View Full Version : Religions are morally wrong.
wesmorris
05-22-08, 04:50 PM
Because they judge god.
They judge 'him' by believing words in books are directly from 'him'.
They judge god by believing particular things about 'him'.
Stuff like that.
Just a thought.
cosmictraveler
05-22-08, 04:52 PM
What isn't morally right today anywhere? Governments sure aren't morally right.
one_raven
05-22-08, 05:13 PM
Because they judge god.
They judge 'him' by believing words in books are directly from 'him'.
They judge god by believing particular things about 'him'.
Stuff like that.
Just a thought.
I do believe that religions are morally wrong, for different reasons, but I don't see where you get that by believing words in books are from God, they are judging God.
Also, even if that is true, why is judging God necessarily immoral?
They also judge other people and hide behind God while doing it.
You are asking an atheist ? :p
You know the drill ;)
Yep.. that's why I'm not replying ;)
SAM,
What is morality?The difference between good and bad.
God and bad for who?
From a theist perspective it is whatever is good or bad for the respective deity.
From the rational perspective it is whatever is good or bad for people.
The two scenarios overlap in some areas and in others they are bizarrely different.
From the rational perspective a theist religion is morally wrong since it doesn't place humanity at the center.
Is eating your babies rationally good or bad, if you're really really hungry and cannot afford to feed them anyway?
spidergoat
05-22-08, 07:34 PM
It's bad to have the babies in the first place if you aren't in a position to feed them.
I shall tell my mice that.
SAM,
Is eating your babies rationally good or bad, if you're really really hungry and cannot afford to feed them anyway?If your god tells you to do that, you would do it, right, because that would be good for your god if he said so.
Using reason rather than a set of outdated ancient archaic rules allows us to make informed choices that best optimize available resources and needs. The primeval instincts within us that center around communal support prevent all normal people from eating their own children. Our rational creativity further allows us to find more appropriate alternatives to your bizarrely contrived suggestion.
SAM,
If your god tells you to do that, you would do it, right, because that would be good for your god if he said so.
Using reason rather than a set of outdated ancient archaic rules allows us to make informed choices that best optimize available resources and needs. The primeval instincts within us that center around communal support prevent all normal people from eating their own children. Our rational creativity further allows us to find more appropriate alternatives to your bizarrely contrived suggestion.
I don't know which God my mice worship. I was asking for the rational explanation.
codanblad
05-22-08, 08:52 PM
Is eating your babies rationally good or bad, if you're really really hungry and cannot afford to feed them anyway?
you have to be hungry?
codanblad
05-22-08, 08:53 PM
SAM,
If your god tells you to do that, you would do it, right, because that would be good for your god if he said so.
Using reason rather than a set of outdated ancient archaic rules allows us to make informed choices that best optimize available resources and needs. The primeval instincts within us that center around communal support prevent all normal people from eating their own children. Our rational creativity further allows us to find more appropriate alternatives to your bizarrely contrived suggestion.
yeah but the wrath of god sucks. big time. turn your ass into salt, bitch.
Is eating your babies rationally good or bad, if you're really really hungry and cannot afford to feed them anyway?
no
no, it is not a good thing to do
no
no, it is not a good thing to do
Its the quickest way to obtain the required nutrients. Babies cannot get away, saves time and effort too. Most mice will eat the weakest child, since that is a humongous waste of resources.
It has even been seen, presumably as a response to stress (though that seems like anthropomorphism) in primates
Mother-infant cannibalism in species of galagos as in several other species of non-human primates is a common phenomenon. In non-human primates kept in laboratory conditions many of the observed cases of cannibalism were not associated with starvation and with infanticide. Cannibalism in galagos was observed in at least five different species.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ywn4336j34xv3326/
James R
05-22-08, 10:03 PM
Is eating your babies rationally good or bad, if you're really really hungry and cannot afford to feed them anyway?
It depends on all the circumstances.
For example, are you in an isolated location where the babies are the only possible source of food? Or do you have the option to give the babies to somebody else to look after? Will you die if you don't eat them? Will they suffer and die in agony if you don't kill them?
In short, you haven't specified enough about the circumstances to make it possible to answer the question.
Why are other circumstances relevant? Rationally speaking, here is a source of energy that you do not need to work for. The easiest decision if one ignores unnecessary social taboos one is brainwashed into.
James R
05-22-08, 10:21 PM
Why are other circumstances relevant? Rationally speaking, here is a source of energy that you do not need to work for. The easiest decision if one ignores unnecessary social taboos one is brainwashed into.
Well, let's look at just one suggestion from secular philosophy: Kant's "categorical imperative". What he said was that something should be considered "good" or morally acceptable only if one could wish that it become a general rule, applicable to all.
Let's apply that to eating your babies. Suppose that we were to propose a general rule that all mothers should follow: "Every mother should eat her babies, because they are a source of energy you do not need to work for."
What would be the result of this proposed rule? Answer: no more humans, after a relatively short period of time. And so, a rule apparently based on self-interest is shown to be ultimately detrimental to self-interest.
Perhaps you think this rule would be fine in the short term, and we shouldn't worry about the long term. Then, you are proposing another general moral principle "Always think only in the short-term." But now apply Kant's standard to that rule...
See how this works?
Well, let's look at just one suggestion from secular philosophy: Kant's "categorical imperative". What he said was that something should be considered "good" or morally acceptable only if one could wish that it become a general rule, applicable to all.
Let's apply that to eating your babies. Suppose that we were to propose a general rule that all mothers should follow: "Every mother should eat her babies, because they are a source of energy you do not need to work for."
What would be the result of this proposed rule? Answer: no more humans, after a relatively short period of time. And so, a rule apparently based on self-interest is shown to be ultimately detrimental to self-interest.
Perhaps you think this rule would be fine in the short term, and we shouldn't worry about the long term. Then, you are proposing another general moral principle "Always think only in the short-term." But now apply Kant's standard to that rule...
See how this works?
How about: Every mother should eat her babies, if she is starving and unable to provide for them.
Would that work? In the long term? One need not even deliberately starve the infants to weaken and kill them as in the case of the bush babies.
James R
05-22-08, 10:45 PM
How about: Every mother should eat her babies, if she is starving and unable to provide for them.
The main problem with this is that it does not give equal consideration to the interests of the babies. It privileges the mother, for no reason that you have articulated so far. Moreover, it seems to deny that babies have intrinsic value.
Also, you still haven't specified whether the mothers concerned might have access to other potential food sources.
No moral decision is ever taken in a vacuum. Hard moral choices, in particular, are hard because they involve weighing up competing moral imperatives.
This is why more detail is required in your scenario. You simply haven't given enough information about the hypothetical surrounding circumstances for anybody to be able to give a rational, hard-and-fast response.
I'm not sure, but perhaps you're trying to impose a "one size fits all" rule here. Such would be typical of a religious approach. A typical religion would probably just say "Mothers must never eat their babies, under any circumstances." That's an easy, knee-jerk answer, but one that would be completely unhelpful in a real situation where eating a baby may appear to be one of a restricted range of viable options.
Religious dictates like this assume that grown adults are children, unable to reason about complex situations. Instead, they need to be told what to do, in simple, unambiguous terms, because they fundamentally can't be trusted to make moral choices on their own.
The main problem with this is that it does not give equal consideration to the interests of the babies. It privileges the mother, for no reason that you have articulated so far. Moreover, it seems to deny that babies have intrinsic value.
Also, you still haven't specified whether the mothers concerned might have access to other potential food sources.
No moral decision is ever taken in a vacuum. Hard moral choices, in particular, are hard because they involve weighing up competing moral imperatives.
This is why more detail is required in your scenario. You simply haven't given enough information about the hypothetical surrounding circumstances for anybody to be able to give a rational, hard-and-fast response.
I'm not sure, but perhaps you're trying to impose a "one size fits all" rule here. Such would be typical of a religious approach. A typical religion would probably just say "Mothers must never eat their babies, under any circumstances." That's an easy, knee-jerk answer, but one that would be completely unhelpful in a real situation where eating a baby may appear to be one of a restricted range of viable options.
Religious dictates like this assume that grown adults are children, unable to reason about complex situations. Instead, they need to be told what to do, in simple, unambiguous terms, because they fundamentally can't be trusted to make moral choices on their own.
Now you've lost me in a moral rigamarole. I'm asking about rational reasoning here, not a seminar on morality. Imagine I am a mouse and tell me again. Or do you think a human baby has greater intrinsic value than a mouse baby?
one_raven
05-22-08, 11:10 PM
I think humans have the capacity of abstract thought, reason, foresight and imagination that mice lack.
Hence, morality does not apply to mice - as it implies a decision making process which requires all the above.
I think humans have the capacity of abstract thought, reason, foresight and imagination that mice lack.
Hence, morality does not apply to mice - as it implies a decision making process which requires all the above.
So morality is the result of imaginative decision making?
What aspect of the above scenario do you see as requiring greater imagination?
Cannibalism as a ritual has been practised in many cultures. So why not for necessity? What makes it good or bad?
I don't know which God my mice worship. I was asking for the rational explanation.
That would be Apollo Smintheus.
Its the quickest way to obtain the required nutrients. Babies cannot get away, saves time and effort too.
what is particularly rational about getting punished for eating your babies?
do you think it is only your perspective that matters? are you the sole adult human left standing?
you will be judged insane
rationality is not simply self determined since one has no way of judging one's
own competence. comparisons, analogies, an evaluation of arguments, an examination of the conceptual underpinnings of the premises; then, thru a concurrence of opinion, will an act be deemed rational. or not. basic issues like your scenario is never left up to any one individual to decide. the whole must benefit
at best, your shit works in exceptional circumstances
basically it boils down to...
who the fuck are you to make that call?
i know
a coward
cook an adult
the meat will last you long long time
a bit more more rational that a baby snack to assuage the pangs of hunger,ja?
Adults will fight back, that is unnecessary waste of energy.
I'm trying to answer my question: what is morality?
So morality is the result of imaginative decision making?
What aspect of the above scenario do you see as requiring greater imagination?
Cannibalism as a ritual has been practised in many cultures. So why not for necessity? What makes it good or bad?
"imaginative"? strawman! "greater imagination"? i reject your premise that rests on a strawman
cannibalism was never widespread. it was mostly ritualistic in nature
for chrissakes, you cannot eat each other into goddamn extinction
again, we all understand and allow for special or extenuating circumstances.
yet, listen goddamn carefully.....exceptions do not make the goddamn rule!
kapeesh?
There is no absolute good or bad,
you are your own judge.
eat your baby if you have to
but personnally, a good action for me would be to give your own flesh to your babies
of course in the case of the mouse, she has more than one and her flesh could be insufficient to make feed them enough to make them grow enough to enjoy life and reproduce. so maybe for her it is better to eat one (one who is handicaped for some reason) and then be able to feed the other.
Imagine a train with 200 passengers is going to crash on another train (200 passengers) killing most likely 400 passengers
You are the one who can change the direction of the train whcih will make the train collide only on 1 person that you see is on the other direction.
What is the best : make one action (changing the direction of the train) to kill one person
or no action to let the trains collide and have 400 deaths
imagine now that the person on the track is your child, or your mother
can we blame you do not have do any action?
ja
an everyday goddamn occurrence
listen up, dolt
the justice system understands that
yet it is not carte blanche to offer up your own particular brand of rationale that is in discordance with prevailing thought and expect to get a free pass
bullshit!
you will hang!
exceptions do not make the goddamn rule
frikkin kids and their cancer of relativism
when you get busted, you all cry like little babies
gustav, who are you answering?
The example I was talking is of course not a daily life occurrence, it is to simple and not likely to have happen but the point is to show a situation where morality rules are under attack.
in the sense that any moral rules we can have will encounter such situation where it has to bug like a computer encountering a situation where is was not programed to answer and finish in a infinite loop.
It indicate that moral rules (if it has to exist) has to be soft (not rigid).
I would add that for me good is when you do an action without thinking of yourself and expecting anything. (be killing someone or killing yourself for someone)
lightgigantic
05-23-08, 02:15 AM
Because they judge god.
They judge 'him' by believing words in books are directly from 'him'.
They judge god by believing particular things about 'him'.
Stuff like that.
Just a thought.
and if they judge god as being deserving of obedience, what is exactly morally wrong with that?
Who has ever been held as occupying the moral high ground by being bereft of judgment?
(actually being bereft of judgment is the quality of a fool)
James R
05-23-08, 02:50 AM
SAM:
Now you've lost me in a moral rigamarole. I'm asking about rational reasoning here, not a seminar on morality.
But that's the thing about rational reasoning - it is based on logic and analysis. If you prefer to base your morals on authority or gut instinct instead, then you're not being rational. But you asked for rational morals. Didn't you?
Imagine I am a mouse and tell me again. Or do you think a human baby has greater intrinsic value than a mouse baby?
I don't see the idea of recognising intrinsic value as being a ranking process. Rather, it is a basic recognition, from which flows certain moral duties.
Cannibalism as a ritual has been practised in many cultures. So why not for necessity? What makes it good or bad?
Cannibalism for necessity hasn't generally been considered absolutely wrong. Nobody blamed those guys in the Andes plane crash for eating their dead teammates. They had to do it to survive. This is a good example of where "one size fits all" doesn't work, don't you think?
one_raven:
I think humans have the capacity of abstract thought, reason, foresight and imagination that mice lack.
Hence, morality does not apply to mice - as it implies a decision making process which requires all the above.
Are you saying that human beings owe no moral duty to other animals? Or just to mice? Or what? And why?
wesmorris
05-23-08, 06:38 AM
I do believe that religions are morally wrong, for different reasons, but I don't see where you get that by believing words in books are from God, they are judging God.
i suppose i only mean religion as taken literally, as in 'religious texts directly represent facts about their related deities'.
i dont' think to believe in god is necessarily wrong, but to assign it specific properties beyond its general definition or claim deeds in its name is to judge it, IMO. certainly to espouse a book claiming rules pertaining to god is judging god by saying "god says this" and thus assigning one's self authority equivalent to that which is beyond comprehension.
Also, even if that is true, why is judging God necessarily immoral?
Because by definition, one cannot relate to the timeless and with no frame of reference for commonality, judgement is uhm... well, unwarranted?
Religion usurps the authority of that which it purports to uphold. To me, that's wrong. It relies on the authority of god but in doing so - steals that authority. Meh I'm beat.
wesmorris
05-23-08, 06:42 AM
and if they judge god as being deserving of obedience, what is exactly morally wrong with that?
The very notion of obedience is morally repugnant to me.
Who has ever been held as occupying the moral high ground by being bereft of judgment?
(actually being bereft of judgment is the quality of a fool)
Depends on what you're judging. The dog doesn't judge his master. Obedience is so fucking icky. ICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Ack. phlahgnyahflickingerk.
I'll see if I can come with a better explanation, pardon.
wesmorris
05-23-08, 06:46 AM
Now you've lost me in a moral rigamarole. I'm asking about rational reasoning here, not a seminar on morality. Imagine I am a mouse and tell me again. Or do you think a human baby has greater intrinsic value than a mouse baby?
Don't you think it's really more relative? I human baby has no intrinsic value but to humans. Other animals may value it in a very different or rather similar way, but species tend to value their species first. Simple enough idnit?
and if they judge god as being deserving of obedience, what is exactly morally wrong with that?
Who has ever been held as occupying the moral high ground by being bereft of judgment?
(actually being bereft of judgment is the quality of a fool)
Sounds like you are describing faith there.. .faith is the unquestionable belief in something with little or no evidence. Its the complete absence of reason and skepticism.
... and we all know how important faith is the pious. :>
Those who know the least, follow the best.
SAM:
But that's the thing about rational reasoning - it is based on logic and analysis. If you prefer to base your morals on authority or gut instinct instead, then you're not being rational. But you asked for rational morals. Didn't you?
Yeah, and I think the mice that eat the weak babies are being entirely rational. So also the undernourished mice who eat all their babies.
I don't see the idea of recognising intrinsic value as being a ranking process. Rather, it is a basic recognition, from which flows certain moral duties.
Thats putting the cart before the horse. What moral duties? What makes them moral?
Cannibalism for necessity hasn't generally been considered absolutely wrong. Nobody blamed those guys in the Andes plane crash for eating their dead teammates. They had to do it to survive. This is a good example of where "one size fits all" doesn't work, don't you think?
? So you'd absolutely understand if in times of famine, mothers would eat surplus babies, right?
Don't you think it's really more relative? I human baby has no intrinsic value but to humans. Other animals may value it in a very different or rather similar way, but species tend to value their species first. Simple enough idnit?
No, its not. Humans kill humans all the time. Humans torture humans, there is child abuse, rape, starvation of children in third world countries, parents pimping out and selling their kids. Its not really anything self evident. Mice who eat their babies when they are undernourished, galagos who eat their babies when they are stressed are not demonstrating any species specific intrinsic value either. Its an artificial construct.
one_raven
05-23-08, 10:09 AM
one_raven:
Are you saying that human beings owe no moral duty to other animals? Or just to mice? Or what? And why?
Not at all, James.
In fact, quite the opposite.
I am saying that humans are the only animals who should be judged by a moral yardstick as they are the only ones who have the capacity to weigh the situation fairly and soberly.
They are the only ones who can imagine what the outcome of a situation will be.
They are the only ones with the facutlties to truly understand philosophy.
(as far as we can observe)
Humans have the capacity to override instinct through reason and value judgements, so they should be held responsible and accountable for their actions.
They made a choice - a moral decision.
Not at all, James.
In fact, quite the opposite.
I am saying that humans are the only animals who should be judged by a moral yardstick as they are the only ones who have the capacity to weigh the situation fairly and soberly.
They are the only ones who can imagine what the outcome of a situation will be.
They are the only ones with the facutlties to truly understand philosophy.
(as far as we can observe)
Humans have the capacity to override instinct through reason and value judgements, so they should be held responsible and accountable for their actions.
They made a choice - a moral decision.
You are an optimist ;)
Because they judge god.
They judge 'him' by believing words in books are directly from 'him'.
They judge god by believing particular things about 'him'.
Stuff like that.
Just a thought.
if a particular scripture says that it's been inspired by, or authored by the holy spirit, then i don't see how it is morally wrong to either believe it or not believe it, it is simply a choice. and if the scripture is supposed to have been authored by god, then it is an autobiography. religions aren't "morally wrong" but are wrong because they seek to determine and impose morals on people.
Not at all, James.
In fact, quite the opposite.
I am saying that humans are the only animals who should be judged by a moral yardstick as they are the only ones who have the capacity to weigh the situation fairly and soberly.
They are the only ones who can imagine what the outcome of a situation will be.
They are the only ones with the facutlties to truly understand philosophy.
(as far as we can observe)
Humans have the capacity to override instinct through reason and value judgements, so they should be held responsible and accountable for their actions.
They made a choice - a moral decision.
positively biblical
/sneer
altruism abounds in the animal kingdom
go look
one_raven
05-23-08, 04:50 PM
You are an optimist ;)
Having the capacity does not necessarily imply that they act on that potential. :)
if a particular scripture says that it's been inspired by, or authored by the holy spirit, then i don't see how it is morally wrong to either believe it or not believe it, it is simply a choice. and if the scripture is supposed to have been authored by god, then it is an autobiography. religions aren't "morally wrong" but are wrong because they seek to determine and impose morals on people.
Give scripture a rest ! Try reading the Wall Street Journal.
lightgigantic
05-23-08, 06:01 PM
wes morris
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and if they judge god as being deserving of obedience, what is exactly morally wrong with that?
”
The very notion of obedience is morally repugnant to me.
assuming you aren't contributing to sciforums from a prison computer, somehow you manage to live with yourself ...
“
Who has ever been held as occupying the moral high ground by being bereft of judgment?
(actually being bereft of judgment is the quality of a fool)
”
Depends on what you're judging. The dog doesn't judge his master. Obedience is so fucking icky. ICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Ack. phlahgnyahflickingerk.
I'll see if I can come with a better explanation, pardon.
hence to have the judgment capacities of a dog is not enviable ... namely because the master one accepts could be far from ideal
superluminal
05-23-08, 08:26 PM
Religions are morally wrong because they are lies perpetrated by one group in order to subjugate another.
"I am the direct representative of an entity so powerful that if you displease him (me) you will suffer for eternity. Conversely, if you please him (me) you will be rewarded for eternity. Now, bow down to him (me)."
It always amazes me how such a simple con has been blindly accepted by so many for so long.
lightgigantic
05-23-08, 10:14 PM
Religions are morally wrong because they are lies perpetrated by one group in order to subjugate another.
please don't go running away behind the barricades of weak atheism/agnosticism again and tell us exactly how you know they are lies (hint - follow the signs "negative absolute this way --->" )
;)
"I am the direct representative of an entity so powerful that if you displease him (me) you will suffer for eternity. Conversely, if you please him (me) you will be rewarded for eternity. Now, bow down to him (me)."
given that even mundane diplomacy operates on identical principles, it's not clear why a bonafide representative can not represent the needs, interests and concerns of their superior - if you don't believe me, just try blowing up american embassies while simultaneously trying to be friendly with the US president
;)
It always amazes me how such a simple con has been blindly accepted by so many for so long.
It always amazes me how atheists can lodge arguments that are even absurd in mundane life
wesmorris
05-24-08, 03:43 AM
please don't go running away behind the barricades of weak atheism/agnosticism again and tell us exactly how you know they are lies (hint - follow the signs "negative absolute this way --->" )
;)
Ha. lol. Uhm, so since there are a lot of religions they aren't all right eh? So some of them are definately lying. They're all lying but one? Is that it? :p
wesmorris
05-24-08, 04:03 AM
wes morris
“
assuming you aren't contributing to sciforums from a prison computer, somehow you manage to live with yourself ...
so compliance and obedience are the same? methinks that rather twisted. most laws aren't contrary to my want or behavior, so why should i be in jail?
hence to have the judgment capacities of a dog is not enviable ... namely because the master one accepts could be far from ideal
So let's consider degrees then:
A dog to its master...
A human to its god...
of the two, which is more superior to its subject and thus by comparison, is possibly closer to the capacity for judgement... ?
further, you say ideal as if there is one? to me if there is a single anything that is intrinscially ideal, everything else must also be. by presuming an ideal on your own, even interpreted through your master's 'teachings' - do you not judge your master's imperfection? Who are you, he who is obedient to his master - to question his creation? How could you presume the possibility of 'less than ideal'?
i just can't help but think that to assign properties to your master or by extension, his creation - of which you are a part, is to judge him. establishing a single thing about it beyond its initial definition is to say you know about it. what does a dog know of his master? what is human knowledge compared to an 'entity' existing outside of time and responsible for *all that is*?
Every element of the human mind quite fundmentally tied to linear time. Even the notion of concepts don't make much sense with no notion of time implicitely tacked on, as concepts embody elements of human experience through time.
So I'd say a dog to his master's comprehesion is a far closer match than a man to his *god* - assuming for the sake of argument that such an entity could *exist* or that the idea *exist* could even apply to something outside of time.
wesmorris
05-24-08, 04:06 AM
Religions are morally wrong because they are lies perpetrated by one group in order to subjugate another.
I don't think lies are necessarily morally wrong, and I think it's sometimes "assimilate" rather than subjegate, but of course it's often a fine line.
Lies are just mentally unhealthy IMO, for the most part, depending on how you look at it I guess.
For instance, if you're mentally unhealthy and lies are the only thing keeping you from total breakdown, are they healthy or unhealthy?
Just sayin.
James R
05-24-08, 04:29 AM
SAM:
Yeah, and I think the mice that eat the weak babies are being entirely rational.
I think that's more a matter of instinct.
Cannibalism for necessity hasn't generally been considered absolutely wrong. Nobody blamed those guys in the Andes plane crash for eating their dead teammates. They had to do it to survive. This is a good example of where "one size fits all" doesn't work, don't you think?
So you'd absolutely understand if in times of famine, mothers would eat surplus babies, right?
Yes, I'd understand it.
Wouldn't you?
Well, let's look at just one suggestion from secular philosophy: Kant's "categorical imperative". What he said was that something should be considered "good" or morally acceptable only if one could wish that it become a general rule, applicable to all.
That seems open to manipulation. Some people might be happy with the universal application of a rule like "blacks are inferior and should be slaves to white people". That doesn't make it moral.
How about: Every mother should eat her babies, if she is starving and unable to provide for them.
Would that work? In the long term?
Unless the babies are going to die painfully it would probably be more moral to let them die naturally rather than kill them, to allow for the possibility of finding food unexpectedly. Once they're dead, I don't see what difference it makes. Emotional attachments aside, a dead body is just meat (http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html). Eating members of your own species may put you at greater risk of disease, but if no other food is available and starvation is imminent it may be worthwhile risking disease to keep yourself alive.
lightgigantic
05-24-08, 06:13 AM
Ha. lol. Uhm, so since there are a lot of religions they aren't all right eh? So some of them are definately lying. They're all lying but one? Is that it? :p
what on earth makes you say that?
wesmorris
05-24-08, 07:26 AM
what on earth makes you say that?
my smart alec, sarcastic tendency i suppose.
lightgigantic
05-24-08, 07:39 AM
wes morris
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
wes morris
“
assuming you aren't contributing to sciforums from a prison computer, somehow you manage to live with yourself ...
”
so compliance and obedience are the same? methinks that rather twisted. most laws aren't contrary to my want or behavior, so why should i be in jail?
Because you used the word "most"
“
hence to have the judgment capacities of a dog is not enviable ... namely because the master one accepts could be far from ideal
”
So let's consider degrees then:
A dog to its master...
A human to its god...
of the two, which is more superior to its subject and thus by comparison, is possibly closer to the capacity for judgement... ?
I would have thought that would be an easy one to answer
further, you say ideal as if there is one? to me if there is a single anything that is intrinscially ideal, everything else must also be. by presuming an ideal on your own, even interpreted through your master's 'teachings' - do you not judge your master's imperfection? Who are you, he who is obedient to his master - to question his creation? How could you presume the possibility of 'less than ideal'?
not sure what you mean by saying an ideal means everything else is
Do you mean that because you may have a notion of an ideal woman, that all women are ideal?
Or do you mean that because you have the notion of an ideal women, that there must also be an ideal man, an ideal child, an ideal parent, an ideal house, etc etc?
Or do you mean something else?
i just can't help but think that to assign properties to your master or by extension, his creation - of which you are a part, is to judge him.
And what is wrong about that?
For instance if you see someone hand a person back their wallet after it slipped out of their pocket, where is the harm in you judging them as honest?
establishing a single thing about it beyond its initial definition is to say you know about it.
and why is that a problem?
what does a dog know of his master
quite a lot
what is human knowledge compared to an 'entity' existing outside of time and responsible for *all that is*?
sure, we may not know god in full, but we certainly can know enough about god to lift ourselves out of illusion
Every element of the human mind quite fundmentally tied to linear time.
hence there is the suggestion that the mind must be transcended to enable one to realize the noumena of the mind - namely the soul.
Even the notion of concepts don't make much sense with no notion of time implicitely tacked on, as concepts embody elements of human experience through time.
quite simply, the mind is not advocated as the final last word of the self - rather it is a (subtle) material ingredient of the corporeal body
So I'd say a dog to his master's comprehesion is a far closer match than a man to his *god* - assuming for the sake of argument that such an entity could *exist* or that the idea *exist* could even apply to something outside of time.
There is the suggestion that to know the quality of god one must also take on that same quality - namely purity. If a person is still under the influence of material contamination, the best they can do is approach god as a concept (which again, isn't a bad starting point, but is insufficient for liberation/salvation etc)
lightgigantic
05-24-08, 07:41 AM
my smart alec, sarcastic tendency i suppose.
and that's the root cause for your assumption that all religions advocate that all other religions are completely false?
greenberg
05-24-08, 08:37 AM
The very notion of obedience is morally repugnant to me.
So you find it morally repugnant when your daughters eat their vegetables as you ordered them to?
greenberg
05-24-08, 08:42 AM
Because they judge god.
They judge 'him' by believing words in books are directly from 'him'.
They judge god by believing particular things about 'him'.
This implies that you are absolutely certain that nothing of what various theistic scriptures say about God has actually been said by God,
and also that you are certain nobody knows God or knows anything about God.
That is some very bold implication you have there.
What makes you so sure that none of the theistic scriptures and no person knows anything about God?
Stuff like that.
Just a thought.
You're not serious, are you.
wesmorris
05-24-08, 09:37 AM
So you find it morally repugnant when your daughters eat their vegetables as you ordered them to?
Mildly, but they're kids so...
I hope they don't grow up to be obedient to anyone. Respecting people and often their wishes or the danger they pose, well that's fine.
wesmorris
05-24-08, 09:47 AM
This implies that you are absolutely certain that nothing of what various theistic scriptures say about God has actually been said by God,
and also that you are certain nobody knows God or knows anything about God.
No, it just supposes that people claim to know "god" or something about god - as if they should trust their senses to reveal the timeless to a timebound being. Just doesn't seem like good judgement, but I don't condemn the belief in god really, just religion making or people making claims about it.
That is some very bold implication you have there.
Meh. I'm just irreverent is all.
What makes you so sure that none of the theistic scriptures and no person knows anything about God?
I'm not, but IMO - they shouldn't be either. That they would makes me question their integrity. When one asserts a universal beyond doubt, that's a mighty tall ego as far as I'm concerned. To state the universal is to take the vantage point of 'god', which is literally quite disgusting to me if taken seriously, even if the message has a net positive effect. Of course my disgust is rather irrelevant, pardon. I tend to take the opinion that nothing is or could possibly be out of place (ignoring human expectation) when I'm not being emotional.
You're not serious, are you.
Meh, not particularly no. I see value in religion mind you - I'm just playing with the idea that religion is actually morally wrong.
wesmorris
05-24-08, 09:51 AM
and that's the root cause for your assumption that all religions advocate that all other religions are completely false?
no I didn't advocate that.
I advocated that 'reality' is some way (one way) and that if per chance even one 'has it right' all the others must 'have it wrong' in varying degrees.
wesmorris
05-24-08, 09:55 AM
I've been informed that it's mormanism that's the right one. Yes. Mooooormonism. Everyone else, see you in hell.
one_raven
05-24-08, 10:18 AM
I've been informed that it's mormanism that's the right one. Yes. Mooooormonism. Everyone else, see you in hell.
I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe since Mormons don't believe in Hell.
PsychoticEpisode
05-24-08, 10:18 AM
In a world where God is not, has never been nor ever will be present it is logical to expect a religion or two or thousands. Its not morally wrong to guess. Any actual religion is harmless until the immoral decide to work to rule.
greenberg
05-24-08, 10:45 AM
I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe since Mormons don't believe in Hell.
?
As far as I know (and I have a couple of years of Mormon experience), they do believe in eternal hell.
greenberg
05-24-08, 10:55 AM
I'm not, but IMO - they shouldn't be either. That they would makes me question their integrity. When one asserts a universal beyond doubt, that's a mighty tall ego as far as I'm concerned.
With this, you still seem to think that it is impossible for a person to know something universal or something about the universal.
I agree that many people who claim knowledge of the Absolute, of the Universal, have something egoistic at stake in doing so. However, already for the sake of accuracy and critical thought, I think the possibility must be admitted that someone might actually know the Absolute or something about it. Unless of course we are to apriori postulate that humans are inherently incapable of knowing the Absolute or about it. But how are we to defend such a postulation? On the grounds of what can we competently claim that humans are inherently incapable of knowing the Absolute or about it?
[QUOTE=lightgigantic;1870023]please don't go running away behind the barricades of weak atheism/agnosticism again and tell us exactly how you know they are lies (hint - follow the signs "negative absolute this way --->" )
;)
given that even mundane diplomacy operates on identical principles, it's not clear why a bonafide representative can not represent the needs, interests and concerns of their superior - if you don't believe me, just try blowing up american embassies while simultaneously trying to be friendly with the US president
;)
It always amazes me how atheists can lodge arguments that are even absurd in mundane life.
I agree, especially when you don't have the foundation to evaluate such arguments.
I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe since Mormons don't believe in Hell.
They will when Adstar introduces them to the Lake of Fire
With this, you still seem to think that it is impossible for a person to know something universal or something about the universal.
I agree that many people who claim knowledge of the Absolute, of the Universal, have something egoistic at stake in doing so. However, already for the sake of accuracy and critical thought, I think the possibility must be admitted that someone might actually know the Absolute or something about it. Unless of course we are to apriori postulate that humans are inherently incapable of knowing the Absolute or about it. But how are we to defend such a postulation? On the grounds of what can we competently claim that humans are inherently incapable of knowing the Absolute or about it?
First, it is necessary to define the Absolute and see whether such an entity exists. The absolute what exactly ?
wesmorris
05-24-08, 05:20 PM
I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe since Mormons don't believe in Hell.
sheezus you geeks don't get a southpark reference? :rolleyes:
wesmorris
05-24-08, 05:22 PM
With this, you still seem to think that it is impossible for a person to know something universal or something about the universal.
No, I claim it impossible for them to know they know.
I know I exist but if really... REALLY pressed on the issue... *shrug*. What's the difference? I think I know I exist, that's the best there is.
Rather, it seems impossible to me.
superluminal
05-24-08, 10:40 PM
Isn't it patently obvious that given the thousands of years of debate and study with zero to show for it, there are no gods? Just people trying desperately to understand why they will terminate? Hoping that it just ain't so?
It's harsh, but when you get down to it, LG or any other theist has no more certainty of anything beyond an indifferent cosmos than I do. Everyone is as clueless as a newborn baby when it comes to this. The fact is that there is no reason other than hope to believe in anything other than simple oblivion.
PsychoticEpisode
05-24-08, 11:16 PM
It's harsh, but when you get down to it, LG or any other theist has no more certainty of anything beyond an indifferent cosmos than I do. Everyone is as clueless as a newborn baby when it comes to this. The fact is that there is no reason other than hope to believe in anything other than simple oblivion.
Couldn't agree more. God's existence is either a yes, no or maybe. That's it. We can't go any further without any real proof. Everything else is speculation.
lightgigantic
05-25-08, 12:06 AM
It always amazes me how atheists can lodge arguments that are even absurd in mundane life.
I agree, especially when you don't have the foundation to evaluate such arguments.
well, given that there is no foundation for direct perception of atheist claims, neither do you
:o
lightgigantic
05-25-08, 12:10 AM
Isn't it patently obvious that given the thousands of years of debate and study with zero to show for it, there are no gods?
Given your statement above, I would say that it is patently obvious that you have not seriously investigated theistic claims ... what to speak of applying theistic methodologies etc
Just people trying desperately to understand why they will terminate? Hoping that it just ain't so?
It's harsh, but when you get down to it, LG or any other theist has no more certainty of anything beyond an indifferent cosmos than I do. Everyone is as clueless as a newborn baby when it comes to this. The fact is that there is no reason other than hope to believe in anything other than simple oblivion.
there is a sanskrit aphorism "atmavan jagat"
basically it translates as "as I think, everyone else in the universe thinks"
It is used to illustrate the folly of persons who think that there can be no greater reservoir of knowledge than what they possess
:o
lightgigantic
05-25-08, 12:17 AM
no I didn't advocate that.
I advocated that 'reality' is some way (one way) and that if per chance even one 'has it right' all the others must 'have it wrong' in varying degrees.
glad you acknowledge that there is a distinction between "all the others are lying" and "having it wrong to varying degrees"
but now to move on a step further
would you say that the maths one learns as an eight year old is "wrong to a varying degree" compared to the maths one learns as a twenty-one year old?
or would you say that the maths you learnt as an eight year old was merely a stepping stone, since 1+1=2 is the same in either scenario?
[QUOTE=lightgigantic;1871270]Given your statement above, I would say that it is patently obvious that you have not seriously investigated theistic claims ... what to speak of applying theistic methodologies etc
there is a sanskrit aphorism "atmavan jagat"
basically it translates as "as I think, everyone else in the universe thinks"
It is used to illustrate the folly of persons who think that there can be no greater reservoir of knowledge than what they possess
The only people who think that way are mostly the religious who, in their ignorance, believe they know it all.
Many of us are aware, without reading Sanskrit aphorisms, that there is a greater reservoir of knowledge in libraries, universities and other learned bodies.
That , of course, is not proper knowledge because we have not sat on our arses and meditated which, as everyone knows is the only path to true knowledge.
The aphorism is atmavan manyate jagat which means "One thinks everyone is like him"; thus a liar is suspicious and thinks everyone else is a liar and a fool considers others a fool
PsychoticEpisode
05-25-08, 03:53 PM
That , of course, is not proper knowledge because we have not sat on our arses and meditated which, as everyone knows is the only path to true knowledge.
:D And this is why they do it. Just so they can come up with gems like this. I know I feel outsmarted. http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/12-26-04.asp
Some people confuse information with knowledge
The aphorism is atmavan manyate jagat which means "One thinks everyone is like him"; thus a liar is suspicious and thinks everyone else is a liar and a fool considers others a fool
That makes sense. Thanks,
PsychoticEpisode
05-25-08, 04:25 PM
Some people confuse information with knowledge
Then the monks have knowledge of extra-terrestrials? The confusion is in thinking the monks possess great knowledge.
one_raven
05-26-08, 06:11 AM
?
As far as I know (and I have a couple of years of Mormon experience), they do believe in eternal hell.
So do I and I married into a Mormon family.
Then the monks have knowledge of extra-terrestrials? The confusion is in thinking the monks possess great knowledge.
I was talking about the monks but you just qualified yourself.
one_raven
05-26-08, 07:29 PM
?
As far as I know (and I have a couple of years of Mormon experience), they do believe in eternal hell.
Ask your LDS connection about the Outer Darkness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_darkness
Carcano
05-26-08, 07:45 PM
Ask your LDS connection about the Outer Darkness.
When I hear the phrase 'outer darkness' I automatically think of Stephen Kings 'macroverse'.
His vision of reality (in his fiction) is that of a multiverse, like a flower with billions of petals, all connected together at a nexus he calls 'the dark tower'.
But beyond...beyond the multiverse lies the macroverse, the void which surrounds and enfolds all of spacetime.
SkywalkerJedi
05-26-08, 08:55 PM
So do I and I married into a Mormon family.
I am a Latter-Day Saint. I am going to get the priesthood. Anyways in Docterin and Converents it said that there is the Celestrial Kingdom which is the highest degree, and the Terrestial is the lowest degree for people that are not followers of satan. There is hell, because in the bible and the book of mormon, it is mention many times the eternal flames for the followers of Satan. If you ask the prophet Thomas S. Monson, he will say we believe in hell.
SkywalkerJedi
05-26-08, 08:58 PM
I've been informed that it's mormanism that's the right one. Yes. Mooooormonism. Everyone else, see you in hell.
I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the right church of the lord ( it is Mormon for the people that don't know ). I believe that Joshep Smith is the prophet of god so is all the latter day prophets. Anyways, proof its not true.
PsychoticEpisode
05-26-08, 10:15 PM
I was talking about the monks but you just qualified yourself.
That's nice.
I was once a monk. During one of my meditations I experienced an epiphany beyond anything you can imagine. In brief, I realized that if I am to advocate the foresaking of material gain then it would be better understood if I actually experienced wealth myself.
Simon Anders
05-27-08, 11:46 AM
No, it just supposes that people claim to know "god" or something about god - as if they should trust their senses to reveal the timeless to a timebound being. Just doesn't seem like good judgement, but I don't condemn the belief in god really, just religion making or people making claims about it. I would assume that you would consider claims about most any being offensive then. In other words if I claimed to notice you were pissed off even if you denied it and the like.
Also, arent you implicitly claiming knowledge about God. For example
If there were a God no one could have knowledge about such a being or direct contact with such a being.
How do you know this?
How do you know God and/or humans are limited in the ways you seem to be sure they are?
SkywalkerJedi
05-27-08, 03:26 PM
Please explain sir, how everything could happen without god? You can't, there is no logical explaination besides god.
When I hear the phrase 'outer darkness' I automatically think of Stephen Kings 'macroverse'.
His vision of reality (in his fiction) is that of a multiverse, like a flower with billions of petals, all connected together at a nexus he calls 'the dark tower'.
But beyond...beyond the multiverse lies the macroverse, the void which surrounds and enfolds all of spacetime.
Just hear that has made my day. I was beginning to give up hope.
Please explain sir, how everything could happen without god? You can't, there is no logical explaination besides god.
What is the logical explanation ?
Please explain sir, how everything could happen without god? You can't, there is no logical explaination besides god.
If you consider "god" to be a logical explanation then your logic is faulty.
wesmorris
05-27-08, 05:23 PM
I would assume that you would consider claims about most any being offensive then.
Depends on the claim but generally speaking, that's silly. Why? I don't have to believe those claims, or I can depending on plausibility, etc. Have you read flatland or do you at least get the gist? This gist of the story is the basis of my complaint. If you say you can picture a 5D something or other in your head I say you're full of shit. Same in relation to 'god'.
In other words if I claimed to notice you were pissed off even if you denied it and the like.
Well it might be annoying but surely I'd recover.
Also, arent you implicitly claiming knowledge about God.
Only the definition, omniscients, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.
If there were a God no one could have knowledge about such a being or direct contact with such a being.
Based on simple analysis of the relation of the definition of the being to what appears to be reality to me. My comments are indirect.
How do you know this?
I don't. Do you? I'm just talking shit that makes sense to me. I don't necessarily expect it to make sense to anyone else, but it's nice when it seems to happen. Knowledge is generally a matter of practicality I'd say. I know I exist, I know I have a wife, two kids, computer, cars, blah blah. Practically speaking, I'd never deny any of it. Philosophically speaking, it's a matter of my perception apparently meshing with theirs but with the twist that it's my perception doing the seeming.
How do you know God and/or humans are limited in the ways you seem to be sure they are?
I don't. Again, I'm speaking as to my perspective which is just as full of shit as anyone I suppose. I can tell you only how things seem to me.
wesmorris
05-27-08, 05:27 PM
I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the right church of the lord ( it is Mormon for the people that don't know ). I believe that Joshep Smith is the prophet of god so is all the latter day prophets. Anyways, proof its not true.
That's nice.
I was just making a reference to southpark though, pardon.
I don't know much about joseph smith, and don't care to really. I don't believe any man is or ever was a 'prophet of god'.
What would you say if I told you god told me to start this thread?
I'm just sayin.
wesmorris
05-27-08, 05:31 PM
Please explain sir, how everything could happen without god?
This is where people seem to really lose it. How could anything happen outside of time? Well shit man as time-bound individual, I simply can't relate. My failure to relate however and thankfully, doesn't seem to keep me from existing. Cool deal. The term "happen" doesn't even make sense outside of time, so your question is in itself illogical (in terms of the universe coming to be).
You can't, there is no logical explaination besides god.
But that is no explanation whatsoever. That's just blind faith and grasping for shit... which I should say, has its own value but I have to try to see it for what it is.
SkywalkerJedi
05-27-08, 05:50 PM
That's nice.
I was just making a reference to southpark though, pardon.
I don't know much about joseph smith, and don't care to really. I don't believe any man is or ever was a 'prophet of god'.
What would you say if I told you god told me to start this thread?
I'm just sayin.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God."- James ( from the holy bible )
" Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened onto you. "- The holy bible.
It means that if you pray you will know. Anyways if you said God told you to make this thread, I would say you are a lier.
Anyways if you said God told you to make this thread, I would say you are a lier.
But you believe other people when they tell you that someone else was told things by god?
Can you say "discrepancy"?
SnakeLord
05-27-08, 06:03 PM
It means that if you pray you will know
Tested that claim out just now - alas nothing happened. What next, tarot cards and tea leaves? :bugeye:
wesmorris
05-28-08, 01:55 AM
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God."- James ( from the holy bible )
" Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened onto you. "- The holy bible.
It means that if you pray you will know. Anyways if you said God told you to make this thread, I would say you are a lier.
Then why are muhamed, jesus and that mormon dude not liars? You see I see them as you see me. Such claims are total shit, IMO - at least regarding anything true. It's not to say that such claims can't be totally useful from an evolutionary point of view, but that they are in no way representative of actual happenings. No man is a prophet of god to me, not that many don't have great intentions and such.
If you pray and pray and pray and pray you'll still not fit 5 dimensions into your head. It's simply outside our realm of possible comprehension. We cannot relate to the space, it's a consequence of existing as we do.
Since the proposed entity 'god' is outside our realm of possible comprehension, claims as to its qualities (outside its definition) are conjecture at best.
Tested that claim out just now - alas nothing happened. What next, tarot cards and tea leaves? :bugeye:
The Lord discourages reading tea leaves. That's why good Christian people invented tea bags.
Prince_James
05-28-08, 09:40 AM
Wesmorris:
Since the proposed entity 'god' is outside our realm of possible comprehension, claims as to its qualities (outside its definition) are conjecture at best.
Few theologians claim God is outside of comprehension. In fact, the Ontological Argument is premised on God being comprehendable.
Wesmorris:
Few theologians claim God is outside of comprehension. In fact, the Ontological Argument is premised on God being comprehendable.
Is anyone convinced by the ontological argument nowadays ?
lightgigantic
05-28-08, 11:58 PM
Is anyone convinced by the ontological argument nowadays ?
certainly
wesmorris
05-29-08, 12:20 AM
Wesmorris:
Few theologians claim God is outside of comprehension. In fact, the Ontological Argument is premised on God being comprehendable.
The only way around "my" argument IMO, would have to be from a gnostic.
I can't really argue with "I just know", since that means there's no room for discussion on the matter.
To me, the "flatland" point is insurmountable.
Wesmorris:
Few theologians claim God is outside of comprehension. In fact, the Ontological Argument is premised on God being comprehendable.
I think most theist say that God can be felt but
that god can be comprehended is another statement,
And you should first ask yourself what is to be comprehended?
and explain to us what do you mean by that.
wesmorris
05-29-08, 03:03 AM
I think most theist say that God can be felt
Somewhat silly IMO, as how would you know it's "god" that you're feeling? Doesn't it take one to know one?
but that god can be comprehended is another statement,
how about "clearly held in mind" or something like that? basically that's what the dictionary says. "to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind"
And you should first ask yourself what is to be comprehended?
Why would you presume I haven't done so?
and explain to us what do you mean by that.
Well to really get into the nuts and bolts of it is a whole book or five with a ton of conjecture I suppose. I'd say first however, that whatever it is to be comprehended must first possibly be relatable. One must be able to imagine it fairly clearly I'd think.
After that I'd say comprehension is a subjective, ordered relation of concepts that allow the processing of inputs related to a specific subject.
The flatland thing clearly points out the foibles of attempting to relate to something clearly beyond comprehension. IMO, the faithful are akin to the 2D creature that experienced 3D and tried to explain it to the others. How should they expect the others to believe them? It's clear that if I were to purport I'd been assigned this thread by god that I'd be called a liar. So why isn't everyone who makes the claim in the same boat? How would they know I was lying?
Meh.
wesmorris I was addressing the question to Prince_James but that's fine too :)
Somewhat silly IMO, as how would you know it's "god" that you're feeling? Doesn't it take one to know one?
I am saying that it is their claim.
They probably don't need to know, it is a feeling that for them is god.
how about "clearly held in mind" or something like that? basically that's what the dictionary says. "to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind"
"Clearly held in mind" sounds like feeling :p
Why would you presume I haven't done so?
Just in case
Well to really get into the nuts and bolts of it is a whole book or five with a ton of conjecture I suppose. I'd say first however, that whatever it is to be comprehended must first possibly be relatable. One must be able to imagine it fairly clearly I'd think.
After that I'd say comprehension is a subjective, ordered relation of concepts that allow the processing of inputs related to a specific subject.
do you think the possibility of processing of inputs is a necessary outcome of comprehension ?
The flatland thing clearly points out the foibles of attempting to relate to something clearly beyond comprehension. IMO, the faithful are akin to the 2D creature that experienced 3D and tried to explain it to the others. How should they expect the others to believe them? It's clear that if I were to purport I'd been assigned this thread by god that I'd be called a liar. So why isn't everyone who makes the claim in the same boat? How would they know I was lying?
Meh.
for you god can not be comprehended?
and if it is in some way possible, we would not know if we understood or not fro sure.
Is that right?
But do you think it is necessary to explain what god is?
you seem at first believe that comprehension is grasping by mind but then you want it to be expressible (processing of input)
Why not just say that comprehension of god could be beyond expressibility?
When prayer is just the experience of god, why not say: ok god exist. I did not know it was that simple :)
wesmorris
05-29-08, 07:37 AM
wesmorris I was addressing the question to Prince_James but that's fine too :)
pardon.
I am saying that it is their claim.
They probably don't need to know, it is a feeling that for them is god.
A feeling about a powerful idea, yah.
"Clearly held in mind" sounds like feeling :p
It is. Isn't everything, really? All in all, they are all that matters.
Just in case
Prudent.
do you think the possibility of processing of inputs is a necessary outcome of comprehension ?
Yes. Comprehension is a context that processes into a complicated feeling, basically.
for you god can not be comprehended?
For me there is no such entity. Simply the application of the term 'entity' doesn't make sense because it's attempting to describe something outside of time itself to which we are intrinsically bound. IMO, english.. maybe language itself, can't apply to something outside of the universe.
There's a hypothesis and a powerful idea called 'god', perhaps fundamental to that which is abstract. (e.g. any evolving species of entities with the capacity for abstract would stumble upon the idea at least eventually).
and if it is in some way possible, we would not know if we understood or not fro sure.
Is that right?
I think so. Given the whole "a sufficiently technologically advanced species could appear as 'gods' to less advanced species" thing, it seems plain that there is no basis for believing a claim of god should be correlated with god.
But do you think it is necessary to explain what god is?
Not really. I'm more interested in the effect of the belief. I understand god is a powerful idea that tangibly effects our species in epic scope. I find it trippy that an intangible can have such a powerful tangible effect.
you seem at first believe that comprehension is grasping by mind but then you want it to be expressible (processing of input)
it's both. the a mind comprehends (grasps), it can then process input through that comprehension.
Why not just say that comprehension of god could be beyond expressibility?
Because of the way it fits in my head. It doesn't read quite right to me, but I can't really argue with 'could be'. I'd say, is because the nature of the actuality of the being hypothesized would be necessarily unrelatable to potential human comprehension.
When prayer is just the experience of god, why not say: ok god exist. I did not know it was that simple :)
Well I wouldn't say it because it wouldn't be true. Okay I'd say it jokingly because I like to say random silly shit. I wouldn't say your conclusion follows from the premise because the premise includes the conclusion and round and round and such.
certainly
What do you find convincing about the Ontological argument ?
Simon Anders
05-29-08, 09:23 AM
Depends on the claim but generally speaking, that's silly. Why? I don't have to believe those claims, or I can depending on plausibility, etc. Have you read flatland or do you at least get the gist? This gist of the story is the basis of my complaint. If you say you can picture a 5D something or other in your head I say you're full of shit. Same in relation to 'god'. But we run into similar problems all over the place. "Do you know ________?" Fill in the blank. Your wife. Your boss. We often answer yes. Can one not know certain facets - a pun I suppose when thinking of flatland - of these beings without claiming to know all. Can one not have received information about these incredibly complex, endlessly investigatable creatures, from said creatures, despite the fact that there is much certainly temporarily unreachable about them and no doubt permanently out of reach also?
Well it might be annoying but surely I'd recover.
Yes, but 1) you know what I was gettting at and 2) there are people who are very skilled at reading emotions in people, often getting it right despite the honest claims of the ones they are watching. Later the claims are verified by the ones viewed.
Only the definition, omniscients, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. So the monotheist God, or really the theologists' God. But again, you are assuming that such a God could not convey information to individuals. Even a limited guy like myself is aware of things that I cannot convey to you. A whole world of memories and sensory experiences and internal states I cannot make accessible to you. Despite these unreachable, unencapsulatable portions of myself that I cannot convey, I can give you accurate information about myself, which you could then relay to others.
I can see your argument working against someone claiming to know God completely. Or to share God's perspective, etc.
I don't. Do you? I'm just talking shit that makes sense to me. I don't necessarily expect it to make sense to anyone else, but it's nice when it seems to happen. Knowledge is generally a matter of practicality I'd say. I know I exist, I know I have a wife, two kids, computer, cars, blah blah. Practically speaking, I'd never deny any of it. Philosophically speaking, it's a matter of my perception apparently meshing with theirs but with the twist that it's my perception doing the seeming.
My intention was to put what I see as your challenge back on you. I think your argument is based on ideas of what it must be like if there is a God. As if you know what the possible limitations are on communication with such a being. I see this as having as much hubris as the people you are criticizing, which is ironic in context.
I don't. Again, I'm speaking as to my perspective which is just as full of shit as anyone I suppose. I can tell you only how things seem to me.
Ibid. But this seems an oddly defensive take on what I am saying. Or a quick attempt to show that unlike theists you are willing to immediately bracket off your knowledge or ideas as potentially fallible - something some theists would also do, not all being unwilling to reveal doubt.
I am sure about this. (theist)
I am sure you cannot be sure (Wes).
One is sure about what is.
The other is sure about what is possible.
A later qualification that you are not really sure helps put your position in perspective, but as long as it is presented in similar certain terms it begs for the same questioning.
How frustrating would it be to present to tentativeness first?
I hope it is clear why I am asking this.
'I am tentative and I am sure you must be also.' has problems.
However to not present, yourself, Wes, as being sure they cannot be sure must seem like you are only allowed to throw a half-pulled punch. I am afraid that that may be the situation. I think your position allows you to only throw a half-pulled (tentative) punch.
If you stray from this. And plant your feel and use your whole body to throw a punch at the theists - IOW present yourself as SURE they cannot know - I feel compelled, by forces partially unknown, to challenge the cake and eat it tooness.
So there you are, encapsulated, as it were, a neo-solipsistic bubble outside which you can never be certain.
Do tell us about neo-solipsism ! Is it being more alone than alone?
Solipsism.. it's retarded.
Solipsism.. it's retarded.
I worried to death about neo-solipsism as mentioned above, where someone is stated to be living in a "neo-solipsistic bubble". The old stuff I could cope wi
th but this neo stuff has me worried. Am I writing to myself ?
See 114 above !
wesmorris
05-30-08, 05:15 AM
But we run into similar problems all over the place. "Do you know ________?" Fill in the blank. Your wife. Your boss. We often answer yes. Can one not know certain facets - a pun I suppose when thinking of flatland - of these beings without claiming to know all.
Sure, but they can't validate it really besides with feelings. To know it does not make it 'objectively true' in the sense the knowledge is representative of something 'real'.
Can one not have received information about these incredibly complex, endlessly investigatable creatures, from said creatures, despite the fact that there is much certainly temporarily unreachable about them and no doubt permanently out of reach also?
Sure but generally the 'less material' or apparently unlikely the claim, the 'more evidence' is required to support it. If it seems fantastic, we'll likely have a hard time agreeing if you can't set it on the table for me to examine.
So the monotheist God, or really the theologists' God. But again, you are assuming that such a God could not convey information to individuals.
No I'm saying that the individuals have no means to authenticate the source of information. There is only 'what they think happened' (assuming it only happened to them) and what other people think about what they say happened.
Even a limited guy like myself is aware of things that I cannot convey to you. A whole world of memories and sensory experiences and internal states I cannot make accessible to you. Despite these unreachable, unencapsulatable portions of myself that I cannot convey, I can give you accurate information about myself, which you could then relay to others.
Of course but this has little bearing on the point.
I can see your argument working against someone claiming to know God completely. Or to share God's perspective, etc.
I mean "at all" past the definition.
My intention was to put what I see as your challenge back on you. I think your argument is based on ideas of what it must be like if there is a God. As if you know what the possible limitations are on communication with such a being.
I take the ramifications of the definition and run with them. The only way to 'know god' is via faith, for if god himself made me right this thread, he did not tell me that is what he did. If I were to presume it, which i might were I a believer - then I'd be all solipsistic and whatnot. If god would have told me, I'd have to wonder why a god would need to pull such a dirty trick as to make me ponder what fantastic aliens had decided to communicate with my brain. I'd have to see psychologists and be generally ridiculed by people who called me a liar for saying I talk directly to god. True or not, the claim itself is enough to render serious doubt on any psyche to make the claim and far worse - no means of validation or authentication whatsoever if not for 'his' will to force 'belief' on others I encounter. I could just know it and never make the claim, maintaining my faith for myself and not requiring external validation. That could work but the charm quickly dispells under the first claim uttered to another person.
I see this as having as much hubris as the people you are criticizing, which is ironic in context.
I couldn't possibly know the limitations of such communication of course, but I do know what it is to be human, how society works, the relationship of a perspective to its environment, etc. It's from there that I make my argument. It's not about 'god' as you seem to be focusing on, it's about the claim - made by a person, how a person can know what they experience, etc. There are certain limitations on all that which I don't have to be god to 'know'.
Ibid. But this seems an oddly defensive take on what I am saying. Or a quick attempt to show that unlike theists you are willing to immediately bracket off your knowledge or ideas as potentially fallible - something some theists would also do, not all being unwilling to reveal doubt.
Which is really self contradictory to the whole faith thing but that's another story. The religious have no exclusive rights to faith. I have faith in reason and a reasonably strong faith in the validity of my perspective - at least in its utility to my survival function.
I am sure about this. (theist)
I am sure you cannot be sure (Wes).
One is sure about what is.
The other is sure about what is possible.
No I'm sure you can be sure about a lot of things. I'm just not sure that being sure stand for anything outside the context in which said sureness is established, see? I'm also not sure it makes much difference directly, but there are a lot of indirect implications in framing the argument. As a person, I grant that each person (including myself) can possess all the sureness ever, perhaps. I don't think however, that such sureness establishes anything in other potential surenesses, or anything 'real' about what is not within the context making the claim of sureness.
A later qualification that you are not really sure helps put your position in perspective, but as long as it is presented in similar certain terms it begs for the same questioning.
Sure.
How frustrating would it be to present to tentativeness first?
It's not particularly efficient in many ways. It depends on the goal of the presentation does it not? If I seek wisdom or Truth, I shall bear the almost sure inneficiency such as not to deny the truth of what I think I see. If I seek to get laid, putting the tentativeness first will almost surely contradict my goal.
'I am tentative and I am sure you must be also.' has problems.
But I'm not sure you must be also. I just think it so and recognize that the extent of my certainty in this regard can really only be my own context. I do not insist it and cannot nor would not command it from you. I'm pretty sure though, if you're already sure - there's little possible motive for one to enter such a conversation other that proving something to someone like their intellectual prowess, or simply to preach about what they know.
However to not present, yourself, Wes, as being sure they cannot be sure must seem like you are only allowed to throw a half-pulled punch. I am afraid that that may be the situation. I think your position allows you to only throw a half-pulled (tentative) punch.
I agree. It's because though - I could not decide for you if you wanted me to. I present my argumentative bullshit and see what happens. Often it leads to pretty interesting shit to me, so...
I don't want to punch you or prove you wrong really. I just wonder how my thoughts apply in other contexts and find amusement in the folly of thinking them relevant to more than just my own context.
If you stray from this. And plant your feel and use your whole body to throw a punch at the theists - IOW present yourself as SURE they cannot know - I feel compelled, by forces partially unknown, to challenge the cake and eat it tooness.
Nah I like a lot of theists. I have no need to steal their theism from them or punch it. I'm long since past it. There are a lot of opportunity costs for any choice and sometimes I think theists have it right. Not that there is any factuality behind their belief, but that their belief is factually impactfull on the world in a locally cohesive way.. and with their belief comes a strength I can't really know. I think it's kind of neat really, but have known since i was a child that religion just doesn't work for me.
So there you are, encapsulated, as it were, a neo-solipsistic bubble outside which you can never be certain.
You don't seem to understand but maybe the thing a few paragraphs back cleared it up. I can be dead certain about anything. It's generally simply wrong generally wrong when I impose my certainty onto others, as religions do. I think though that if you are susceptable to religious thought, you will be religious and really, it's that simple.
Of course the exception to the certainty thing is when direct mortal threats are involved. If I see something about to hurt you drastically and can help you, I feel obligated to do so. "hey look out man!", etc. Religions do the same thing, but on a wholly different basis - nothing direct, nothing tangible.
Simon Anders
05-30-08, 12:13 PM
[QUOTE]Sure, but they can't validate it really besides with feelings. To know it does not make it 'objectively true' in the sense the knowledge is representative of something 'real'. Who are we talking about here?
Sure but generally the 'less material' or apparently unlikely the claim, the 'more evidence' is required to support it. If it seems fantastic, we'll likely have a hard time agreeing if you can't set it on the table for me to examine.This assumes a neutral starting point.
No I'm saying that the individuals have no means to authenticate the source of information. There is only 'what they think happened' (assuming it only happened to them) and what other people think about what they say happened.That's actually not what you are saying. I have less problem with this. What you were saying, unless I missed it completely, was that they could not know. You are shifting the topic from their position in relation to themselves and their position in relation to you or other 'outsiders'. It certainly seemed like you were taking an objective stance in relation to what they could possibly know, given that God is this or that. I see this shift you just made happen time and again. There is strong desire to say that they must be making wild assumptions, but really a person with your philosophy can only focus on how you work with their claims. Once you step across the divide and say that they can't know what they know, you are claiming precisely the kind of objectivity you think they cannot have. If you are not saying this then I have misunderstood your position and I no longer disagree. If you have simply been saying YOU have no reason to be convinced, well, that's obvious, and I agree.
Of course but this has little bearing on the point. I disagree. I think it is an area you want to feel confident about claims to know.
I mean "at all" past the definition. And I think the same arguments could be made for knowing about any being, even humans close to us.
I take the ramifications of the definition and run with them. The only way to 'know god' is via faith, And this is where you are making a claim to know what is possible between God and humans. You know that there can be no contact with real communication. How do you know what is possible?
If I were to presume it, which i might were I a believer - then I'd be all solipsistic and whatnot. If god would have told me, I'd have to wonder why a god would need to pull such a dirty trick as to make me ponder what fantastic aliens had decided to communicate with my brain.
More assumptions about the nature of the communication and how it would have to be experienced.
I'd have to see psychologists and be generally ridiculed by people who called me a liar for saying I talk directly to god.
More assumptions.
True or not, the claim itself is enough to render serious doubt on any psyche to make the claim and far worse - no means of validation or authentication whatsoever if not for 'his' will to force 'belief' on others I encounter.
And more. In fact one could make a nice case for saying that you clearly have a lot of fear about 'what it would mean if'. Given what we know about psychology and how people can keep themselves from noticing certain things if noticing certain things make them scared, you own judgements about what would happen and must happen and what it would have to be like open the door for examining the roots of your beliefs and not believing.
I cannot stress enough how your certainty about what is neutral ground is a factor in how you experience things. You know what a neutral starting point is from which you can evaluate ideas - and even your own experiences or lack of them. How can you be so certain about what a neutral starting point is from which you use your rational tools? I see everyone, every single person, as religious. They may or may not have a God in their system, but this seems like a small point to me. They all know what is a neutral starting point and what is not and they all have intuitive faith in their intellectual lifestyle. In yours this is shown by your faith in your ability to know what is neutral and from this you can disregard, perhaps even not notice your fears and assumptions as fears and assumptions, and also in your claims to know what is really going on in believers and what is possible for them to experience. I then think you gloss over how this 'knowing' does not sit easily with your philosophy. I think part of the mental ecology that maintains this pattern is your occasionally saying that you cannot be sure about certain things or that you are simply tossing out ideas. You take brief objective views of yourself and this stabilizes your sense of being less dogmatic. (I realize this is rather harsh an analytical in ways that may seem mean or unfair, but I wrote this last after reading your later ideas about theists susceptibility which seems of the same ilk to me. I am afraid I take some of your apparent flexibility much as I would take certain Victorian politenesses that were misleading about essential relations.)
I could just know it and never make the claim, maintaining my faith for myself and not requiring external validation. That could work but the charm quickly dispells under the first claim uttered to another person. If you are dependent on somehow converting others or having them accept that what you believe is true. If however you were content on your own or with others who have had similar experiences this is not the case.
I couldn't possibly know the limitations of such communication of course, but I do know what it is to be human, how society works, the relationship of a perspective to its environment, etc. It's from there that I make my argument. It's not about 'god' as you seem to be focusing on, it's about the claim - made by a person, how a person can know what they experience, etc. There are certain limitations on all that which I don't have to be god to 'know'.
I am not claiming that you are claiming to be a god, given what you claim to know. I am saying that you are stating as certain that no communication could take place between a God and person. I don't see how you could know this, especially given your own tentative philosophy.
No I'm sure you can be sure about a lot of things. I'm just not sure that being sure stand for anything outside the context in which said sureness is established, see? I'm also not sure it makes much difference directly, but there are a lot of indirect implications in framing the argument. As a person, I grant that each person (including myself) can possess all the sureness ever, perhaps. I don't think however, that such sureness establishes anything in other potential surenesses, or anything 'real' about what is not within the context making the claim of sureness.
I think you missed my point. My point was not focused on the sureness per se, but on the sureness about what is removed from you, given your philosophy about what you can know. You really cannot know what is possible in such a communication. I think many atheists think that saying what is and what is not possible is less a claim to knowledge than claims about what is. But this is not the case. You are claiming to know for sure what a God, if one existed, would be capable of and what all other humans are capable of and thus what the limitations of a communication would be between humans and God. I mean it makes me think of dogs that can smell cancer and very good poker players and how an island of color blind might treat an outsider.
It's not particularly efficient in many ways. It depends on the goal of the presentation does it not? If I seek wisdom or Truth, I shall bear the almost sure inneficiency such as not to deny the truth of what I think I see. If I seek to get laid, putting the tentativeness first will almost surely contradict my goal. It will reduce your 'scores' but 1) you are not correct - I speak from experience and 2) those connections may very well be on firmer ground. Many men don't notice that the sex is not as good when the ground is not firm, but, well, so what.
But I'm not sure you must be also. Then I have no problem with your position. You are not sure I or theists must be unsure or tentative. Now I consider your position consistant. Before it seemed like you were sure they could not know.
I just think it so and recognize that the extent of my certainty in this regard can really only be my own context. I do not insist it and cannot nor would not command it from you. I'm pretty sure though, if you're already sure - there's little possible motive for one to enter such a conversation other that proving something to someone like their intellectual prowess, or simply to preach about what they know.I think there is little point in trying to get someone to believe in God or to not believe in God, for example, unless the 'to be convinced' has expressed an interest in some way in shifting their position.
I don't want to punch you or prove you wrong really. I just wonder how my thoughts apply in other contexts and find amusement in the folly of thinking them relevant to more than just my own context.OK. My poorly chosen metaphor. But I think if you look back over your posts you will see why I might have thought you were making a case that you know they cannot have communicated to or been communicated to by God.
Nah I like a lot of theists. I have no need to steal their theism from them or punch it. I'm long since past it. There are a lot of opportunity costs for any choice and sometimes I think theists have it right. Not that there is any factuality behind their belief, but that their belief is factually impactfull on the world in a locally cohesive way.. and with their belief comes a strength I can't really know. I think it's kind of neat really, but have known since i was a child that religion just doesn't work for me. Not that you believe there is any factuality in their beliefs.
You don't seem to understand but maybe the thing a few paragraphs back cleared it up. I can be dead certain about anything. It's generally simply wrong generally wrong when I impose my certainty onto others, as religions do. I think though that if you are susceptable to religious thought, you will be religious and really, it's that simple. See this comes across as knowing what is really going on in 'them'. Again. I cannot see what you gain from on occasion saying you really are not sure. You are a believer. You know what the basis of their beliefs really is and must be. You know their psyhology, not just as trends or in individuals, but in believers as a whole. And you know that your position is distinct from their in that is not based on suseptibility or, I guess one could call it, temperment. You clearly to not have a problem knowing other minds and what they could possibly directly experience.
I can't imagine new ground coming out of this - because it seems to me you are being a bit dodgy. You can't really know for sure, and then a paragraph later blanket statements about the roots of their beliefs and, essentially a condescending universal theory about why they believe and are susceptible ( and implicitly that you are not - sort of a Calvinism in reverse. My sense is that your epistemology is lax in relation to yourself and does not meet the same rigorous demands you expect from theists in relation to what they know. I don't think the occasional but I can't really know outburst changes this. You know what is possible. Period. And I am an atheist in relation to your claims about what is possible.
Bye.
I worried to death about neo-solipsism as mentioned above, where someone is stated to be living in a "neo-solipsistic bubble". The old stuff I could cope wi
th but this neo stuff has me worried. Am I writing to myself ?
See 114 above !
I don't know what neo-solipsism exactly is, but 'solipsistic bubble' seems self-contradicting.
I don't know what neo-solipsism exactly is, but 'solipsistic bubble' seems self-contradicting.
You are on the money. I think it's self-contradictory, now you point it out,. I don't need to feel I am alone any longer UNLESS this neo-solipsism includes a bubble
wesmorris
05-31-08, 07:39 AM
I like bubbles.
I like bubbles.
Hands off ! I saw her first.
Leo Volont
06-01-08, 07:41 AM
Elements of some Religions are contradictory to the Moral Precepts of other Religions.
But without any Religion, there simply are no moral standards.
Materialists simply do not have morals.
Ethics and Legalisms are not really the same thing. Morality is self enforcing... one believes that Morality has a Spiritual Basis. But ethics and legalisms, as anyone working for Enron or the Mortgage Brokers will testify, are useless when there are no Regulatory Authorities.
Take Communism for an example. Under the Moral Influence of Russian Orthodox Communism, a Moral System was adopted to run not only the Government but the entire Society. But Religion was eliminated and Material Ethics was relied upon. Well, it all fell apart in corruption as everybody learned to get away with anything they could get away with. Nowadays, there is no crueler or more evil segment of Humanity than those Ex-Soviets, the Criminal Elements most at the forefront of rejecting the Orthodox Church, who were raised to a Material Morality, that is, no morality at all.
Now, I appreciate silly little girls, tired of going to Sunday School who think that they can have morality apart from Religion. But it simply is not true. All these Moral Atheists forget that they were raised by Religious Parents, in Religious Societies. Morality is in their Tradition and Culture. Would they be moral without such Traditions? We can see the answer to that. Every generation that has less of Religious Traditions is also proportionally less moral. Look at all the Corruption and Crime. Where does it come from?
Are Religious Communities PERFECTLY moral? No. But what of Communities that have no Religious Influence? They are Dark, Filthy, Dens of Violence and Decadance.
So, where do you live?
But without any Religion, there simply are no moral standards.
Utter bilge.
Simon Anders
06-01-08, 09:38 AM
I don't know what neo-solipsism exactly is, but 'solipsistic bubble' seems self-contradicting.
It is not self-contradictory. It is redundant. Or, if one was more sympathetic, it is an abstract concept - solipsism, in adjective form - tied to an image - bubble, for example, as in the boy with no immune system who had to live in a bubble of plastic, cut off, in many ways we take for granted, from others.
From the solipsist's perspective it is self-contradictory. But not from mine. I see it as isolating, at least intellectually. 'I am only in contact with the structures of my mind.' If Wes, for example, were to run around saying he was a solipsist - which I doubt he believes he is - in a bubble, THAT would be self-contradictory. Meaning is use and all that. As a criticism, on my part, it was certainly not self-contradictory.
Given what he believes and how he claims to come to it, it seems not simply rational, but almost necessary to demand how he knows what he knows about things that are not simply the structures of his own mind.
If someone puts forward the idea that their philosopy and ideas are all tentative and based on utilitarianism they open themelves up for challenges when they feel superior to other people who believe they are certain what external reality is really like - which, ironically, both you and Myles do believe in ways that Wes does not. (I did some research) They are also placing a skepticism, a wall or bubble, if you like, between themselves and whatever external reality there is or might be. Other people, of course, would be part of this external reality. Part of what we really cannot speak about. They cannot both put forward an ad hoc, merely utilitarian philosophy AND claim to be certain about what is REALLY going on in other people. Or rather one can do this. Wes is doing this. But it is self-contradictory. It creates a cake and eat it too situation.
Neo gets tacked on to solipsism because he is not making the claim that he is the only thing that exists. I'll leave you to connect the dots to why his philosophy is in many ways solipsistic functionally.
In any case, this is all natural. Strict guidelines for others and more laxness for oneself because one is right, anyway, or smarter, or never started an Inquisition, etc.
They can't know. They can't have contact.
(and yet somehow I can know this)
From the solipsist's perspective it is self-contradictory.
Which is all that matters. It's self-contradictory..
whitewolf
06-01-08, 01:30 PM
Because they judge god.
They judge 'him' by believing words in books are directly from 'him'.
They judge god by believing particular things about 'him'.
Stuff like that.
Just a thought.
Religions are an oxymoron. In their attempt to define gods, they limit them.
James R
06-01-08, 09:12 PM
Leo Volont:
But without any Religion, there simply are no moral standards.
Materialists simply do not have morals.
Rubbish.
Look at Bill Gates, the richest "materialist" in the United States. He runs a philanthropic foundation.
Ethics and Legalisms are not really the same thing. Morality is self enforcing... one believes that Morality has a Spiritual Basis. But ethics and legalisms, as anyone working for Enron or the Mortgage Brokers will testify, are useless when there are no Regulatory Authorities.
You think people will be good only if they are threatened with punishment for being bad?
What a dismal world you live in.
Take Communism for an example. Under the Moral Influence of Russian Orthodox Communism, a Moral System was adopted to run not only the Government but the entire Society. But Religion was eliminated and Material Ethics was relied upon. Well, it all fell apart in corruption as everybody learned to get away with anything they could get away with.
Corruption in Russian Communism arose more from the absence of a free press and the dictatorship of a select few, rather than from a lack of general morals.
Now, I appreciate silly little girls, tired of going to Sunday School who think that they can have morality apart from Religion. But it simply is not true. All these Moral Atheists forget that they were raised by Religious Parents, in Religious Societies. Morality is in their Tradition and Culture.
Most people in western countries these days have been raised in an effectively secular environment. Sure, they may tick off "Roman Catholic" on the census form, but they never attend church, they don't pray regularly, and they're more likely to watch The Simpsons than to read their bibles. Yet, strangely, most of them are not immoral.
Every generation that has less of Religious Traditions is also proportionally less moral. Look at all the Corruption and Crime. Where does it come from?
Look at Afganistan under the Taliban. It would be hard to find a society with more "religious traditions", strictly enforced by the clergy. Was Afganistan under the Taliban "more moral", do you think?
Carcano
06-01-08, 10:32 PM
Look at Bill Gates, the richest "materialist" in the United States. He runs a philanthropic foundation.
You think people will be good only if they are threatened with punishment for being bad?
Theres a story in the gospels about how Jesus regards the widow's mite coin offered as far more valuable to God than the gold of the wealthy, because thats all the old women had.
Its easy to give away 99 billion dollars if you already have 100 billion...and counting.
And its not that materialists cant think of a reason to be good unless there is punishment for evil. Its that they cant think of a reason to be good for its own sake...outside the sphere of one's own immediate relations where reciprocal effects apply.
Even Dawkins has stated publically that he cannot logically or scientifically explain his own sense of universal altruism.
Theres a story in the gospels about how Jesus regards the widow's mite coin offered as far more valuable to God than the gold of the wealthy, because thats all the old women had.
Its easy to give away 99 billion dollars if you already have 100 billion...and counting.
And its not that materialists cant think of a reason to be good unless there is punishment for evil. Its that they cant think of a reason to be good for its own sake...outside the sphere of one's own immediate relations where reciprocal effects apply.
Even Dawkins has stated publically that he cannot logically or scientifically explain his own sense of universal altruism.
Dawkins is making an honest statement. It is dishonest, however, to posit the existence of a god and the need for religion before people can behave well. Not everyone needs the control over their behaviour exercised by religion. Those who do simply cannot imagine life without it; that, in a nutshell, is their problem.
Elements of some Religions are contradictory to the Moral Precepts of other Religions.
But without any Religion, there simply are no moral standards.
Materialists simply do not have morals.
Ethics and Legalisms are not really the same thing. Morality is self enforcing... one believes that Morality has a Spiritual Basis. But ethics and legalisms, as anyone working for Enron or the Mortgage Brokers will testify, are useless when there are no Regulatory Authorities.
Take Communism for an example. Under the Moral Influence of Russian Orthodox Communism, a Moral System was adopted to run not only the Government but the entire Society. But Religion was eliminated and Material Ethics was relied upon. Well, it all fell apart in corruption as everybody learned to get away with anything they could get away with. Nowadays, there is no crueler or more evil segment of Humanity than those Ex-Soviets, the Criminal Elements most at the forefront of rejecting the Orthodox Church, who were raised to a Material Morality, that is, no morality at all.
Now, I appreciate silly little girls, tired of going to Sunday School who think that they can have morality apart from Religion. But it simply is not true. All these Moral Atheists forget that they were raised by Religious Parents, in Religious Societies. Morality is in their Tradition and Culture. Would they be moral without such Traditions? We can see the answer to that. Every generation that has less of Religious Traditions is also proportionally less moral. Look at all the Corruption and Crime. Where does it come from?
Are Religious Communities PERFECTLY moral? No. But what of Communities that have no Religious Influence? They are Dark, Filthy, Dens of Violence and Decadance.
So, where do you live?
I have seldom read such utter nonsense. You are projecting your need for religion to control your drives ,onto others. You simply cannot understand that it is possible to behave morally without some form of exterior control. Not everyone has that problem.
Even Dawkins has stated publically that he cannot logically or scientifically explain his own sense of universal altruism.
Maybe he should come here: we went through it ages ago...
and so have others.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=altruism+brain&meta=
wesmorris
06-02-08, 04:39 AM
Given what he believes and how he claims to come to it, it seems not simply rational, but almost necessary to demand how he knows what he knows about things that are not simply the structur