What an abhorrent and unfair generalisation. Believing in God does not ensure moral and ethical high-ground, and a lack of belief in God does not ensure that an individual is depraved and amoral. What about Deists? They believe in God, but their ethics and morals are unaffected by their belief as they don't think God will pay attention to their actions or attitude. What about Bill Gates? He's Atheist and he has donated much of his wealth to the needy, as well as establishing multiple charities and setting up aid links. And then there's Steve Jobs, a Buddhist, who has done virtually NOTHING for charity. You can't put morals down to belief in God, you simply can't. What about religious leaders that molest children? Jihadists? Crusaders? You do realise some believers in God don't believe in an afterlife, or don't believe that their travel to such an afterlife is dependent on their life choices, don't you? I really do hope you're just a troll.
I have known that God is imaginary since I was old enough to consider the question. But I certainly don't think that "anything is acceptable." For starters, I know that everyone is more-or-less just like me, capable of the same feelings. Since I prefer survival, security, love, respect and challenges (a rough rewording of Maslow's Hierarchy) to the opposite, I assume that other people feel the same way--bolstered by my observations of them and conversations with them. Since my genetic history makes me a pack-social creature, with a recent 12,000-year drift toward herd-social, I have an instinct to want my pack/herd-mates to experience survival, security, love, respect and challenges too. Since I have qualitatively greater intelligence than all other animals, I also understand that I and everyone now living will die; and that we will be replaced by others like ourselves; and that those people will still be members of our pack/herd; and that they will also want survival, security, love, respect and challenges. Because of my species's unique capacity for abstraction, I want those future people to experience those things too. In other words, if the people around me (not to mention the people who come after me) are satisfied, it enhances my own satisfaction. If they are not, it makes it difficult for me to be satisfied. Moreover, since I also have the emotion of pride, I feel proud of myself if I can contribute to civilization, making the people who come after me capable of enjoying more satisfying experiences than I can. Perhaps there's a bit of ego there, hoping that when they read my erudite writing or hear my inspiring song or use my fabulously reliable and user-friendly software or love a healthy good-tempered dog of the bloodlines I have been breeding, they will actually know of me as someone who came before and be grateful that I was here. But even if not, I'm still proud of myself for making a difference. This requires no naive belief in fairytale creatures. Merely the attributes of our species. You don't give enough credit--or perhaps enough thought--to our social nature.
I think the purpose of life is to live a life within your capacity, try your best but do not feel sad if you can't achieve your targets. And do not compare yourself to other people.
What's the deal with God's morality? The Biblical God killed children for making fun of a bald guy! I don't have a belief in God, but I do have morals. Why? Because morals don't come from the Bible. Unless you think slavery is moral.
If life has no purposes, it means you will feel no regret at all when you die, die in poverty or wealth, die in pain or bliss, it does not matter, right?
It depends on what you mean. If you mean we wouldn't regret anything in our final days, that's not true (though poverty and pain aren't necessarily things to regret). If you mean without purpose, we wouldn't have an afterlife to regret things in, then you need to stop and think about it for a second. There might be an afterlife even if life served no purpose. See, the thing you guys need to do is divorce yourself from the unthinking masses. Stop assuming that if there is a God, there must be an afterlife, and there must be purpose. Stop assuming that if there is no God, then there must not be an afterlife, and there must be no purpose. If there is a God, it doesn't automatically mean that our lives have purpose, and it doesn't mean we're all going to live on after death. If our lives have purpose, it doesn't automatically mean that there is a God, and it doesn't mean we're all going to live on after death. If there is an afterlife, it doesn't automatically mean there is a God, and it doesn't mean that our lives have purpose. These could all be mutually exclusive phenomena. Even if the Jesus story were 100% true, it wouldn't mean he was God. It could mean many things, but it wouldn't necessarily mean he was God. Understand? All you're doing here is regurgitating Christian dogma, not thinking. Why are you even asking questions when you can't think for yourself?
A belief in an afterlife might be a stronger motivator to be moral and good than a belief in God. I am a spiritualist, so my belief in God is more abstract - God is an Infinite Intelligence. An Infinite Intelligence might not take particular notice of my choices. However, as a spiritualist, I am motivated to abstain from significantly bad behavior (like giving in to hate). I believe that life goes on in the spirit world. The consequences of my decisions in this world will influence my life in the after-life. When I pass into spirit, I want to seek out Higher planes of wisdom and light. To do this, I have to release the ill will I have towards people I have fought with.
Belief in an afterlife has caused some people to murder their children believing that those kids will go to paradise.
I would prefer to avoid pain and regret. Those are a legitimate basis for morality. Understand that having a personal purpose is quite a different thing than life itself having a purpose.
"You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think its much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things. But Im not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I dont know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why were here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit; if I cant figure it out, then I go onto something else. But I dont have to know an answer. I dont feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell — possibly. It doesnt frighten me." Richard Feynman A Minute Physics video with Neil deGrasse Tyson: [video=youtube;7pL5vzIMAhs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pL5vzIMAhs[/video]
Some parents kill their children because he/she is the wrong sex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
we live because we breathe you live to have a life, not just exist then change your life. Get a job you like yeah, you can choose to die Its meaningful to just live
Yeah! It's a rebuttal. There are lots of reasons why parents kill their children. http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/...p-resnick-on-why-parents-kill-their-own-kids/ From this article, here are 5 reasons (categories) why parents kill their children. 1. is “altruistic.” The classic case is the mother who plans to take her own life and believes that the children are better off in heaven with her. 2. is the case in which the parent is acutely psychotic. 3. is fatal battering [as described above] (for being "mouthy"). 4. is [to get rid of] an unwanted baby, for example an infant born out of wedlock. 5. is spousal revenge, [in which a parent kills the children to hurt the partner], typically after infidelity.
My point is that no one is suggesting that the idea of an unwanted baby, psychosis, corporal punishment, or revenge are sources for morality. I pointed out a fatal flaw in your premise. Just like the golden rule is useless if you happen to be a masochist.
