Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

yes, but the problem arises when describing and agreeing on what is pedophilia and what is not. At what age do we decide that a child can have sexual relation of their own. Its kinda problematic.

Indeed. For simplicity's sake, let's just define it as sex with a child that has not reached mental or physical maturity.

[badmash_khel]

But you just said that your god decrees what is moral -- and not simply recognizes it. Logically this means your god must be able to decree immoral things moral.

what do you mean "god must be able to decree immoral things moral". Thats a contradiction, because only God decides what is moral and what is not. According to humans something might be immoral which God has declared as moral, that doesn't mean it is immoral.
For example, God punishes people sometimes and forgives them another time. What ever the decision of God, it is still justice. There is no such thing as unjust God since he is not answerable to anyone. He does what he wills.

So your god is limited by a book, and is not all powerful?
I understand that -- but that does nothing to refute the implication that your god could declare pedophilia moral.

God is not limited by anything, its his nature to be all powerful and unlilmited. thats one the attributes of being God. I don't undrestand where your going with this.

[badmash_khel]

Indeed. For simplicity's sake, let's just define it as sex with a child that has not reached mental or physical maturity.

ok, but its very hard to determine that, some people have grown physical and reached puberty but are mentally immature and some children are not physically mature but mentally are very mature. by physical maturity do you mean puberty? how do we decide who is mentally mature and who is not?

[ozymandias]

what do you mean "god must be able to decree immoral things moral". Thats a contradiction, because only God decides what is moral and what is not.

If your god is a decider of morality, and not a recognizer of morality, then your god could state that something currently immoral (pedophilia) is moral tomorrow. This is not a contradiction, as your god is simply changing the terms.

According to humans something might be immoral which God has declared as moral, that doesn't mean it is immoral.

I do not mean humans disagreeing with your god. I mean your god taking something that was previously moral, or immoral, and changing it to the opposite tomorrow. Let's leave human opinions of what is moral aside temporarily.

For example, God punishes people sometimes and forgives them another time. What ever the decision of God, it is still justice. There is no such thing as unjust God since he is not answerable to anyone. He does what he wills.

Indeed. I understand that is your belief.

God is not limited by anything, its his nature to be all powerful and unlilmited. thats one the attributes of being God. I don't undrestand where your going with this.

I am not going anywhere. I am simply trying to understand your belief. A moment ago, you stated your god was restricted by the Koran, and could not do anything that violates what the Koran states. This would be a limit on his power -- it is something that you believe your god cannot do. The converse would be that you believe your god is all powerful -- which would mean it is not impossible for your god to author The Koran: Volume Two at some point in the future.

[ozymandias]

ok, but its very hard to determine that, some people have grown physical and reached puberty but are mentally immature and some children are not physically mature but mentally are very mature. by physical maturity do you mean puberty? how do we decide who is mentally mature and who is not?

I think you are making this far too complicated. I am simply trying to use pedophilia as an example of a behavior we have both agreed is immoral. We both believe that an adult having sex with an underage child (what ever age 'underage' is) is wrong. Unlike murder, I can think of no circumstances where pedophilia is justified. A man might murder to protect his family, but no such circumstances realistically exist to justify pedophilia.

I agree that mental and physical maturity are difficult to quantify, but I think that anyone under the age of, say, 7 could never be realistically be mature enough for sex with an adult. I would furthermore say that *personally* I feel the age is closer to 16 or 17 before anyone would be mature enough for sex with an adult -- and I know some 21 year olds still not mature enough.

The specific age is irrelevant, though. There is some age young enough that we can agree that an adult having sex with a child of that age is always wrong.

[badmash_khel]

If your god is a decider of morality, and not a recognizer of morality, then your god could state that something currently immoral (pedophilia) is moral tomorrow. This is not a contradiction, as your god is simply changing the terms.

indeed he can.

I do not mean humans disagreeing with your god. I mean your god taking something that was previously moral, or immoral, and changing it to the opposite tomorrow. Let's leave human opinions of what is moral aside temporarily.

yes, thats true. he can do that as far as I undrestand.

I am not going anywhere. I am simply trying to understand your belief. A moment ago, you stated your god was restricted by the Koran, and could not do anything that violates what the Koran states. This would be a limit on his power -- it is something that you believe your god cannot do. The converse would be that you believe your god is all powerful -- which would mean it is not impossible for your god to author The Koran: Volume Two at some point in the future.

I am simply saying its his nature and kuran is simply his word. What is in the kuran is consistent with his nature. he might author koran: volume Two.

we never know.

im off for now, c ya laterz

[faye]

oh lord and master of the logical realm, prey can you tell us.......is toilet paper advertised as being made from recycled paper, actually made from recycled toilet paper?

[Old School Killiwal]

Ozymandias,What stops you from committing immoral acts?

[faye]

hey killawat, dude. ask a sensible question, like i have. the rules of engagement have been laid down, by the lord here, and you only can ask sensible logical questions:-(

[khushal]

evolutionary speaking, religion was necessary as a motivation to make man more civilized.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias,What stops you from committing immoral acts?

Sorry about the *long* delay -- I got side tracked at work, and never found time to come back...

Human decency.
Compassion.
The ability to see, and relate to suffering in others.
The unwillingness to live in a society that allows that behaviour.
The golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto them"
Common sense.

Take your pick. The only difference between a theist and an atheist when it comes to motivations is that the atheist doesn't fear the reprisals of an all-knowing deity -- and thus can actually be altruistic -- well that, and the fact that atheists don't do truly immoral acts because they believe that their religion commands them to.

[Admin Khan]

Ozymandias,

What is the purpose of life?

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias,

What is the purpose of life?

That is an interesting question, and one I get a lot. Part of why it is interesting, is that it is great example of a fallacy. For that question to have merit, you need to assume that life *has* a purpose -- and furthermore, the way the question is stated presupposes life *needs* a purpose. You should start out by asking "does life have a purpose", before asking what the purpose is. To do otherwise is a logical fallacy.

Another example of this fallacy is the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" -- it presupposes that the person does in fact beat their wife.

Personally, I see no inherent purpose in life -- there is nothing about the nature of reality that defines, or requires a purpose. Biologically speaking, you can (and many have) stated that the purpose of life is to create more life. Darwinianly speaking, the purpose of life is spread ones own genes and offspring -- but both of these answers presuppose that life has a purpose and is not just a fact of reality.

The sand on the beach has no purpose. While it does serve a function (helps control erosion, provides a habitat for many forms of life, potential tourist attraction, etc), it is there not as a result of having a purpose, as it is there as a consequence of the conditions around it. Sand is formed by the actions of the seas on rocks over time. Any assumed purpose is the result of anthropomorphism of man on nature.

That said, many people have decided to give their life a purpose -- not because the nature of life requires one, but because they are driven to a goal by their personalities. Many people make it their purpose in life to ease suffering, increase the body of human knowledge, or improve the conditions of life for others. Many of these selfless goals are noble, and stem from compassion, or even a drive to compete. Other, less noble goals exist, too, though -- such as the drive to subjugate others, or a desire for wealth, or the need to convert other people to their religion.

Personally, I would like to think that *my* purpose in life is to help ease suffering where I find it, improve the quality of life for those I can, and to add to the body of human knowledge. I am making progress on each of those fronts in my own life, and feel satisfaction that I have selected for myself goals -- which I hope I selected for unselfish reasons....

[Afghanistan2010]

You trying to escape the question,
Everything has a meaning,there is nothing existent without a logical reason.
Everything that is present has a reason for why it is like that.
Why can't the life also have a reason/purpose?

[ozymandias]

You trying to escape the question,

I disagree. Even though I believe the question is faulty, as is assumes a higher reason for life, I supplied a detailed answer, once I pointed out my disagreement.

Everything has a meaning,there is nothing existent without a logical reason.

If you are going to go that route, then the biological answer I gave applies. If you are looking for the 'reason' for life, as opposed to the 'purpose', the reason for life is that elements combined in such a way to create self replicating molecules. That is as much of a 'reason' as any other for why things exist.

Everything that is present has a reason for why it is like that.

Indeed -- the processes and events leading up to something existing are the reason it exists, and nearly everything known to man has a beginning and a causation -- but reason and purpose are *very* different things.

Why can't the life also have a reason/purpose?

I never said it couldn't. I simply said it is a logical fallacy to assume it has one -- and to assume that it is some higher purpose than 'to exist' -- 'to exist' is enough of a purpose to justify the existence of life.

I also provided multiple reasons and purposes -- which you clearly ignored. Please read my whole reply, before telling me I am wrong, at the very least.