Is life without God possible?

[anotherlife]

Usually parents have the actions described in the OP, especially when those parents are teachers or other academics. I find that perents think helping children is the same as helping themselves in their own terms, regardless of the environment of the children. Therefore, if we remove God from the idea of life, then we end up with a self destructive process, that is also judged predatorially.

No, controlling all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start is not a parent's job, and is the exact opposite of a parent's job of preparing their child to successfully function and prosper in the real world. You have some really twisted ideas.

Just a statistical observation. For example it was presented on TV, that certain "intellectuals" such as teachers and psychologists, find it unacceptable and unbearable, if their child doesn't go for high academia. Also, some sportsman parents don't tolerate if their child is not a leading talent in some school team. And so on. Parents usually say they serve best by maximizing their child's achievement, whilst doing nothing but controlling the child to its ruin, like roads to hell paved with good will and such.

Parents, like anybody else, have different ideas about what a person must learn to be successful in life. Making sure your children learn those things is a far cry from controlling every aspect of their lives.

Can you give a few examples of these different ideas? Are they diametrically opposite?

I'm sure some of them could be diametrically opposed.Some parents think proficiency at sports, and the required teamwork is important for future success. Others believe math is a main priority. Still others might think music, or a strong background in literature. Some believe all that is a waste, and put less emphasis on formal education in favor of hard work on a farm.

No. The parents don't have to care how far they go, or how to distinguish their own ideas from anything of the child. There is plenty of texts how children are to respect the adults, but there is nothing about adults respecting children. It is all fair game, like a fox hunt.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, controlling all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start is not a parent's job, and is the exact opposite of a parent's job of preparing their child to successfully function and prosper in the real world. You have some really twisted ideas.

Just a statistical observation. For example it was presented on TV, that certain "intellectuals" such as teachers and psychologists, find it unacceptable and unbearable, if their child doesn't go for high academia. Also, some sportsman parents don't tolerate if their child is not a leading talent in some school team. And so on. Parents usually say they serve best by maximizing their child's achievement, whilst doing nothing but controlling the child to its ruin, like roads to hell paved with good will and such.

Parents, like anybody else, have different ideas about what a person must learn to be successful in life. Making sure your children learn those things is a far cry from controlling every aspect of their lives.

Can you give a few examples of these different ideas? Are they diametrically opposite?

I'm sure some of them could be diametrically opposed.Some parents think proficiency at sports, and the required teamwork is important for future success. Others believe math is a main priority. Still others might think music, or a strong background in literature. Some believe all that is a waste, and put less emphasis on formal education in favor of hard work on a farm.

None of those seem diametrically opposed. Diametrically opposed would be, Billy go and study and work hard at what you want to do, rather than Billy, go and ass fuck big tittited cheerleaders and coast through life whenever you can without ever worrying about any consequences to yourself or others.

I didn't say they were diametrically opposed. I said that they could be.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, controlling all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start is not a parent's job, and is the exact opposite of a parent's job of preparing their child to successfully function and prosper in the real world. You have some really twisted ideas.

Just a statistical observation. For example it was presented on TV, that certain "intellectuals" such as teachers and psychologists, find it unacceptable and unbearable, if their child doesn't go for high academia. Also, some sportsman parents don't tolerate if their child is not a leading talent in some school team. And so on. Parents usually say they serve best by maximizing their child's achievement, whilst doing nothing but controlling the child to its ruin, like roads to hell paved with good will and such.

Parents, like anybody else, have different ideas about what a person must learn to be successful in life. Making sure your children learn those things is a far cry from controlling every aspect of their lives.

Can you give a few examples of these different ideas? Are they diametrically opposite?

I'm sure some of them could be diametrically opposed.Some parents think proficiency at sports, and the required teamwork is important for future success. Others believe math is a main priority. Still others might think music, or a strong background in literature. Some believe all that is a waste, and put less emphasis on formal education in favor of hard work on a farm.

No. The parents don't have to care how far they go, or how to distinguish their own ideas from anything of the child. There is plenty of texts how children are to respect the adults, but there is nothing about adults respecting children. It is all fair game, like a fox hunt.

I never said they had to. Only that they should. The OP said that lack of belief in a god required a parent to control every aspect of their child's life. That was absurd, and my remarks have been to discuss that absurdity. Obviously there is a wide range of ideas of what a parent might think is required to successfully raise a child, but preparing the child to be productive, happy, and successful are generally accepted as some of the main goals. Belief in a god is not necessarily required to meet those goals, and lack of belief doesn't require the bizarre behavior that the OP claims.

 

[anotherlife]

Just a statistical observation. For example it was presented on TV, that certain "intellectuals" such as teachers and psychologists, find it unacceptable and unbearable, if their child doesn't go for high academia. Also, some sportsman parents don't tolerate if their child is not a leading talent in some school team. And so on. Parents usually say they serve best by maximizing their child's achievement, whilst doing nothing but controlling the child to its ruin, like roads to hell paved with good will and such.

Parents, like anybody else, have different ideas about what a person must learn to be successful in life. Making sure your children learn those things is a far cry from controlling every aspect of their lives.

Can you give a few examples of these different ideas? Are they diametrically opposite?

I'm sure some of them could be diametrically opposed.Some parents think proficiency at sports, and the required teamwork is important for future success. Others believe math is a main priority. Still others might think music, or a strong background in literature. Some believe all that is a waste, and put less emphasis on formal education in favor of hard work on a farm.

No. The parents don't have to care how far they go, or how to distinguish their own ideas from anything of the child. There is plenty of texts how children are to respect the adults, but there is nothing about adults respecting children. It is all fair game, like a fox hunt.

I never said they had to. Only that they should. The OP said that lack of belief in a god required a parent to control every aspect of their child's life. That was absurd, and my remarks have been to discuss that absurdity. Obviously there is a wide range of ideas of what a parent might think is required to successfully raise a child, but preparing the child to be productive, happy, and successful are generally accepted as some of the main goals. Belief in a god is not necessarily required to meet those goals, and lack of belief doesn't require the bizarre behavior that the OP claims.

I think all atheist parents consider themselves as the sole source of their child's existence. Religious parents are torturous equally in a different way, but I think it is common that atheists source everything from themselves. I think what you mean is that the extent of control that parents decide to excerpt onto their child is independent of whether the parents believe that they do it in the name of their expectations or in the name of a god. I think I can agree with that.

 

[ding]

God has made life possible. Religion is humans' attempt to explain God, and unfortunately more often than not use God as a pretext for their own concepts.

God is real.
Religion is fantasy.

Yes, God is real. Religion being comprised of flawed men and women is only as perfect at its adherents. It would be unwise to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[ding]

Life without god is possible, humans are proof of that, since there's actually zero proof that a real god exists, ipso facto, we've already been living without god.

None of this would be here. The universe is a self referential system.

I don't see a god, and same for a lot of people. So I'm living without a god. And your lack of proof of any singular creator of this universe proves that I can live without a god.

His spirit is within you whether you recognize it or not. He is pruning you whether you recognize it or not. So, no. You are not living without God, you just think you are.

 

[ding]

Is life without God possible? No.

It is not possible indeed, and I would like to arrive at this conclusion, using scientific methods.

What do you propose?

In the OP I proposed a logic of paradox, but I left out agnosticism.

Ok. I don't know anyone who is agnostic. My wife says she is and she is the closest that I have seen to what an agnostic would be, but I don't believe she even is.

 

[ding]

Just a statistical observation. For example it was presented on TV, that certain "intellectuals" such as teachers and psychologists, find it unacceptable and unbearable, if their child doesn't go for high academia. Also, some sportsman parents don't tolerate if their child is not a leading talent in some school team. And so on. Parents usually say they serve best by maximizing their child's achievement, whilst doing nothing but controlling the child to its ruin, like roads to hell paved with good will and such.

Parents, like anybody else, have different ideas about what a person must learn to be successful in life. Making sure your children learn those things is a far cry from controlling every aspect of their lives.

Can you give a few examples of these different ideas? Are they diametrically opposite?

I'm sure some of them could be diametrically opposed.Some parents think proficiency at sports, and the required teamwork is important for future success. Others believe math is a main priority. Still others might think music, or a strong background in literature. Some believe all that is a waste, and put less emphasis on formal education in favor of hard work on a farm.

None of those seem diametrically opposed. Diametrically opposed would be, Billy go and study and work hard at what you want to do, rather than Billy, go and ass fuck big tittited cheerleaders and coast through life whenever you can without ever worrying about any consequences to yourself or others.

I didn't say they were diametrically opposed. I said that they could be.

Right, and I clarified what diametrically opposed would look like to me. Do you still believe that some of them could be diametrically opposed and what would that look like to you if they were?

 

[BULLDOG]

Parents, like anybody else, have different ideas about what a person must learn to be successful in life. Making sure your children learn those things is a far cry from controlling every aspect of their lives.

Can you give a few examples of these different ideas? Are they diametrically opposite?

I'm sure some of them could be diametrically opposed.Some parents think proficiency at sports, and the required teamwork is important for future success. Others believe math is a main priority. Still others might think music, or a strong background in literature. Some believe all that is a waste, and put less emphasis on formal education in favor of hard work on a farm.

No. The parents don't have to care how far they go, or how to distinguish their own ideas from anything of the child. There is plenty of texts how children are to respect the adults, but there is nothing about adults respecting children. It is all fair game, like a fox hunt.

I never said they had to. Only that they should. The OP said that lack of belief in a god required a parent to control every aspect of their child's life. That was absurd, and my remarks have been to discuss that absurdity. Obviously there is a wide range of ideas of what a parent might think is required to successfully raise a child, but preparing the child to be productive, happy, and successful are generally accepted as some of the main goals. Belief in a god is not necessarily required to meet those goals, and lack of belief doesn't require the bizarre behavior that the OP claims.

I think all atheist parents consider themselves as the sole source of their child's existence. Religious parents are torturous equally in a different way, but I think it is common that atheists source everything from themselves. I think what you mean is that the extent of control that parents decide to excerpt onto their child is independent of whether the parents believe that they do it in the name of their expectations or in the name of a god. I think I can agree with that.

Yet why do you think that? Do you know any atheists with children, or do you just go by the rhetoric that religious people spout for no particular reason? You are wrong. I could use up pages explaining all the ways you are wrong, but if you are already brainwashed enough to believe the crap you posted, it wouldn't do any good.

 

[BULLDOG]

Parents, like anybody else, have different ideas about what a person must learn to be successful in life. Making sure your children learn those things is a far cry from controlling every aspect of their lives.

Can you give a few examples of these different ideas? Are they diametrically opposite?

I'm sure some of them could be diametrically opposed.Some parents think proficiency at sports, and the required teamwork is important for future success. Others believe math is a main priority. Still others might think music, or a strong background in literature. Some believe all that is a waste, and put less emphasis on formal education in favor of hard work on a farm.

None of those seem diametrically opposed. Diametrically opposed would be, Billy go and study and work hard at what you want to do, rather than Billy, go and ass fuck big tittited cheerleaders and coast through life whenever you can without ever worrying about any consequences to yourself or others.

I didn't say they were diametrically opposed. I said that they could be.

Right, and I clarified what diametrically opposed would look like to me. Do you still believe that some of them could be diametrically opposed and what would that look like to you if they were?

Your definition notwithstanding, I know the definition of diametrically opposed, and I already said they could be.

 

[ding]

Can you give a few examples of these different ideas? Are they diametrically opposite?

I'm sure some of them could be diametrically opposed.Some parents think proficiency at sports, and the required teamwork is important for future success. Others believe math is a main priority. Still others might think music, or a strong background in literature. Some believe all that is a waste, and put less emphasis on formal education in favor of hard work on a farm.

None of those seem diametrically opposed. Diametrically opposed would be, Billy go and study and work hard at what you want to do, rather than Billy, go and ass fuck big tittited cheerleaders and coast through life whenever you can without ever worrying about any consequences to yourself or others.

I didn't say they were diametrically opposed. I said that they could be.

Right, and I clarified what diametrically opposed would look like to me. Do you still believe that some of them could be diametrically opposed and what would that look like to you if they were?

Your definition notwithstanding, I know the definition of diametrically opposed, and I already said they could be.

Well that was even more than less than helpful.

 

[Mudda]

Life without god is possible, humans are proof of that, since there's actually zero proof that a real god exists, ipso facto, we've already been living without god.

The programmatic nature of human minds seems to point the opposite direction.

What the fuck does that mean?

 

[Mudda]

Life without god is possible, humans are proof of that, since there's actually zero proof that a real god exists, ipso facto, we've already been living without god.

Wrong!! Alec Baldwin clearly proclaimed that he was God. I saw it on TV.

But he was impersonating the Big Cheeto elect.

 

[Mudda]

Life without god is possible, humans are proof of that, since there's actually zero proof that a real god exists, ipso facto, we've already been living without god.

None of this would be here. The universe is a self referential system.

I don't see a god, and same for a lot of people. So I'm living without a god. And your lack of proof of any singular creator of this universe proves that I can live without a god.

His spirit is within you whether you recognize it or not. He is pruning you whether you recognize it or not. So, no. You are not living without God, you just think you are.

So then why all the fuss about getting non-believers to believe?

 

[anotherlife]

Life without god is possible, humans are proof of that, since there's actually zero proof that a real god exists, ipso facto, we've already been living without god.

The programmatic nature of human minds seems to point the opposite direction.

What the fuck does that mean?

If you put animals under stress, you get random reactions, mostly an automatic response to momental stimulus. When you put people under stress, you don't get that, you get a response that is a chain of pre installed steps. Someone had pre installed them.

 

[BreezeWood]

Life without god is possible, humans are proof of that, since there's actually zero proof that a real god exists, ipso facto, we've already been living without god.

The programmatic nature of human minds seems to point the opposite direction.

What the fuck does that mean?

If you put animals under stress, you get random reactions, mostly an automatic response to momental stimulus. When you put people under stress, you don't get that, you get a response that is a chain of pre installed steps. Someone had pre installed them.

.

If you put animals under stress, you get random reactions, mostly an automatic response to momental stimulus. When you put people under stress, you don't get that, you get a response that is a chain of pre installed steps. Someone had pre installed them.

^ link ^

.

 

[ding]

Life without god is possible, humans are proof of that, since there's actually zero proof that a real god exists, ipso facto, we've already been living without god.

None of this would be here. The universe is a self referential system.

I don't see a god, and same for a lot of people. So I'm living without a god. And your lack of proof of any singular creator of this universe proves that I can live without a god.

His spirit is within you whether you recognize it or not. He is pruning you whether you recognize it or not. So, no. You are not living without God, you just think you are.

So then why all the fuss about getting non-believers to believe?

That's all in your head. Don't believe. Problem solved.

 

[Mudda]

Life without god is possible, humans are proof of that, since there's actually zero proof that a real god exists, ipso facto, we've already been living without god.

The programmatic nature of human minds seems to point the opposite direction.

What the fuck does that mean?

If you put animals under stress, you get random reactions, mostly an automatic response to momental stimulus. When you put people under stress, you don't get that, you get a response that is a chain of pre installed steps. Someone had pre installed them.

It reads like English, but it makes no sense. I'm guessing that English isn't your first language. Try again, but this time, try to explain what you're talking about.

 

[Mudda]

Life without god is possible, humans are proof of that, since there's actually zero proof that a real god exists, ipso facto, we've already been living without god.

None of this would be here. The universe is a self referential system.

I don't see a god, and same for a lot of people. So I'm living without a god. And your lack of proof of any singular creator of this universe proves that I can live without a god.

His spirit is within you whether you recognize it or not. He is pruning you whether you recognize it or not. So, no. You are not living without God, you just think you are.

So then why all the fuss about getting non-believers to believe?

That's all in your head. Don't believe. Problem solved.

Nice to see you completely beaten down.

 

[ding]

None of this would be here. The universe is a self referential system.

I don't see a god, and same for a lot of people. So I'm living without a god. And your lack of proof of any singular creator of this universe proves that I can live without a god.

His spirit is within you whether you recognize it or not. He is pruning you whether you recognize it or not. So, no. You are not living without God, you just think you are.

So then why all the fuss about getting non-believers to believe?

That's all in your head. Don't believe. Problem solved.

Nice to see you completely beaten down.

Consider it my present to you.