Existential nihilism?

[seer]

Apologies, I think I misunderstand you here. Why would we do away with laws?

I asked why we need laws in the first place? In other words, if temporal judgements, which are often ineffectual, can help to curtail crime, why wouldn't the specter of a perfect, exact judgement in the afterlife be more effective in modifying behavior? If men really believed that to be the case?

This is the bit you're referring to I think? It's nice in theory, though I'm not so sure it holds up in practice, given the numbers of people who do not adhere to belief in a final judgement but act well in every day life. I steal, murder, rape & pillage exactly as much as I want to. Not at all. No threats of divine or societal punishment required. So given that it doesn't hold up in real life, I am not sure why I'd believe it to be a factor?

But that is you, you who grew up in the embers of a Christian culture. What if you were raised in Mao's China?

[Machinist]

It's not about need, it's about what is.

It's about what is. I like that.

[Stoic]

I don't see how it can't for all atheists... It seems to logically follow.

Whether or not intrinsic value exists seems to me to be separate from the question of whether or not a God exists. Even if I thought that a God existed, the concept of intrinsic value would seem incoherent to me. Sure, God might value something, but that is different from that thing having intrinsic value.

I understand that some (most?) people think that value can be a property of something. But it seems to me that they could think that, whether or not they thought there was a God. They might not be able to explain what intrinsic value is, or how it came about, but there are lots of things that haven't been explained yet.

The only way I see to tie the two questions together is if one thinks, "Everything must have an explanation, and if I can't figure out what the explanation is, I'll call it 'God'."

[seer]

Whether or not intrinsic value exists seems to me to be separate from the question of whether or not a God exists. Even if I thought that a God existed, the concept of intrinsic value would seem incoherent to me. Sure, God might value something, but that is different from that thing having intrinsic value.

Intrinsic is the term they use. I would say there is no ultimate or overall purpose or reason for man's existence. No teleology (design or purpose) for mankind or the universe.

I understand that some (most?) people think that value can be a property of something. But it seems to me that they could think that, whether or not they thought there was a God. They might not be able to explain what intrinsic value is, or how it came about, but there are lots of things that haven't been explained yet.

The only way I see to tie the two questions together is if one thinks, "Everything must have an explanation, and if I can't figure out what the explanation is, I'll call it 'God'."

Well I can not logically think of where an overall purpose or reason for mankind existence would come from apart from God.

[Stoic]

Why do our actions need temporal consequences?

To quote another poster, who is right about as often as a stopped clock, "It's not about need, it's about what is."

We know that actions have temporal consequences. We don't know that there is an ultimate judgment.

Why have any laws at all?

Having laws lets people know what behaviors are acceptable, and encourages them to behave appropriately.

And go back and re-read my post - I explained the benefits of an ultimate judgement. And BTW - I did not intend this thread to be about morality.

Whatever benefits there might be to an ultimate judgment, are not evidence that there is such an ultimate judgment.

[Stoic]

Intrinsic is the term they use. I would say there is no ultimate or overall purpose or reason for man's existence. No teleology (design or purpose) for mankind or the universe.

If there is a purpose or reason for man's existence, then it would come from someone. But that someone wouldn't need to be a God; just capable of some pretty advanced chemistry.

Well I can not logically think of where an overall purpose or reason for mankind existence would come from apart from God.

If aliens created us to serve as a food supply at some point in the future, I'm not sure we would think highly of our "reason" for existence.

I don't think the idea that we were a random accident is much worse.

[seer]

To quote another poster, who is right about as often as a stopped clock, "It's not about need, it's about what is."

OK...

We know that actions have temporal consequences. We don't know that there is an ultimate judgment.

But that is not always correct is it. The Stalinists can murder millions and walk away scot free. Most criminals are only caught for a fraction of their crimes.

Having laws lets people know what behaviors are acceptable, and encourages them to behave appropriately.

Meaningless without the law and consequences. If we ended all laws against rape and stealing for instance what do you think will happen?

Whatever benefits there might be to an ultimate judgment, are not evidence that there is such an ultimate judgment.

I think mankind has intuitively known that there is an ultimate reckoning in one form or another - it seems to be a universal concept throughout all religious beliefs. And I see no rational reason to distrust that instinctive assessment.

[seer]

If there is a purpose or reason for man's existence, then it would come from someone. But that someone wouldn't need to be a God; just capable of some pretty advanced chemistry.

So like an Alien who created the human race for a purpose? Would we just call him god then?

If aliens created us to serve as a food supply at some point in the future, I'm not sure we would think highly of our "reason" for existence

.

Agreed, but what if our purpose was to love and be loved?

I don't think the idea that we were a random accident is much worse.

Better than what? To be harvested for food or to love and be loved?

[Stoic]

So like an Alien who created the human race for a purpose? Would we just call him god then?

No doubt some of us would.

Agreed, but what if our purpose was to love and be loved?


Better than what? To be harvested for food or to love and be loved?

Better to be a random accident than to have been created to be harvested for food. And roughly equivalent to "to love or be loved", since we can do that whether or not it's our "purpose".

[Stoic]

OK...

But that is not always correct is it. The Stalinists can murder millions and walk away scot free. Most criminals are only caught for a fraction of their crimes.

And the more that bothers us, the more incentive we have to do something about it.

Meaningless without the law and consequences. If we ended all laws against rape and stealing for instance what do you think will happen?

I expect some people would get away with rape and stealing, and others would be punished by their victims, or people who cared about their victims.

I think mankind has intuitively known that there is an ultimate reckoning in one form or another - it seems to be a universal concept throughout all religious beliefs. And I see no rational reason to distrust that instinctive assessment.

I think you have to be careful about believing things because you really want them to be true.

[seer]

No doubt some of us would.

For all intent and purposes he would be a god to us. They would probably have absolute control over our lives if they were that advanced.

tBetter to be a random accident than to have been created to be harvested for food. And roughly equivalent to "to love or be loved", since we can do that whether or not it's our "purpose".

Again, the point is with out a human teleology it really doesn't matter in the end - whether you love or hate. We are all dust in the wind...

[seer]

And the more that bothers us, the more incentive we have to do something about it.

Are we doing something about China and their blatant human rights abuse? No, we just keep trading with them and making them richer/stronger.

I expect some people would get away with rape and stealing, and others would be punished by their victims, or people who cared about their victims.

We would have moral and physical chaos. And I believe that heavenly laws are just as important as earthly laws - even more so since nothing could escape the gaze of an omniscient God. It would mean the difference between living in an amoral universe or a moral universe.

I think you have to be careful about believing things because you really want them to be true.

That does not change what I said. The idea of judgement in the afterlife seems to be universal. And I'm not sure how much we want that to be true. The idea that there is something out there that we are accountable to, and that on a deep level we are not right with that something. Again, I see not good reason to doubt this universal and intuitive sense found in mankind.

[Mountain Man]

I think mankind has intuitively known that there is an ultimate reckoning in one form or another - it seems to be a universal concept throughout all religious beliefs. And I see no rational reason to distrust that instinctive assessment.

Atheists instinctively know this as well, which is why folks like Stoic refuse to accept that there is no wrong way to live despite the logically necessary implications of his worldview.

[seer]

Atheists instinctively know this as well, which is why folks like Stoic refuse to accept that there is no wrong way to live despite the logically necessary implications of his worldview.

Well all men are created in the image of God...

[Stoic]

For all intent and purposes he would be a god to us. They would probably have absolute control over our lives if they were that advanced.

That's still not what most people when they say "God".

Again, the point is with out a human teleology it really doesn't matter in the end - whether you love or hate. We are all dust in the wind...

It doesn't matter to whom? It matters to me.