being and causation back far enough, necessarily requires a supreme Being, Source of Being and of Causation. It doesn’t tell us What that Being is, nor does it exhaustively explain Its qualities. The problem is that today’s scientists are more mathematicians and less philosophers.
And still: “nothing but” is still not Nothing. Indeed, one has to laugh: “from nothing but a a random quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, via natural processes.” And whence is this quantum fluctuation of energy, and this natural process, if nothing exists? Obviously there is “something” in this beginning from “nothing!”

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

I’ll give you the point that randomness is not indicative of a lack of causation. But in the bottom level, you don’t know if there even was a cause, or how the universe started. You are just saying what makes more sense to you in your own experience of reality. How do I know that you don’t know?, because I don’t know. No one does.

For the sake of time, I’m going to paste a quote of the article I shared before (I suggest you read it, it’s short) that give a couple more arguments against the first cause argument (specifically from a point of veiw of any specific god existing):

“The next problem of the First Cause Argument is the assumption that an infinite chain of events is impossible. This argument is made moot by the Big Bang, which negates the need for considering an infinite chain of events in our universe. Because time started with the Big Bang, any question of what happened before is nonsensical — much like asking what is north of the North Pole. Also, many cosmologists have proposed that our universe could be part of a much larger, super and perhaps eternal meta-universe. In this meta-universe (a.k.a. multiverse) “baby” universes are created by pinching off from “parent” universes — leaving no way to inquire about the characteristics of a parent universe. We certainly don’t know for sure, and may never know. However, this meta-universe would allow infinite chains of events.

The last problem with the First Cause Argument lies in its assumption that this eternal god exists, something that it is trying to prove. This is known as begging the question. Even a child can ask, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” If the answer is that God is uncaused, then the same answer could certainly be applied to the existence of the universe — that it is uncaused. Besides, which god are we talking about? People using the First Cause Argument always make the assumption that their god did the creating. Muslims think that Allah created the universe. Hindus think that Brahma did it. Christians and Jews think that Yahweh did it. Most religions have a story of how their god created the universe. The idea of a god as creator of the universe makes for a good tale, but it obviously tells us little about the characteristics of that god. What they are doing is explaining one mystery with a bigger mystery, and that is fallacious logic.”

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

”Asking “who created god” is just a way to show theists that their logic of “everything has a cause” doesn’t make any sense”

Agreed. That’s why the cosmological argument has as its 1st premise “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”

Its a fallacy of logic to say everything has a cause.

”Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously
appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via
what are known as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.”

It proves that vacuum is actually a latent energy state. However how do we know that this state existed prior to the big bang?

Perhaps vacuum was truly nothing back then.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Thats it. We don’t know. “We may never be able to completely understand the actual beginning. It could be that we’re not smart enough or that the physical science necessary is not possible for us to do. But, that doesn’t mean that a god caused the Big Bang — any more than our past lack of understanding of weather meant that a god caused lightning.”

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Only that we should not have this attitude

” It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal
world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and
a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine
Foot in the door. ”

-Carl Sagan

We should not reject an explanation a priori. Just because it sounds supernatural or is. Or that we should automatically reject the divine explanation just as.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Sure, we should not reject an explanation a priori. But we shoulndn’t accept it immediately as true either, without looking for evidence to back it up. And I have found no evidence at all of any god.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Have you checked out the fine tuning argument by Dr Craig? I find it quite convincing.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Some responses to the “fine tuning” argument:

The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.

We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.

Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.

If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?

Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the “same order of magnitude,” but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).

How fine is “fine” anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.

The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.

If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.

Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).

In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Yeah I think I also clarified his position as far as causality is concerned. That is “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline
Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing
beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is
ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern
the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally
unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

Anything you don’t understand, Mr. Rankin, you attribute to God. God for
you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the
challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say
God did it.

Carl Sagan

Don’t quote Carl Sagan. He was an agnostic. And he certainly disapproved the religions and the gods we “created”.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

”The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing
beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is
ludicrous.”

That’s an obvious misconception. There is no proof in scripture of such a thing aside from Jesus. Otherwise anthromorphism is done for the benefit of the observer. A true revelation is not survivable.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

”Anything you don’t understand, Mr. Rankin, you attribute to God. God for
you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the
challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say
God did it.”

There is a danger of paradoulia. Given how our minds work. But if agency is proven then its not the case.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

And agency is not proven. We made something up to make our life easier(we think), as most people are lazy and don’t want to put their minds at work.

Jed Mask
Guest
Jed Mask
Offline

God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and OMNISCIENT. The Alpha and the Omega. The Beginning and the End.
The true “BIGNESS” of GOD is that GOD IS… Nothing “created God”… GOD IS…
Get it?
~ Sincerely,
Bro. Jed

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline
Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Do you not understand the concept of God? By definition He is uncaused and is self-sufficient; far from limiting our curiosity, this is the only thing that opens it up to its fullest and deiform extent, for in Him is the infinite profundity, variety and simplicity that the human curiosity can never extinguish.

ShadowRising
Guest
ShadowRising
Offline

If got could be uncaused, why couldn’t the universe be uncaused as well?

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Well reflect on that question for a moment, and see if you can answer it.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

If you say that God is uncaused, then the same could certainly be applied to the existence of the universe — that it is uncaused.

I say it limits our curiosity as faith itself teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world, by explaining everything with a god or the supernatural. Curiosity about the “nature” of god is useless.

There is another problem with this definition of God as eternal, unchanging and perfect: If this was true, why would God suddenly need to create a universe? How could god change from not needing a universe to needing it and creating it?. Its nothing but absurd. He exists for an eternity and then decided to create the universe. That means he is not unchanging and perfect.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Things which begin to exist, and clearly show that they are subject to the laws of cause and effect, must be caused. This describes all of the universe, but obviously does not describe a being who is unbounded by time, space or any other essential distinction. This is also the answer to your last question: God is not changing – He is out of time, so there is no “time” when He isn’t creating, followed by a “time” when He is creating. I sometimes forget that most people have difficulty understanding these concepts.
As to the rest of what you said, since it was merely asserted, there’s not much for me to do other than to point out that “gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.” Faith does not teach us to be satisfied with ignorance of the world, as the multitudes of Catholic intellectuals, scholars and scientists indicate (most people do not understand the first thing about the authentic concept of Faith, and attack a straw-man of Faith). A desire to know more about God is hardly useless.
But these truths are obvious to reflection; in my experience most people fail to see them because they never bother considering them in a thoughtful way to begin with, in a real desire to understand the truth. They simply run off of an emotional prejudice and use their faculty of reason to grasp at arguments in reverse. If you want to understand these concepts, ponder them. If you don’t want to understand them, you run the risk of missing out, forever, on the full splendor of what has been made, and of its Maker. Weigh for yourselves the pros and cons of that gamble.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

You continue to assume that a god (let’s suppose its the Christian god since its the one we better know) is the only thing that is not bound to the laws of cause an effect. Such a law only describes our universe in terms of newtonian physics. But again, we learnt in this century that the universe is ruled by quantum mechanics and relativity. And again, this doesn’t make sense in a macro level and in the classic sense of our understanding. We can observe processes that are not caused by anything. In the other post we provided examples. Sadly we still don’t know more about this so as to fully explain the origin of the universe, but this doesn’t mean we must fill the gap of our knowledge with the myth that fits better with our view.

About the argument of the unchanging god.. oh well, there is not much I can respond to that. If the concept is that he is supposed to be outside time, then its true that there are no different times. But I insist that the same could be applied to the universe.

There are indeed Catholic intelectualls. However the majority of scientists that investigate real life issues dont have any religious beliefs. Catholic intellectuals like theologists only seem wander in the “mysteries” of the god concept, or religion and dogmas in general.

Your last sentense sounds a bit like Pascals Wager, to which I say, its a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. Perhaps God actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists, not obsequious followers. Who knows, we don’t know god’s mind.

Jed Mask
Guest
Jed Mask
Offline

“If this was true, why would God suddenly need to create a universe? How could god change from not needing a universe to needing it and creating it?. Its nothing but absurd. He exists for an eternity and then decided to create the universe. That means he is not unchanging and perfect.”
GOD can do what He CHOOSES TO DO. As “Creator” HE CHOOSE to CREATE what He wanted.
Us “human-beings” may take “issue with that” out of our own free will.
You’re right: God does NOT need to create a universe. God doesn’t NEED TO DO ANYTHING. He does want HE WANTS. God is ETERNAL, UNCHANGING and ALL-PERFECT. He doesn’t have to do anything.
Question really is: Do YOU as a “human-being” have a problem accepting you cannot “think for God” or fully comprehend His Being? I know for a FACT I DO NOT. GOD is not “fully understood” for Who He is, though He gave us knowledge of His Character and Deity as Inspired and Preserved in the King James Version Holy Bible (KJV) for those people who “care to” “seek Him out”. Amen.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Ok uncaused and self-sufficient. We get that. If god has a meaning for us, what was the meaning of the dinosaurs who ruled the earth millions and millions of years more than us? And they were killed off like they never existed? Experimenting?
And please don’t answer me there is no logic in god’s will. Every answer you stupid people give, makes you look more retarded than you actually are.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

That’s an interesting comment, in light of the highly illogical and irrelevant comment about dinosaurs. What point could you possibly be making?

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

That if dinosaurs existed millions of years before humans, for millions and millions of years more than humans only to be wiped off makes the concept of your god highly illogical? Either your god is farting around or is more stupid than us.

Jed Mask
Guest
Jed Mask
Offline

EXACTLY MAN! Glad you get it. Smh @ Manowar… Amen.

Mysterious_Man
Guest
Mysterious_Man
Offline

The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t prove any of the attributes God is alleged to have; it merely demonstrates that (assuming our concept of ‘causality’ is valid), there must have been a first cause.

As for what that cause is, its nature, preferences, etc, the argument supplies nothing. It only gives you an extremely vague, elastic ‘god’ conception that’s not sufficient to support claims such as “God tells me to eat ‘X’, make sacrifices on such a date, fast on such a date,’ etc”; i.e., the types of claims that virtually every religion makes about God.

Avraham rosenblum
Guest

I am not trying to go further than the First Cause.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Atheist discovers that there might be a god. Atheist assumes fora moment god is real and then wonders what caused god. Atheist can’t think of anything that caused god. Atheist concludes that there might not be a god after all. God’s facepalm echoes through eternity.

Binti
Guest
Binti
Offline

Atheist thinks there might be a god. Atheist can’t think of one problem that presupposing a god would solve and lots of new problems that it introduces. Atheist applies Occam’s Razor. Atheist concludes that there is no good reason to believe in god.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Really? You can’t think of one thing? Morality is one thing. It makes morality more than an evolutionary aberration. It make morality real.

Value is another.

Free will is another.

Justice is another.

Binti
Guest
Binti
Offline

I’m not sure how the say-so of a supreme being makes it less arbitrary. Morality is pretty easy to explain without it. It’s all about human well-being and flourishing. If it’s just about what god commands people to do, then theoretically he could decide that genocide is moral tomorrow and that would be moral because it is what god commands. You have no other standard than what he commands.

But anyways, I was talking about god as a first cause. You can say it solves things but it doesn’t either. It just adds an extra layer of complexity. I.e. the universe is really complex so lets make up something even more complex than that to explain it!

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

The problem with morality in the atheist materialist Darwin view is that it does not exist. At best, it is an accidental delusion that evolved she may or may not actually be maladaptive. It is relativistic too, which makes it irrational.

The God hypothesis makes morality in comparison more objective, concrete, designed and therefore rational, something we can understand and apply and even test.

Even if you posit that the god can change his mind, it is still more concrete, real, and temporal than in the godless hypothesis. Further, if you posit a good that changes his mind about morality, your most likely conclusion would NOT be “see, morality doesn’t exist!”

Your most likely conclusion would be, “OH DEAR GOD FORGIVE ME I KNOW NOT WHAT I’M DOING AND I THROW MYSELF AT YOUR MERCY AND ASK TO DO YOUR WILL FROM NOW ON! ”

Or, alternatively, you could say, “God, I don’t agree with you, I don’t like you, and I want nothing to do with you. ”

Please note the second option is known as Satanism, meaning you know there is a god but you reject him, as does Satan.

Binti
Guest
Binti
Offline

I often hear Christians say that the reason God doesn’t suddenly show up in the sky and clarify his rules so that everybody understands him is because he wants people to come to him of their own free-will and if God made it impossible to deny his existence, we would be unable to choose to love him. But apparently that logic doesn’t work for Satan who knows god exists and still chooses to reject him. But I digress.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

God does show up in the sky, the heavens, the oceans, the microscope, and everywhere else. Nature is a miracle that we’ve grown accustomed to and now take for granted

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

A Supreme Being possessed of “exousia” or “auctoritas” (i.e., being Himself constitutive of existence and the good), is not at all comparable to a contingent being making arbitrary judgments on its “say-so.”
God is not invented ex-post facto as an “explanation” for what we don’t understand. The reflective mind understands that His existence is as self-evident as is the existence of the contingent beings derived from His Independent Being. He is not a “solution” to a “problem” that could be explained in some other way.

Binti
Guest
Binti
Offline

So in other words, your standard of good is god’s say-so because he has the authority to say-so and morality has nothing to with human well-being.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Obviously not. I don’t know if the concepts are simply difficult, or if you’re just being flippant. “Constitutive of the good” obviously transcends the puerile notion of a mere “say-so,” and is intimately tied to human well-being, as should be obvious.

Binti
Guest
Binti
Offline

Your argument is wholly circular and what you have done is implied existence in your definition only, and not demonstrated it to be so. Declaring that god is “constitutive of the good” doesn’t transcend anything or explain where morality comes from, it’s just using god’s own standard as a yard stick to measure his own goodness. It’s circular and an attempt at defining something into existence.

There can only be two options, either morality relates to human well-being and god is merely the messenger or morality is “that what god commands.” If it’s the latter then killing babies can be considered moral if god commands it (and that would seem to be the case as in Samuel 15:3:) Or if he is just the messenger then morality exists as a measurable standard. An objective moral standard that exists independent of god.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

No, you’re failing to see that God does not use a standard, not even “His own” standard, because this implies something prior to God by which He makes judgments after deliberation. I am saying that it is an immutable and supreme property of the divinity to be constitutive of the good, not by an arbitrary, prior standard, but absolutely and of itself.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

If god’s morality is arbitrary, which it is (I’m a divine command theorist) then it is at least temporarIy true, and a real standard by which you can be judged. Whereas if morality is evolutionary, immaterial, and relative, then it is unknowable, unfixed, and useless-it cannot be applied by mortals. It becomes a useless delusion.

Adding an extra layer of complexity is OK as long as your not just”making it up. ” it had to be rational and systematic, like the 3,000 year old Judeo Christian philosophy I posit.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

As history proved, morality is evolutionary. And as history proved people believed in other gods even before your god. And as history proved those gods were false just like their morality. Thank you divine command theorist.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

History proved morality is evolutionary? You just made that up.

You’re saying a historian proved a biological theory that proves a philosophical theory that proved for sure that there is no god?

If there is no morality then I’m sure you’ll have no problem when I and my theocratic friends come for you with government force? How could you possibly complain if there is no morality?

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Was the morality of today the same as the morality of 1000 years ago? Also you avoided answering about the gods of old that were disproved. Just like the god of today will be disproved sometime in the future.
I will complain because you are a threat to me. Morality is subjective. I might find it correct to kill a pedophile for example, you might find it wrong. In either case god has nothing to do with it. It is the invention of god and the rules of that god people again invented, that you call morality.
And the morality is based on the strongest beliefs people have in each era.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Morality has only changed when God revealed those changes to us. For example, incest wasn’t wrong nor was murder, until God said so. Morality had not changed since Christ and his disciples wrote more than 2000 years ago. For example, St. Paul said to eat with gentiles and to stop worrying about circumcision.

I’m sure you have great faith that god will be disproved in the future. You should put your faith in a better religion, though, because yours has a consistent track record of failure and misery.

Yes, the old gods have been disproved. We went on to of Mount Olympus and saw no Zeus. Disproved. So has Jesus, YHWH, or Allah been disproved? Where did you go to disprove them?

You see me as a threat because you morally value your life, because you’re a humanist, which is a religion that pretends humans are more valuable than rocks or trees or animals. I asked a pantheistime from India if he belive in god, he said we’re ate all god, I am god, you are god . I said what if I kill you? He said we all do as we must in order to survive and evolve, and he doesn’t see it as a threat.

He’s an honest non-theist. You’re not.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Am I arguing with a child here? History proved that morality is based on the gods of each era and each civilization. Did I say that or not? So history proved that morality is not constant. So I just proved to you that morality is evolutionary.
And morality changed a lot during the last 2000 years. A LOT. See dark ages, see wild west. In USA the government still gives death penalty. In other countries this is immoral. So please answer with good arguments instead of farting around.
I see you as a threat because I want to live. I don’t morally value anything. I just want to live. It is natural instinct. A god has nothing to do with it. I never said humans are more valuable than anything. I believe in survival of the fittest and chance/probability. For example(and I’m going to the extreme with this) I believe that if we don’t leave this planet anytime soon we will be wiped out. So if you are stupid enough to believe in god and live your life in your glass house, while others invent ways to leave this planet and find another place to live, so that humans can have a chance to survive, then be my guest kill yourself off with your stupidity. I’m not going to follow suit some sheep who can’t see past their nose.
It is people like you who give religions to people and make them mindless idiots. You are no different than a barbarian who believed that a goat was his god.
If there is some supernatural being, then it is no moral, and does not care about us. We are not even a dot in its microscope.
Also I was not born with morality, society and my parents gave me morality. Society and my parents follow some religion and they give me this morality based on what religion says. I make my own morals as I go along and certainly I find a lot of wrongs in the morals of your god.
And I don’t need a god to give me a meaning in life or mission. I know how to find my own way, thank you and I don’t complain.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

History does not prove that morality is not constant. Morality is not material, it is immaterial. Therfore no natural discipline can prove morality. Only supernatural theory, called metaphysics, can begin to prove out morality. If morality is decided by a Creator then it had not evolved. Perhaps our understanding has evolved. Perhaps or methods have evolved. But morality cannot evolve in the God hypothesis I posit and which you’ve endeavored to discuss with me. In the evolutionary sense, morality does evolve, so I will grant you that. But I am not an evolutionist, and especially not a moral evolutionist. Your view on morality is deeply affected by your preconceived materialist philosophy.

You were born with morality. Not only do you have generic memories that bear on your moral views, but your view of evolution dictates that all human are born with morals, since you’ve taken the view that morality evolves. Your parents were born with morality, and theirs, all the way back to the evolutionary common ancestor.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Morality is not material, but it is a set of rules. Don’t confuse morality with consciousness/subconsciousness. Moraility is just a set of rules. Nothing more.
You have a very wrong perception of morality. Also if morality is decided by a creator, then you cannot define it by rules(as you admitted yourself) so your god is false, unless the creator himself came down personally to you and told you these are the correct things to do in this world. Not some fisherman 2000 years ago.
And no I was not born with the perception that killing is wrong. Are you for real?

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

This is the position of Christianity and Judaism. God came down and told us morality.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Exactly, so you refute your point above that morality is beyond our understanding. Decide: Is morality a set of rules laid down by god? Or is morality something we will never understand and we just follow it blindly because god instilled that in our head?
And at the end of the day who is christianity and judaism? Some beta jerks who didn’t have life, invented with clever way a religion(just like today scientology was invented) so that they will have meaning in their lives.
All religions are created to control the masses. If there is a supernatural being, the laws of physics prove that it doesn’t care about morality. There are no moral rules. Rules are made from natural beings to survive the next day.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I did not say morality is beyond my understanding. I said only through metaphysics can we begin to understand it. If it was beyond understanding then god would not have given it to those who could understand. For those who cannot understand it (children, idiots, you), we (qualified Christian men) are their caretakers and governors, so that you don’t kill yourself and everyone around you with your amoral madness.

And, although morality is objectively true with God, and subjectively useful with man, religion is something separate from morality. Religion and morality and the Truth with a capital T are all different things. So, yes, men do make up religion inpart to control the masses. They need to be controlled. You need to be controlled. So let’s control them with the most rational, benevolent, profitable, thought-out, systematized, transparent, universal, code known to mankind. Christianity.

It sure beats your code! And it had the benefit of being true!

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I also just noticed you said that the laws of physics prove something about a supernatural being. Don’t you see the contradiction in that? Supernatural is a concept regarding the nature of nature, the transcendent, the spiritual, the metaphysical. The physical, metaphysical, ate separate theories

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

You noticed wrong, you didn’t read properly. I said the laws of physics prove there is no morality(as in they don’t matter, there is not right or wrong), whether there is a supernatural being or not. Morality is just a set of rules made by humans.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I’d like you to point out the physics experiment you conducted or cited to prove that morality is not physical. Thanks.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

If morality is an evolutionary adaptation that some primate developed, then you as a descendent have that adaptation as well, i.e. you and all humans were born with morality. However, there are many versions of morality. Morality itself is almost universal in humans thrift space and time. The details are fuzzy but generally include that must is wrong, sex is private, death and life are sacred, and that there’s greater meaning to life than just what we see.

If you were not born with the human morality trait, you are maladaptive, an aberration, less than human (or more than human) likely a regressive defective mutation headed for extinction.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Morality is an evolutionary adaptation from the standpoint of social development. Not an individual evolution. If my parents believe in God, it doesn’t mean I was born with the believe of god in my head. They planted it there, years after I was born. So no, morality is just a set of rules. Primates didn’t believe that killing another human being is wrong.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

How can I make this any clearer?
1. Evolution causes social development. Social development is transmitted by evolution. Transmission is done through human genes and genetic memory at conception.
2. Religion, morality, theism are social developments. Remember, social developments are transmitted genetically.
3. Evidence shows that all humans in all times and places had the same social development.

The most obvious Occamy conclusion is that social development i.e.morality is transmitted genetically.

If you’ve read Nicholas Wade, a troublesome inheritance, you’ll see that morality, prepend, culture, opinions, and even tastes are highly inherent in genetic transmission. This is science proving we are born with not only the generic concept of right and wrong, but specific details about whatis right and wrong.

Chase34
Guest
Chase34
Offline

Well you just proved my point. Religion, morality, theism are social developments. They are just that, social developments. There is nothing supernatural with these things. We invented them and we passed them on. Just like languages.
About your 3rd point you are totally wrong and there are no evidence of that, you just made it up. Even today there are people who live in primal age. There are people who didn’t meet civilization and still live like people lived 6000 years ago.
About morality specifically it is not transmitted genetically. Morality is learned. A baby does not know anything about raping, killing or stealing. If what you say was true humans today would have been very pure. They are not and most people are immoral. Because they learn as they go along and they choose what they choose. Killers are not born killers, they are made killers.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

But I do not believe in evolution, so I do not believe religion is nothing but social developments. Sure, there are social developments in philosophy and understanding, but religion is not JUST a social development. It is based on the Truth of Revelations from Prophets and the philosophy of metaphysics, which is a knowledge discipline which has advanced (a little) over the ages.

If you’re an evolutionist, you should believe that all social and personal thoughts are products of genetic determination. I know that a lot of evolutionists like to steal religious ideas like “free will,” but the truth is that free will is not scientific, it does not exist, there is no evidence that it exists, and it is not logically possible. The term “free will” is itself an oxymoron, the term means to say that people “determine their determinations without determination” but to determine something is to use a process to affect an outcome. Therefore something cannot be an undetermined determination.

A baby does not know much about anything at all, except for their genetic memories that help them nurse and such, but the fact is that nearly every human baby will grow up to become a morally thinking and judging person even if you never told them anything about morality. (Such would be impossible, but it is a valid thought experiment.) Not only is this proven by history (every culture in every time and place comes up with moral views) but the moral views are often very similar. For example, despite your insistence that you’ve rejected morality, that there is no morality, I highly doubt you truly live and speak as though there is no morality, you have moral opinions about what ought and ought not be, and you share those moral opinions, and think that your moral opinions are superior to others’. You’re just like any other religious person.

NaturalSelector
Guest
NaturalSelector
Offline

E.O Wilson, the progenitor of sociobiology put it best – “Morality’s only known demonstrable function is keeping in tack the genetic material.” In other words, what ever helps you survive and spread your genes is ‘Moral’ and whatever henders that is ‘immoral’.

Rick Moser
Guest
Rick Moser
Offline

That is an assumption we make, that everything has a cause because that is what we observe, but that doesn’t make it definitely true for everything. Maybe in the far corner of the universe there is something that was not caused?

We need to pay attention to what we take a priori because our purview limits us, especially when we delve in quantum realities. I personally believe that the universe was not created ex nihilo, that everything is made from something, but that is an assumption I make based on my own creative experiences. To tackle the question of infinite regresses, it is also useful to consider how God relates to us, that He was or is a man.

Avraham rosenblum
Guest

a priori not based on observation is how we know cause and effect. The question of Induction is not my intention here.

Oops, I did it again
Guest
Oops, I did it again
Offline

Belief in God is irrational as the rational man will apply reason to “God’s existence, which will necessarily demand evidence of his existence. Since there is no evidence (sorry, suspect contradictory and completely fabricated sacred writings are not evidence of God) a man must be irrational to accept the existence of anything without extant evidence. This is one reason why in our religiously free western civilization churches are filled mostly with females, as they possess an affinity for the irrational.

Now, as for purpose outside of faith, it does exist. However, it is of a man’s own creation — unless he is weak and gullible, brainwashed and cuckolded to serve another man’s purpose for his life. I know, I’ve been there and done that. Religion, culture, politics and our bankrupt educational indoctrination systems transform freemen into slaves, held captive not by chains of iron, but of ideologies.

Now, that I’ve said all that ,even within the context of God, as defined by both Judaism and Christianity, even with God life is meaningless, lest the wisest man to live, Solomon, be accused of being a fool for coming to the conclusion of that contrary to which he has attested too….

I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Solomon, Ecc. 1:14 (and various other passages)

So, according to the supposed wisest man of the Bible, even with God, all things are meaningless, and without purpose. So this entire point and article is moot.

Jamie
Guest
Jamie
Offline

If you are sincerely interested in trying to understand things and get answers to your questions, then you should at least get a grasp of the empirical evidence and not just play with words, such as the intuitive idea of getting something from nothing and an infinite regress. Read, for example, ‘A universe from nothing’, by Lawrence Krauss.

SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Guest
SJWsANDfeministsAreScum
Offline

yep, belief in God is rational, since delusions are rational. Your immature and weak mind just cannot handle the idea that in fact the universe doesn’t give a fuck about you, there’s no god, and you will die soon, like the rest of us.

Tony Tiger
Guest
Tony Tiger
Offline

The logical refute is as follows: The nearest we can tell is that the big bang was the origin of the known universe. Quantum Physics allows that matter can both exist and not exist. Much like the state of ‘Schroedinger’s Cat’. We live in a causal universe (cause begets effect ad infinitum); thus it defys the very logic philosophers discovered (through observing our physical world) a universe that isn’t causal, much less a being from such a fantastical world, even less a paridoxically omnipoint and loving deity! Its poppycock of such a supreme order that its claim has no greater irrational equivalent! I don’t know where the original particles, that made the big bang happen, came from; however, I find it has become increasingly less rational over the last millennium, considering the steady increase of scientific knowledge and awareness of our existence, to attempt to fill in our knowledge gaps with, “Then God did it.” Indeed, religion has, in stark contrast to science, been an unyeilding wall of ignorance for as long as anyone can remember, as one mythology gives way to the next religion. I pose to you to contemplate the uselessness, nay evil even, of opposing religions. Or, even consider that not all religions practice peace. Just google ‘Valhalla’ or ‘Jihadist’.

Matt N
Guest
Matt N
Offline

Hi Roosh,

I was in a very similar position not to long ago, recognizing the need for faith but not being able to rationalize it logically. If you are not familiar with them, I would highly, highly recommend the works of some of the prominent Christian apologists out there today like William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, and others.

They present the case for belief in God and the truth of the Christian faith in an completely rational, philosophical, and evidence based manner and avoid the faith or emotion based arguments that are commonly associated with reasons for belief and are very convincing in showing why it is more reasonable to believe in God than to not.

You are a smart guy who would be able to understand the implication of their arguments. Here are a couple recommendations if you are interested.

http://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Faith-Christian-Truth-Apologetics/dp/1433501155?ie=UTF8&keywords=reasonable%20faith&qid=1462454380&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462454403&sr=8-1&keywords=i+dont+have+enough+faith+to+be+an+atheist+book

William Tarbush
Guest
William Tarbush
Offline

I would recommend reading about CS Lewis. For example, he said that the went “kicking and screaming” into belief in Christ. I was once an atheist, during my teen years. Nothing made sense anymore. I am not sure, now that I have re-found my Christianity, if my belief is about Frankl’s idea of a search for meaning. That said, my belief in Deity just makes sense, as weird as that is to a non-believer.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

I was highly influenced by CS Lewis’s reasoning

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

C.S. Lewis was a false Christian because he was in reality an Illuminist.

fatherofthree
Guest
fatherofthree
Offline

The reason why Tolstoy nor anyone else for that matter could not figure out life is because the only instrument you have is thinking.

Any thought that is born out of thought is destructive in its nature, because it is interested in protecting itself. Thought is a protective mechanism. It isolates you from the totality of nature, which cannot be separated from you.

So the difficulty here is that it is impossible for you to accept that you are not separate from the totality of things. You are not separate from nature; nature means the world around you. All the species that we have on this planet are integral parts of what we call nature; it cannot be separated from that.

But unfortunately, through our thinking we have succeeded in separating ourselves, and through the help of this knowledge we continue to maintain the continuity of the knowledge, and that is the reason why we have invented all this integrity – becoming one with nature, and all that kind of thing – and we are not going to succeed, because we don’t understand and realize that what it is that separates you from the totality of things is the thought.

And the thought cannot be used to bring about an integral unity. Basically, we are all integrally united, and unfortunately, through our thinking, we have separated ourselves, and we are acting from this point of separateness, and it is this that is responsible for the chaos in your personal life, for the chaos in the world around you.

NaturalSelector
Guest
NaturalSelector
Offline

Faith and suicide are beta male coping mechanisms and strategies.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

“…suicide are beta male coping”

I still allow for the stoics rational suicide. Under certain circumstances it is valid to call it quits, like suffering from terminal illness for example.

Corey
Guest
Corey
Offline

Life is inherently meaningless and accepting that fact is the most liberating thing you can do for yourself. I personally enjoy being able to think and live in my terms instead of having to follow some religious or ideological dogma.

I am without faith, and I don’t indulge myself in pleasures to numb myself nor do I suffer from the nihilistic dread that Tolstoy felt. Being the best man I can and struggling against the world is enough for me, and it should be enough for all other men.

I don’t understand why you would purposely blind yourself with faith based on some ancient superstition that is dying a slow death. Why not try to invent something new with your freedom? And if you insist on clinging onto an established religion, why not try to achieve Buddhist enlightenment instead? They advocate the opposite of faith: Truth. (In fact, I wouldn’t even consider Buddhism a religion.) Man and his society doesn’t necessarily need faith in a god for patriarchy and healthy existence, just strong will and masculine order.

deerugs
Guest
deerugs
Offline

Corey,
I couldn’t have said it better.

Marshallaw
Guest
Marshallaw
Offline

Dying in the west perhaps…..

Steve
Guest
Steve
Offline

exactly. Tell that to the muslim hordes. Seems real enough to them, and they are sure as fuck affecting the ‘smart’ atheist countries

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

What is the meaning of water?

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

What do sunbeams taste of?

NaturalSelector
Guest
NaturalSelector
Offline

From a business standpoint I understand why Roosh decided to abandon using ‘Red Pill’ and substitute it with ‘Neomasculinity’. The material discussed here in the manosphere already has a limited client base, being that half of the human population is female and are unlikely to buy books of this subject matter. Thus for business it is imperative not to alienate and get as many males as possible. Hence the reason he opted to include in this new neomasculinity, topics such as spirituality, theology and other fantasy land nonsense, because he can’t risk losing men of faith. This is also why he refrains from getting into race realist discussions, because he doesn’t want to lose his minority client base. Everyone reading needs to be aware that once Roosh abandoned ‘Red Pill’ he moved directly into Blue Pill zone. However, as a fellow businessman I fully understand this, being had he continued on the Red Pill path his only followers would be white male atheists.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Most red pill guys I know are traditionalist Catholics, Protestants or Pagans, or are virtuous enough to be agnostics.
Atheism (in the usual, rather than newly-affected, sense) is the product of an undisciplined mind that takes its own cleverness for granted; the few that avoid progressivism usually continue to use atheism as a form of virtue- (or “edgy-realist-“) signaling. Certainly when I was an atheist, it was because I was so invested in the importance of freethinking, and of my own status as a freethinker, that I wound up guarding the accidents of independent thought more than the substance thereof. And I have yet to meet an atheist who did not give the overwhelming impression that he was in the same boat. But I suppose NAAALT.

TSK
Guest
TSK
Offline

The need for higher being is installed into masses of humans and it gives humans some faith and sense of hope. You take that away from humans and humans will try to act like God themselves and think they know what is best for the society and often times you get chaos. Humans are flawed creatures and what they preach isn’t what they practice when they happen to be in power. There will always be some sort of conflict from having humans in extreme power structure.

For everything human gain, there is something a human must give away. When you give some moral reasons why humans must obey the higher being or be punished, it restricts the humans from doing unthinkable and it gives limitation for humans (it can be BOTH good AND bad) depends how you look at it. But because humans are flawed creatures, it’s better to give humans some sort of hope to cling on (that is belief of having God).

Although I’m Not a fan of hardcore religious people, I would NEVER want atheists to rule the world.

Lunostrelki
Guest
Lunostrelki
Offline

Belief in gods gave us a plethora of civilizations and cultures striving to attain higher and higher standards of rectitude, power, and beauty.

Rejection of gods gave us cold totalitarian bureaucracy and the atomization of the community into selfish hedonist animals of men.

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

Remember the Aztecs?

Lunostrelki
Guest
Lunostrelki
Offline

Yes, they built a city of 200,000 on the site of Mexico’s modern capital. It contained many architectural marvels and in general their civilization was rather advanced.

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

Most marvellous and advanced. Just ignore the mass ritual human sacrifices…..

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

What is your point? Do we not spill rivers of blood and send up the smoke of charred flesh in astronomically greater numbers? And for no higher purpose than material gain? However imperfect the Aztecs were, they were still better than our modern holocausts – tens of millions aborted every year, the horrors of Socialism and Communism, the World Wars, the American Wars for “democracy” against Commies and Terrorists, the looming scourge of euthanasia and suicide, etc., etc.

How fortunate we would be, to have only killed a few thousands of people out of a sense of duty to something higher than ourselves!

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

My point is that it is deeply stupid to claim that religion is the cause of and motivator of all higher culture and civilisation when that clearly is not the case.

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Well, who is claiming that religion is the cause of all higher culture and civilization?

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

Check the start of this thread.

NaturalSelector
Guest
NaturalSelector
Offline

Actually no, Throughout human history humans that believe in supernatural have killed more than athiests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

This is wrong-headed on multiple levels. First, putting it this way – just chalking up deaths as correlated to belief or disbelief in the supernatural – is irrelevant. A small number of people disbelieve in the supernatural, and the vast majority do believe in it (yet atheists have done wildly disproportionate damage); moreover, people’s motives are often complex, and not everything done by a person, is done because of their belief or disbelief in the supernatural. The point is causation. Few wars waged by those who believe in the supernatural have been caused by religion, even if religion could be cited as a justification. Even the Crusades, for example, were legitimate wars of self defense. About the only wars that could be ascribed an essentially religious causation, would be some of Islam’s expansionary efforts, and some of the strife between Catholics and Protestants.
As to the video, his concept of “violence” is absurd, even extending to the administration of justice. Nobody doubts that we used to hamstring or execute rebels, draw and quarter traitors, etc. I suppose habitually left-wing atheists think it’s a grand improvement that we have now substituted fines (giving the government an incentive to criminalize behaviours and harass the citizenry while turning out hard criminals to victimize other people again and again), and have otherwise abandoned a sense of righteousness strong enough to make punitive examples of egregious criminals. His idea that our “expanding sympathies” are mitigating violence is now laughable to anyone who has been paying attention. But it is a point that many Jewish thinkers like to make.
He points to a brief lull in open warfare between states as though civilizing forces could take credit for this, rather than the emergence of the “Pax Americana” which currently sublimates conflicts to proxy wars and prefers to practice a kind of demographic and economic warfare which, while it avoids open bloodshed in the short term, is preparing a far greater cataclysm on the horizon. In the centuries prior, the wars caused by atheist or humanist morality, are many. To this we may ascribe the whole tide of revolutionary wars from the 1700s on (which had the destruction of Catholicism and its old order as their open or barely concealed aim, held on grounds of humanist, “Enlightenment,” Freemasonic ideology) through explicitly atheist and/or anti-Christian Socialism, Communism, etc. Also, the holocaust of abortion, the coming holocaust of euthanasia, the disgusting wars of globalism… these alone surpass the bloodshed of all the rest combined.
Humanism and Liberalism are both the most foolish and the most blood-drenched ideologies of all time, with the possible exception of Islam.

ShadowRising
Guest
ShadowRising
Offline

Many have died in the name of religion as well. Look at ISIS if you need a contemporary example. That shit has been happening for a very, very long time.

Lunostrelki
Guest
Lunostrelki
Offline

The numbers show that threats like ISIS are small compared to such esteemed atheist leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Kim Il-sung.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Faith, It works while atheism fails to work. So you are convinced that accepting the philosophy that works best for humans might be a good idea. But not convinced that faith is reality based. I see it a bit differently. Humans have desires, some of those desires are basically universal (lets not get into aberrant and rare desires) All of these near universal desires are reality based and necessary to a happy healthy life or any life at all.

Things like thirst, hunger, sexual desire, are close to universal desires. They are based on real things that are needed to live and live well.

I can not think of a single such desire that is not based on a real and important thing. Belief in a higher power and a desire for it. There has never been a culture in all of history where that was not the norm. The desire for a god is close to a universal desire. Faith has been proved to be healthy for humans. Lack of faith has been shown to be unhealthy. Why would this be the only such desire that is not based on a real thing? A real thing that can and does satisfy the desire?

Faith is more than just healthy, it is rational.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

It may be healthy, a desire, or whatever. That doesn’t make it’s claims true. Faith and gods were used to explain many natural phenomena in the past, like earthquakes, thunder, rain, etc… This for the same “desire” of knowing and purpose that your are talking about. All of that is explained today by science. Only unanserable and meaningless questions about existance remain to sustain faith today.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

I wonder out of all of such desires why is this the only one based on something that isn’t real

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

I wonder the same myself.

Wes
Guest
Wes
Offline

Odd unlikely even that something created by evolutionary processes would waste so much energy on something false. But if it did why did it only happened once? I think the obvious answer is that the desire for God is based on reality just like all the other desires. The only reason you don’t see it is that you don’t like the way it’s pointing. Pointing to the fact that your philosophy is probably emotionally based and not reality-based

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

That is not how evolution works. Believing or not in a god does not neccesarily affect significantly enough your chances of reproducing, therefore there was never natural selection that would rule out belief in the supernatural. It may even have been the other way around, since people long ago didn’t know shit about why things happened, so a god gave them the peace of mind that they needed to thrive. But as I said before, that doesn’t make it true.

You are turning things around on me now. Im not emotionally based in my thinking. On the contrary, thinking that a god exists that controls everything and that I will live forever in another life is far more comforting for me.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Are you another one of these science fetishists? You keep saying religion was for explaining things we simply didn’t understand. Science has not solved any of them and instead has actually added to the list of logically unsolvable paradoxes. The ancients realized many paradoxes such as Xeno’s Arrow or Theseus’ Paradox, but modern science has made reality even more absurd with things like dual properties of light, uncertainty principle, grand unified theory, superposition, entanglement.

Further, science will never be able to explain the why, so religion will live forever.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Maybe. But sience tries, and in the process has discovered that our universe is far more complex than we thought. Leaving many questions that may never have an answer as we may not have the physical or mental capabilities to understand them. Religion just asumes a god did it and thats it. Much more easy and comfortable isn’t it?. Thats why religion will probable live for ever. Mainly in the minds of the simplest, more ignorant, and intelectually weak and lazy people. So you are one of those science denier cave men? Science has given you this same computer and internet you are writing in dude. Or the car you drove, or the phone you use.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I can see you are a young Tolstoy. Ipray One day you will grow up.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

We will see. Thank you for your prayers.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Yes I am a cave man,which explains why I am smarter more accomplished more cultured better educated and more familiar with science and philosophy than most atheists, since theyby their own admission are mere animals at best, animated sacks of meat if honest

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

All you have is ad hominem insults and then you claim that you are ‘cultured’ and ‘educated’. The evidence indicates otherwise.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Will you white knight for me and bitch at him for calling me names too? Or is there a team thing going on here and I’m on the other side?

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

Do you have anything other than insults? You’re coming across as a bit boring and low IQ.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

You may be ten times more educated than me. I don’t know. But I do know that you are not intellectually honest.
I assume you use evidence and logic for every endeavor of your life. But when it’s about life’s most important questions. The more profound questions about existance, suddenly faith is required. Faith is not a pathway to truth. If it was, you couldn’t distinguish between Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or the Norse Politheism. All those religions were believed by faith.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

My faith is driven by the reasoned understanding that there cannot logically be no-god. I used to be an atheist but came to realize that there must be a god, and our task is to stake a reasoned claim for or against God. I examined the evidence and determined that only Islam and Christianity have evidence, although limited and imperfect. Further study proved Christianity most likely to be true.

Christianity is more likely, and less absurd, than atheism. This comes from my experience with both views, not from any “faith.” Based on my advanced understanding of atheism I literally cannot not believe in god

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

There is a middle ground here you know. I can’t be sure that god doesnt exist, I just think its highly unlikely. So I live my life as if he didn’t exist. I just accept that there are things that we don’t know. I can live with it. And makes learning new things more appealing. I dont invent myths to explain the unexplained.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I didn’t invent a myth either. I selected the most rational one to pursue for a while. After a while of pursuit the Truth came to me, I had a religious experience. I now have the gift of faith as well as a reasoned out religious view that works for everything, light years beyond the view I had as an atheist. Wait til you have kids. You have a lot of life to experience. You’ll come around.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

“I selected the most rational one to pursue for a while”
Well that seems convenient. I also did for 25+ years. Then I realized that in opening the question again y could learn more about the world. Also realized that that “rational” myth I selected to live by was not justified, and was anything but rational.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

So you’ve found another myth? The myth that you should live and survive. That is a myth. A convenient one that lens to your selfish desires. Without God there is only evolution. And evolution does not demand you survive or be fit. You could go extinct tomorrow and evolution won’t care a bit. The whole cosmos could go cold and dead tomorrow and evolution won’t care one wit. Many have gone and will go extinct. The cosmos will go cold. There is no mandate to survive. You’re just rationalizing your selfish existence like any other person you condescend to.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

So now we are getting somewhere. You seem to be telling me why you chose to believe what you believe. It is exactly as you say: The universe or “evolution” owes us nothing. It’s up to us to survive (to some extent) and find meaning to our lives. Personally, I know that the chances for me even being born are really low, so I will try to make the most of my life. I like life how it was presented to me. Even if it has no inherent meaning. “Meaning” is something we invented. We just happened to exist. People invent gods and supernatural meanings to life just to rationalize their own existances. That is wishful thinking.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I chose to believe what i believe because it makes more sense and is more rational than what you believe. I am also able to live according to my theistic beliefs better than when I was a nihilist. To say that life is meaningless is absurd. The sentence is self refuting, i.e. “This sentence is meaningless. ” The sentence is part of life and is a subcategory of life, and if life is meaningless then the sentence is meaningless. It’s a simple syllogism.

1. Sentences are made in life.
2. Life is meaningless.
3. Therefore, sentences are meaningless.
4. This syllogism is composed of 4 sentences that are meaningless.

That’s your “rational” world view based on “evidence” ? How you get from there to any such thing as survival or fitness is beyond me. How you get from there to arguing with people on the Internet is beyond me. If life is so meaningless, who really gives a shit about what God myths I believe? I’d life is just power and survival and fitness then clearly, theists are excelling, and atheists are not.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Every person makes their own meaning of life. I don’t believe in any god because there is simply no evidence for it. Wanting to believe becuase it suits me better is not enough for it to be true. Even if a god existed, how do you know which god it would be?. Yahwe?, Odin?, Anubis?. People believed in them by faith through history, and there never was evidence for any of them.The fact that we posses reason as a species meant thousands of gods and religions had to be invented in order for ignorant people to find a meaning to life, death and natural phenomena in our world. But now we have science, which has greatly reduced the gap in which a god can operate to explain reality. Only the most profound questions about existence remain. Questions that may even not deserve an answer. But not knowing something only means we have to continue our pursuit for knowledge, rather than just assume a god did it.

We don’t know what happens after death. Most probably we just cease to exist, since blood stops reaching our brains, and out brains is the only thing that contains our concsiousness. But that doesn’t mean life has no meaning. You make your own. And the fact that you were born over billions of other posibilities should make you appreciate life and try to enjoy and make the most out of it. Not commit suicide because your mind is weak and can’t accept that we exist alone in the universe by an amazing coincidence called life.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Is ridiculous to say there is no evidence for Gods. Not only is there much evidence but the evidence also points directly toward 2 gods in particular as being most likely: Jesus and Allah

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Wow, you could win the Nobel Prize then. Please present your evidence to the world.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Jesus was a real person, as were his disciples. Mohammed was a real person, as were his disciples. That constitutes eyewitness evidence. Their writings and teachings are recorded, therfore constituting documentary evidence. The writings and teachings included claims and accounts regarding the supernatural, and particularly God. Many of The claims are backed up by numerous additional secondary sources regarding verifiable facts such as places, people, and cultures. Therfore the evidence has multiple confirming independent sources.

Outside of these, there is a long list of a priori, logical pieces of evidencethat require gods to exist or make the existence of gods to be a probable judgement

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

Jesus was probably a real person, we have secondary accounts of his life, not primary. Mohammed was possibly a real person, but that is more ambiguous. We don’t have any remotely near contemporary records of his existence.
The earlier the documentary evidence, the fewer the supernatural claims.
So far, you aren’t making a very good case for God existing.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Perhaps that’s because i wasnt making a case for god’s existence. I was only making a case that there is greater than zero evidence.

My ancillary point is that the evidence which you’ve admitted to is not prefect but good enough to make progress in the creator hypothesis.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

There might be some evidence for the person of Jesus. But absolutely no evidence of any of the supernatural claims.

ShadowRising
Guest
ShadowRising
Offline

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the Roman had no record of a Jesus. And they kept excellent records. Plus the Jesus story has been told over and over again in many mythologies in that region, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Fables of a virgin giving birth, etc. Maybe the Christian myth is just the one that managed to catch on.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Exactly, but I didn’t want to go in that debate. The only cited historian of “the time” that supposedly mentions Jesus is Josephus, who was born after Jesus died. He mentions Jesus a couple of times in out of context texts that have been long suspected to be fakes planted by others. But oh well…

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Come on man. Quit being disingenuous. If you’ll accept evidence that he lived then you should accept that he died, and you have no dead body, therefore you’ve granted that there is some evidence in his and other’s claim that he was resurrected.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

I don’t necessarily accept evidence that he lived. The extra biblical evidence is kind of weak. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). We are not sure he existed, and even if he did, the fact that we don’t have the body 200 years after does not mean he was resurrected lol.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Do you know why the extra-biblical (e.g. Josephus) evidence is so weak? Because all the best evidence regarding Christ was rounded up and put into one book, it’s called The Bible.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Saying that the Bible is evidence for Jesus is like saying that The Lord of the Rings is evidence for Frodo.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

How so?

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Both books talk about and describe their characters. There is not any reliable evidence outside of that book about the persona actually existing. Lets narrow it a bit. The egyptian jeroglyphs also talk about their gods being in real places. Is that evidence for their existence?

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Yes the Egyptian glyphs is evidence for their existence. Documented testimonial evidence. Do you disagree?

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Yes. So you believe the egyptian gods exist as well? Man your evidence standards are really low.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I do not believe the Egyptian gods exist.

But it is evidence. You are wrong to say it is not evidence. Your definition of evidence does not match any dictionary I’ve read. It seems you use the word “evidence” to mean proof.

If 30 people said they saw a man levitating, then that is evidence of levitation, whether you like it or not. Fact.

Many atheists have this deluded definition of evidence like yours. It’s because you don’t want to be neutral. You have a chip on your shoulder. You’re biased.

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

The evidence that there was probably a man called Jesus and possibly a man called Mohammed isn’t evidence for a ‘creator hypothesis’. It is zero evidence for that hypothesis. If you have some actual evidence I would genuinely be interested in considering it.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Wait now. The evidence that they existed lends to the claims they and their disciples made to some degree. Especially when you admit Christ was real and can’t find his dead body. If you’re going to admit that Christ truly existed based on the documents that were eventually put into the Bible then you have to examine the other claims as well. You can’t pick and choose which claims to believe. E.g. “I am convinced by St.Paul’s letters that Christ was real but don’t believe in his account on the road to Damascus.”

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

No, the fact that there is some evidence that a man existed is not the same as evidence for claims of that man having supernatural abilities.
And we can and do ‘pick and choose’ which claims we believe depending on the credibility of those claims. E.g.” I think that reference to Jesus in Josephus is probably real but I don’t believe the accounts of Jesus raising people from the dead.”
and
‘The evidence shows that David Koresh existed. I believe that claim but I don’t believe the claims that David Koresh received instructions direct from God’

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

Life consists of a group of various acts with various purposes and not one single purpose.

The only fraud that Tolstoy should talk about is himself.

Zelcorpion
Guest
Zelcorpion
Offline

First of all – what kind of proof do atheists really have whether God, reincarnation, Soul, a greater meaning exists or not? They have none. Oh – they can certainly claim that some claims of religions are bullshit, but that does not prove that God dose not exist – just the exact Christian or Muslim God is not there.

I too struggled with philosophy and was an atheist in my teens, as I started feverishly too look for a meaning of life itself at the tender age of 13.5. I first studied religion, the one I was born into (Roman Catholic Christianity) and then later all other major ones. I found each of the religions lacking in some aspect of logic and reason. Then I went on to philosophy and became an atheist until I realized that they too have no proof, but are just mentally masturbating each other until no end.

Finally I came upon spirituality and actual skills that you can learn to find out for yourself. I became aware of spiritual exercises and techniques that you can learn to leave the body, experience the awareness beyond the physical. There are countless accounts of saints and near-death experiences that should give at least atheists pause for some doubt in their conviction that there is nothing beyond. They could sit down and do certain out of body exercises and then experience for themselves whether there is something more to life than pure matter and meaninglessness.

You don’t have to believe in anything doing that. You just act and you experience. Then you experience more and find out more things about life. God does not care whether we believe in him or not and your belief in the afterlife or in something superior does not change the outcome. Your actions in this life – they matter. God is like gravity – it does not care whether you belief in it. However it may help most humans to believe in something loving and divine. As most higher mystics know – experiencing the higher planes was always connected with love and thus life has an ultimately loving and teaching nature. It means for us to become stronger, more loving, more kind, more detached, more happy. And countless lives later we are that refined being. Yes – I also experienced past lives. I might add that past lives themselves can be proven even with verifyable means (past-life regressions and then following up on the information – seen on some TV shows).

The results of my studies:

1. God I have not met (yet), but there is a loving guiding force that you can sense doing certain mystic exercises (examples seen in all religions – St. Francis of Assisi, Milarepa, Rumi, Shamus I Tabriz, Epictetus (yes – he was more a mystic than a philosopher) – they all tell the same regardless of religion)

2. Every living being is Soul, an immortal god-like being that comes to Earth to learn more in each life, sometimes being negative, sometimes doing a better job and learning in each incarnation. The end goal is to become a divine being I have been told. Souls range from the less experienced (who then are swayed easily by their emotions, major religions, political movements etc.) to the old Souls, who have seen it all and can more easily move past all that. However regardless of the current state – all Souls have of course the same value (but of course some you should better steer clear of in this life).

3. To what end is all of this I do not know, but I do know that life for Soul is intrinsically more happy when you do good, than when you do bad and everyone is filled with more love afterwards. That is our intrinsic nature as Soul, which explains why many Atheists don’t kill themselves or commit terrible crimes despite outwardly not believing in many consequences.

And again – it does not matter, whether you believe in any of it. What matters is how you live your live now.

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

Atheists don’t claim that a God definitely does not exist. Just as they don’t claim that fairies or the Loch Ness monster definitely don’t exist. They just don’t believe such things for lack of evidence.

advancedatheist
Guest
advancedatheist
Offline

A god doesn’t necessarily solve the problems theists want it to solve. A logically possible god could have created human life without any meaning, purpose, moral guidance, an afterlife or a guarantee of ultimate justice. Theists just project this wish list onto their idea of god for basically selfish reasons.

advancedatheist
Guest
advancedatheist
Offline

A god doesn’t necessarily solve the problems theists want it to solve. A logically possible god could have created human life without any meaning, purpose, moral guidance, an afterlife or a guarantee of ultimate justice. Theists just project this wish list onto their idea of god for basically selfish reasons.

Truth
Guest
Truth
Offline

Atheism really makes you stupid.

There is no Action without purpose (conscious or unconscious).

It might be just for the lols but there was a purpose. Or else it could not be.

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

No. Reality doesn’t need ‘purpose’, that is a human construct.

Truth
Guest
Truth
Offline

The opposition between faith and reason is a fallacy, based on nothing but a misuse of words.

Reason is a process, a tool that humans use on information/facts they receive from their senses or from inside themselves and through the rigid application of known laws can validate if the information received adhere to a set of principles.

Without a set of principles there is no reason. These principles cannot be proven by reason, for no system can prove it self. They are a priori principles.

Faith is the belief in a determined set of principles. Without faith, there is no reason. Atheism is not a lack of faith but a different faith. Atheist follow principles that cannot be proven. They say God cannot exist because they cannot see Him, but none of you have ever seen a thought, yet you know that ideas exist.

There is no true faith without reason, there is no reason without principles (faith). The place where theses meet perfectly is the Roman Catholic Church

Angelica Perduta
Guest

The value of life is not in it’s conclusion, but in the path we take to get there.

Demonica Perduta
Guest

The purpose of my life is to live my life with a purpose. :o)

questioningall1 .
Guest
questioningall1 .
Offline

You believe that someday you will believe in God because you want to believe in God? That is absolute childishness. There is no promise that someday you will believe in God because you want to believe in God. In fact, if the God of the bible is the God you want to believe in, it is quite the contrary. God promises that your heart will become hard. That God will give you up. That God, Himself, will blind you so that you surely will be damned. Mainly because God seems to detest passive men. Jacob got a lot further with God because he was willing to fight God for his birthright.

Kidd Cudi
Guest
Kidd Cudi
Offline

lol. quit bitching and moaning and become a Catholic or Orthodox already. You can convince yourself it’s real later.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Lol. I know, right? Christians I know say it needs to be genuine. I say no: let them pretend. Better they pretend to be Christian and enter the fellowship than wallow as a dysfunctional/wayward atheist. Maybe it will become genuine some time before you die.

ShadowRising
Guest
ShadowRising
Offline

Mother Teresa as it turned out didn’t believe. She admitted to being spiritually empty. I’m not sure we should be encouraging people to jump into the pool of religion when they aren’t fully committed to the beliefs. That will not a satisfying experience. I tried going to church with my family a couple years ago. I’m an agnostic I guess you could say. Being surrounded by all these believers I found my rational mind constantly questioning everything that was being said around me. I had perfectly logical explanations for things believers ascribe to acts of God. I felt out of place in that environment. And I stopped going. There are some good aspects to church like the sense of community to its adherents. It may be a good place to find a traditional wife. Many of the people are decent and try to do good charity works too. So I have nothing against religious organization. But for people like me who see the world scientifically and rationally, I don’t feel there’s much for someone like me to get out of it.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I like your attitude. I don’t care about satisfying experiences as much as I care about social cohesion. I do care about your salvation more than anything so I an glad you are open to religion instead of hostile. You’d probably make a good neighbor.

$136606304
Guest
$136606304
Offline

God IS Absolute Truth … That’s fine if anyone wants to deny the existence of Absolute Truth, it still exists regardless …

Jed Mask
Guest
Jed Mask
Offline

“Whether God is the absolute truth or not, He seems to be a requirement for a sane and purposeful life. I want to believe, and maybe one day, I just will.”

^See I’m gonna CALL YOU OUT on that one Mr. Roosh…

Are you “self-projecting” here? If you “want to believe and maybe one day, I just will” just BELIEVE RIGHT NOW man! Holding out for something? Like what?

If YOU BELIEVE that JESUS CHRIST is the SON OF GOD BELIEVE IT! Quit being “indecisive” and “wishy-washy” with your feelings man; God knows why you may be “holding out” on HIM.

What’s your “intent” for “holding out”, huh? So you can continue the same ol’ “pump ‘n dump” FORNICATION routine with (damaged) women and even “screwing up” Western society even more? Women aren’t the only ones out there causing the filth of “Feminism” to spread. It’s MEN as well that continue having promiscuous premarital sex flings with numerous women.

You’re quite knowledgeable in the “field of women’s sexuality and attraction” but if you do NOT abide in the Commandments of GOD ALMIGHTY, LORD JESUS CHRIST you are IN EFFECT serving the lusts of your flesh and the DEVIL, SATAN!

If you are “serious” about God and not just “beating around the bush”, I for one am willing to give you some guidelines if you’re interested:

1. I take it you may be an “unsaved unbeliever”… Are you already “saved”? If you don’t already know, the Gospel of Jesus Christ (KJV 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) is 1. Jesus Christ believed on the Cross, 2. Jesus Christ was buried and 3. Jesus Christ rose back to life (on the third [3rd]). If you PERSONALLY BELIEVE in YOUR HEART what Jesus Christ did so you could be forgiven of your sins and you TRUST on JESUS CHRIST you are SAVED and BORN AGAIN in spirit with the Holy Ghost of Lord Jesus Christ. Please check here for more info: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

2. Read ONLY a King James Version Holy Bible for the Inspired and PRESERVED Word.

3. Find CHRISTIAN, King James Bible-believing Christian non-denominational church in your local area to attend in FELLOWSHIP and WORSHIP. I’m sure if you’re “serious” you can accomplish this. (If you want, I’ll even help you find a church.)

4. Get “water baptism” in the Name of the “Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit” or “In the Name of Jesus Christ” (either way) by a witnessing Christian, group of Christians or a church of Christians. Please check here for more info on water baptism: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Baptismal%20Regeneration/mark_16-16.htm
5. GROW in the SPIRIT of the LORD JESUS CHRIST by reading His Word (King James Version Holy Bible [KJV]), prayer, fasting, soulwinning and fellowshipping with fellow believers of Lord Jesus Christ as you seek God’s Will constantly in PRAYER throughout your life…
______________________________
Well, that’s it for some “starters”. This applies to ANYONE who is seeking after GOD not just you Mr. Roosh.
So if you’re “serious” Mr. Roosh about God I tell you RIGHT NOW to ANSWER HIS CALL! You’re only “stalling” yourself and you know it.
You, I or anyone else is NOT promised “another day” to be alive and “get right with God”. No, you better GET RIGHT WITH GOD THE MOMENT YOU ARE COGNIZANT OF HIS EXISTENCE.
Whether you choose to reply to my comment is your choice: I’m just not “being played” here by YOU man. You know God has been getting your attention and yet you’re still willing to keep avoiding him.
(P.S. I’m more than willing to connect with you or anyone else who wants to learn and grow in the Things of God online and in real life. I’m on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Feel free to contact me anytime. Amen.)
~ Sincerely,
Bro. Jed

DM
Guest
DM
Offline

Life is like getting your PHD. Your purpose is to add to the grand sum of human knowledge. So keep on exploring, keep looking around the next corner, find new surprises and share them with the world

Greg Kelemen
Guest
Greg Kelemen
Offline

There is no need for faith in our age of proof, fret not, lol..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIc42oRjm8

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

That’s not proof, that’s mendacious, cherry picked and misrepresented nonsense.

PBK
Guest
PBK
Offline

If you consider yourself a curious or seeking agnostic, you can look into what is commonly referred to as mysticism. All religions have esoteric teachings that have certain common denominators, which can be interpreted as hinting towards a certain ultimate reality, even though I’d personally hesitate to call it God.

While all experiences of the divine are subjective, one can (almost) empirically deduce a pattern within these experiences that point towards the same thing. One of the phenomena that recur across religions is what is sometimes known as “ego death” or annihilation of the psychological entity we perceive ourselves to be.

Obviously, all experience is interpreted through a certain lens, or paradigm, and one doesn’t necessarily have experiences of “divinity” and see them as such. But I think the notion of God has also become tainted by the Judeo-Christian belief in a personal deity, which reduces, or at least constricts, the concept of the divine.

If we are to stick with rationality as the utmost ideal to adhere to, which is questionable, then it’s difficult to come to a theistic conclusion. If one, however, is willing to make a rational leap and open to the possibility of the divine, I believe it is possible to experience it in this life. People have throughout millennia, and continue to to this day, whether they are Buddhist, Jewish, or Christian, through such varied media as mediation, shrooms or prayer.

redpillyogi
Guest

I’ve found Neil Kramer to be quite good on the topic…

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent
Offline

Does life have inherent meaning if you do believe in God?

Jed Mask
Guest
Jed Mask
Offline

Yes. Amen.

Morrison
Guest
Morrison
Offline

Even atheist philosophers understand and respect the need for humans to believe in a higher power for their ability to cope in life.

Now I’m hoping we are not some simulation; but something better.

Mark Boris
Guest
Mark Boris
Offline

“Lord, I believe; help me in my unbelief!”
Mark 9:24

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

Even if it is completely true and correct that lack of belief in a God makes life seem bleak and meaningless, that still does not mean that there is a God.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

Lack of gods does not make life SEEM meaningless. It makes life being meaningless a fact.

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

So life might actually be meaningless. Maybe that’s the actual reality. Sometimes reality is not great.

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

I fully believe and accept that life is meaningless without God. I doubt you do, because you’d be a lot more depressed and demoralized, to the point where you would not be arguing with theists on the Internet

Kit Ingoldby
Guest
Kit Ingoldby
Offline

Funnily enough, not believing in Gods or a mystical supernatural ‘meaning’ doesn’t seem to bother me. Having a ‘meaning’ imposed by a supernatural being doesn’t strike me as something to be wished for.

Steve
Guest
Steve
Offline

Sometimes I wish I had down syndrome, they don’t worry about much they just enjoy themselves. No thinking deeply or ‘existential’ pains. Just good times.

This woman at my church has some sort of mental retardation, they let her be an usher and she fucks up so badly just showing people to their seats. BUT she’s happy and all the people critical about job quality are the real losers. Makes a man think

Sgt POG
Guest
Sgt POG
Offline

How many philosophers have gone mad, killed themselves, killed others? Many

Tom Kaye
Guest
Tom Kaye
Offline

You are challenging an entire generation of young men. Terrific!

You are struggling with a question I confronted when I was 15, and again in my 50s.

At the time when I was 15, I was facing a real threat of suicide. I understood that life, because it ENDS, is an absurd pantomime and has no intrinsic purpose or meaning. Man is finite but his consciousness can conceive of the infinite (how that is possible is a question NO philosopher has answered and no atheist ever faces), therefore he knows he will cease to exist. Unlike all other living organisms, which, to the best of our knowledge, experience life as merely a flow of sensory experience with no self-refelction, man is filled with dread at the thought of his Self ceasing to be.

Human Consciousness is incompatible with a finite existence!

Rust Cohle expressed it so powerfully in True Detective:

“I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep of evolution. We became TOO self aware. Nature created an aspect of itself separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. . . ”

When I was confronted with this reality I cried out to God. I was alone in my bedroom and knew nothing of “conversion” or being ‘born again”. And yet I had an experience of God’s presence that overwhelmed me.

But it was not enough to end my doubts about God’s existence. I knew enough psychology to know my experience cold have been a fluke. A trick of the mind to keep me from killing myself. So after several months I set a challenge before God.

“God,” I said one night crossing the desert in the back of my dad’s truck. “I can’t live with these constant nagging doubts about Your existence. So I’m going to pray now and I need you to show me you are real.”

Less than two minutes later I opened my eyes and KNEW without doubt that God existed. I could no longer doubt. I knew God existed like I knew I existed. By conscious experience.

That sence of God’s reality would stay with me for the next 38 years. Until three years ago.

God is not perceptible in this space-time continuum because He created it and is therefore outside of it, just as our free will exists outside of space-time, not governed by the law of cause and effect. If free will exists it MUST exist outside of cause and effect, outside of this physical universe. Otherwise there are no such thing as facts or truth. There is only what you are compelled to think is factual and truthful. A self-contradiction.

If free will is not bound by cause and effect, neither is consciousness bound by this space-time continuum, because it can conceive (not perceive) of dimensions beyond what we can experience via our bodies and minds.

How is that possible?

Consciousness, I believe, is the key to “touching and being touched” by God and thereby perceiving God.

There is a neurobiologist, Jeffrey Schwartz, who argues that the fact that the mind can change the brain is conclusive proof, or ought to be, that the mind is NOT the brain. And if not the brain then something other than matter and energy exists and exists outside this dimension of space and time.

It is not a leap of irrational faith to conclude that the source and creator of our free willed consciousness is called God. And this rational conclusion then leads is to a number of other logical conclusions about the nature the Consciousness that created our space-time universe.

But more on that another time.

Keep up the struggle, Roosh.

Djay
Guest
Djay
Offline

Well it’s pretty obvious that there is a GOD who create everything we see (let’s call it the physical universe). Chances that the physical universe was created without a intelligence behind it is lower than winning 1000 time in a row the powerball. Thus there is a GOD who created all this.

Now reason why he would do that. Well, let’s imagine that at the beginning of time, nothing existed. Well, you can probably agree with me that if there is nothing around this is boring as hell. So GOD probably created all of this to have some fun.

Now talking of fun, this is a way more fun to play a game than watch it (is it more fun to play monopoly than watching friends play monopoly). So, this universe was created by god to play in it. But wait, if you create a game and you are alone in it, this is not fun ! So you must have opponents… Oh, so if I am GOD and I want some opponents, I will have to create some players in it. So, by splitting himself in trillions of parts, god created many opponents, all which are a fraction of god… yes that is you and me.

Well, there is a proof that everyone of us are a fraction of the divine essence : It’s our creative ability. Just close your eyes and create a little world. Well you just created it like GOD created the universe. The only difference is thought are less solid than this universe.

So what is life ? Life is a game. Let’s play it.

splooge
Guest
splooge
Offline

I know that for the health of my sanity, my tribe, and my nation, faith will be required, especially since a strong and healthy nation without faith is a fantasy concept that history has not shown to be possible, at least not in the modern era.

this is why your fellow persians should embrace their relgion and culture then being some hedonistic party goers like the west

Barwin
Guest
Barwin
Offline

I don’t believe the God story. Life would be easier if I did; I’d feel like I’m taken care of, like “God” is watching over me and so forth.. But I don’t, and I can’t make myself believe it.

OlioOx
Guest
OlioOx
Offline

Roosh has turned out to be Cipher in “The Matrix” — he wants his body to be put back into the power plant.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

HAHAHA this comment nails it.

NaturalSelector
Guest
NaturalSelector
Offline

Guys that believe in God are beta males, they need an Alpha male (God) to run their lives and dominate them.

Manowar
Guest
Manowar
Offline

Agree 100%. A big part of the “Red Pill” I took a few years ago was leaving behind the comfort and ignorance of religion and taking on life in my own terms.

OlioOx
Guest
OlioOx
Offline

I should give credit where credit is due, when I said just now that Roosh has turned out to be the character Cipher in “The Matrix” — a commenter named NaturalSelector said pretty much the same thing, which inspired my own comment. Here is the brilliant insight of NaturalSelector: “Everyone reading needs to be aware that once Roosh abandoned ‘Red Pill’ he moved directly into Blue Pill zone.”

OlioOx
Guest
OlioOx
Offline

…and watching Roosh turn into a born-again christian, or found his own equally irrational cult, is going to be worth a few laughs, so watch this space. Only if you have nothing better to do of course.

He’s in a tough spot; he still has to make a living. But if Robert Tilton can do it, so can Roosh. (Robert Tilton — google “farting preacher”)

OlioOx
Guest
OlioOx
Offline

Roosh, I think it’s best you find another line of work, get married and have kids, and disappear entirely from public view. You’re like Gary Brecher/The War Nerd/John Dolan: you’ve passed your sell-by date. You’re done. You’ve made your contribution to The Cause, and you can now rest on your laurels, and you can be sure that your influence is extremely significant and will continue to grow. But for god’s sake (heh) it’s time to quit.

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Offline

Even if I wanted to leave, I don’t think I could stay away. I may have gotten too attached to the bullhorn I’m holding.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

But you have become inconsistent recently.
You cannot teach woman seduction and hedonism, which is a major cause of destroying family and society, and at the same time demand the eradication of the causes that are destroying family and society.
You have to chose between this or that, otherwise your readers will be lost.

Evan M
Guest
Evan M
Offline

This is excellent work Roosh. I have watched the evolution of your viewpoint over the years, and one clearly sees a transformation – call it a psychological change, the dawn of spiritual awareness, whatever. For a time you chased pleasures, as have I with your help, yet we conclude that pleasure does not last. Your blog is nothing short of the search for tha mothafuckin meaning of life! Without knowing life’s true meaning, you will be consumed by desires and fears, repeating endlessly in pointless suffering. But when the true meaning is glimpsed, we are at last set on a true course, after something which does not fade like pleasure or pain. Something we have had all along. Reality.

Can’t wait to see what’s on here in five years! If you’re in to a highly logical, badass kinda super-rational higher power consciousness nondual thang, check out Nisargadatta Maharaj…

OlioOx
Guest
OlioOx
Offline

I continue below to extrapolate on the insight of commenter NaturalSelector.

It’s also possible that Roosh is a bit more subtle that all that I have suggested below, and that his long term plan really is to emulate Robert Tilton, the ‘farting preacher’: Gain a steady income by any conceivable means — even the most shameful, contemptible, and despicable — and simply not let any of that bother him while he’s lying on a beach in the Bahamas. (Read Robert Greene’s ‘The 48 Laws of Power’).

It is crucial to bear in mind that Roosh is not independently wealthy. In other words, he is, and will be in the foreseeable future, beset by conflicts of interest: Should he buy groceries and pay the rent, or should he tell the truth?

It is very difficult to be a philosopher when one is hungry and has bills to pay. Schopenhauer managed it by living on a generous inheritance. Spinoza made a living with a practical trade (grinding lenses). Socrates put up with poverty, but also had dozens of rich supporters.

Roosh? He has no inheritance to live on, which is obvious from the empirical evidence of his working so hard to sell his books over the past several years; he is plainly not willing to live in notorious poverty, like Socrates; and he is not supported by a rich institution as was, say, Thomas Aquinas. He is really on his own, and thus cannot be expected to face the world like someone who knows where his next meal is coming from for the rest of his life.

Crowhill
Guest
Crowhill
Offline

Your very interesting essay can be boiled down to this. What if belief in God is necessary for human thriving, but God does not exist?

T
Guest
T
Offline

This man seems to believe that in the absence of faith, hedonism or suicide are the only options. If no God exists, then humans are merely animals. Animals are neither hedonistic nor suicidal.

The purpose of an animal is survival. Personal survival and the survival of offspring. So from this we could reason that the purpose of life is to do everything possible to raise healthy children. That could mean financial security, the best education, etc.

Nestor
Guest
Nestor
Offline

“Survival” according to the dictionary is “the state or fact of continuing to live or exist”. In other terms your phrase “The purpose of an animal is survival” can be read as “The purpose of an animal is to continue to live” or just “The purpose of an animal is to live” because “to continue to live” is not different from “to live”.

Therefore, life is the purpose. Life is the meaning.

Avraham rosenblum
Guest

I would have mentioned Godel’s adaption of Anselm’s proof but that seems like too much to mention in a comment

Jed Mask
Guest
Jed Mask
Offline

I see my “past comment” has been deleted…
Well, Mr. Roosh, you can run from God by you can’t HIDE FROM HIM!
Lord Jesus Christ LOVES you. Turn to God while you be still living sir.
~ Sincerely,
Bro. Jed

Girl in the World
Guest
Girl in the World
Offline

I like Joseph Campbell’s definition of God: “That which is beyond human understanding.” Nobody really knows where we came from and why we’re here. But we are here. We can conclude “life has no meaning” and take a nihilist path toward destruction, such as violence against others or ourselves. Or we can conclude “life has no meaning but the meaning I assign to it.”

Campbell also said, “Participate joyfully in the sorrows of the world. We cannot cure the world of sorrows, but we can choose to live in joy.” That’s what I try to do. I see what’s wrong in the world, and I try to be a positive influence, but I realize I’m just a drop in the ocean.

yolomofo
Guest
yolomofo
Offline

Yes it does. Though it is a harder path. For a perspective on finding meaning in life for the rational man, read What is the Good Life by Luc Ferry. If there’s only one book I can recommend, it’s this one.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Good-Life-Luc-Ferry/dp/022610138X/

Aurelius Moner
Guest
Aurelius Moner
Offline

Roosh,

As you’re probably aware, I would argue that religion can (and should) be eminently reasonable. The Christian religion, at least, demands that we cultivate all the moral virtues and strive, by grace, to arrive at a perfect exercise of the virtues as an integrated whole. While the intellectual virtues differ from the moral virtues in that a man is not (necessarily) morally bad for being weak in them, a man is obliged by the moral virtues to cultivate them as well as he may. The three speculative intellectual virtues are Understanding (the habitual knowledge of first principles and primary truths), Science/Knowledge (the habitual ability to demonstrate truths derived from those principles), and Wisdom (the habitual knowledge of the final or teleological causes of things). To become practiced in these things as a matter of habit, requires a continuous cultivation of one’s Reason.

I would encourage you to reflect on the four points you listed, of Tolstoy’s argument about reason; in doing so, I’m confident you will see that all four of them are false.

ShadowRising
Guest
ShadowRising
Offline

Roosh, I know he may be a competing blogger and you two might not even like each other, but maybe you should read some of Mark Manson’s stuff. You guys started out in the same place selling pickup material. I think you went off off into a nihilistic and hedonistic direction while he went into motivational and life-embracing direction. Both of you guys are deep thinkers but went in opposite directions. He has essays that address some of the very points you bring up here.

I think perhaps these questions are absurd ones in the first place. What is man’s meaning without God? My question is why does life have to have a meaning in the first place? What is the meaning and purpose behind a chimpanzee’s life? Probably the same as ours. Nothing. We’re all just the culmination of millions of years of evolution. We happened to be a species that developed the highest level of consciousness and thus an ego and feel that our species and our lives are inherently important. We used to think the universe revolved around us, literally. Now we know better. We’re what happens when a planet is at just the proper distance from its host star and has the right chemical composition. Molecules arrange themselves in increasingly more complex ways until bacteria become multi-cellular organism. I’m sure this process is repeating itself many times throughout the universe. Man has only been on the planet for a nanosecond in the earth’s 4 billion year history. We aren’t the first species and we won’t be the last. 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct and we may very well become one of them ourselves. So let’s get over ourselves. We aren’t that important. We don’t have to think the universe has some plan for us or cares about us. THAT’S OUR EGO TALKING. Our desire to feel important in what seems like an endless cosmos. When the truth is, we are little more than bacteria on the surface of a tennis ball. It’s humbling yet liberating all at once.

Who cares if man has a “purpose”? And if you accept the religious doctrine of purpose, i.e. serving God while on earth so that when you die you will go to heaven, does that give most of you comfort? It would be like going to church for an eternity. Heaven would be free of struggle, but struggle is what makes us feel alive and gives us goals to overcome. Prima facie, heaven sounds kind of boring to me.

Whether life is meaningful or not, it can still be very enjoyful and have many inspiring moments and give us many lessons to learn. We don’t have to collapse into hedonism. We can fight for things we believe in. Enrich our lives with people that mean something to us. Enrich our minds with books and arts. We can do things that are important to us. Every corner of this Earth is pretty fascinating. You wouldn’t have time to discover it all if you had a thousand life times. Life is short, way shorter than we may think. Figure out a way to get the most out of it. Look at life as a gift the universe gave you. A gift that it didn’t have to give you as it has no obligation to you. You do what you want with it, then you give it back. You were nothing before your parents conceived you, and when you are buried you will become nothing again. In between that time you had the opportunity to enjoy what the world has to offer. Hopefully when you are on your death bed, you will look back at at the wild ride and be glad you experienced what you did.

Maybe our consciousness will continue in some form or another after death. Maybe there is a creator. I really don’t know. I’m neither believer nor atheist. But at the present time, we have no proof of it so I’m not going to shoehorn myself into religious doctrine that I feel certain is little different than Norse mythology.

brahms
Guest
brahms
Offline
Cecil J
Guest
Cecil J
Offline

Roosh,
Do you think you’ll head back to Columbia or Brazil? Did you ever do Mexico (Ive heard Guadalajara has plenty of talent)?

Blinko23
Guest
Blinko23
Offline
clockworkelves
Guest
clockworkelves
Offline

“I want to believe, and maybe one day, I just will.”

Someone asked Jesus what percentage of people are saved in Luke and Jesus answers not many. Why? Because when people finally wake up that they need to take the narrow path, it will be too late.

Luke 13:23-25(KJV) Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, 24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:

dex
Guest
dex
Offline

..