|
On April 23 2013 23:20 woreyour wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 22:57 kerpal wrote:On April 23 2013 22:29 woreyour wrote:On April 23 2013 00:34 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.  100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves. If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history. It not a matter of who has worse morality than Catholicism, any morality that are based in religion can be really conflicting with morals of other people or other religion. I really think Religion misunderstand morality and interchanged it with beliefs. Claiming their beliefs to be moral. Say eating pork is immoral for a Muslim but we non muslims in general see it is ridiculous. Jerking off is immoral for a catholic but what if it was a wet dream? If we remove all the beliefs of such religions then everything would be fine. Thus no need for religion to be "moral", you just need to think it through. But society functions based on people imposing their morality on one another. I'm sure you can see that plenty of people could 'think it through' and come to the conclusion that that are totally justified in killing someone. To be less sensational, if someone cons you out of all your money, they might consider that you aren't deserving to keep what you are too dumb to protect. But society has defined that as illegal. Everyone has been very down on religion (particularly catholicism) as having a bad moral track record, but what about atheism/secularism's track record? If we're judging a worldview based on it's adherent's actions then we could easily fill pages on the evils committed by people who weren't following any particular God. I really think that would be the case 50? 100? years ago when education is not readily available and people are more "gullible"? The Internet is here. We are more dependent to technology. Media is on top of things. Little news, events spread like wildfire via social media. In a way it teaches us what is acceptable or not. It is being judge by the whole wide world. The effects of religion in modern society is getting less important as science provides us explanation. Religion in modern society makes people go backward if they preach their nonsense. It is good if they herd people to be good but to what extent? To be closed minded? It is not about atheism vs theism track record, its about what works now, what is effective or more productive.
I have had my fair share of education, but I don't remember any of it being about my morality. How does education lead to us being better people?
I certainly don't think that the internet is helping people be more moral! Even in the news, it's more about being judgemental of other people rather than what is right and what is wrong, as for social media, the day my facebook feed get's to decide what is moral will be a sad day. Morality defined by the most vocally ignorant?
Religion in modern society makes people go backward if they preach their nonsense.
uuh... do you actually read how that makes you sound?
Here's an interesting fact, in england, the universities with the largest Christian unions are typically the more academic ones, like oxford and cambridge. (I could go in to why, but at very least it shows being intelligent and educated doesn't 'cure' religion)
|
Being educated dose reduce the chance of you being religious, because the reality of the universe often contradicts religious claims.That's why religion is dying, but it wasn't in the past. It's also why religion is more widespread in less educated places like Africa and the middle east.
However, it does not cure it. No matter how much you learn about the universe, you can always come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be disproved.
The only cure is critical thinking. When you have that, and you apply it to everything, including religion, the only way to be religious is to be deceived; to be given false evidence, and to have real evidence hidden from you.
With critical thinking, you realize that religions have no more evidence than fairies, ogres, or elves, or anything else from the literally infinitely long list of things that could possibly exist. I can come up with an infinite amount of things that could exist, and that can not be disproved. The only way to filter all of that trash out is with critical thinking.
Also, being religious increases the risk of being immoral, because most religious texts and teachings are immoral. If you are religious, you are more likely to take those texts to heart. Most people will reject it and use their own morality instead, but some will be effected by it.
As we can clearly see, education reduces the chance of being religious, since the more educated countries are less religious. .
|
On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason.
I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow.
Hope that clears that up?
|
On April 23 2013 23:47 kerpal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral. Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason. I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow. Hope that clears that up?
Purpose and meaning are still as subjective as they were before. My parents may have created me for a purpose, and I may get a purpose from them. Or I may not. I could easily reject what they want me to do.
If you're going to call that objective purpose, then you've proven that god wouldn't give any more purpose than what already exists anyway, which is what I'm saying.
Same thing if a scientist creates a life form, and tells it to do stuff. He created the life form for a purpose. This gives just as much, or little, purpose as if a god created humanity.
|
On April 23 2013 23:47 vOdToasT wrote:
Being educated dose reduce the chance of you being religious, because the reality of the universe often contradicts religious claims. That's why religion is dying, but it wasn't in the past. It's also why religion is more widespread in less educated places like Africa and the middle east.
However, it does not cure it. No matter how much you learn about the universe, you can always come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be disproved.
The only cure is critical thinking. When you have that, and you apply it to everything, including religion, the only way to be religious is to be deceived; to be given false evidence, and to have real evidence hidden from you.
With critical thinking, you realize that religions have no more evidence than fairies, ogres, or elves, or anything else from the literally infinitely long list of things that could possibly exist. I can come up with an infinite amount of things that could exist, and that can not be disproved. The only way to filter all of that trash out is with critical thinking.
So critically speaking, did Jesus:
A) exist
B) teach things
C) rise from the dead?
I've thought about these things long (and yes.. critically) and I firmly believe that he did. So do many other intelligent people. Even reading wiki on those topics will show you that the issue more complicated than "clever people think Jesus was a myth and stoopid people still believe in him."
|
On April 23 2013 23:53 kerpal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:47 vOdToasT wrote:
Being educated dose reduce the chance of you being religious, because the reality of the universe often contradicts religious claims. That's why religion is dying, but it wasn't in the past. It's also why religion is more widespread in less educated places like Africa and the middle east.
However, it does not cure it. No matter how much you learn about the universe, you can always come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be disproved.
The only cure is critical thinking. When you have that, and you apply it to everything, including religion, the only way to be religious is to be deceived; to be given false evidence, and to have real evidence hidden from you.
With critical thinking, you realize that religions have no more evidence than fairies, ogres, or elves, or anything else from the literally infinitely long list of things that could possibly exist. I can come up with an infinite amount of things that could exist, and that can not be disproved. The only way to filter all of that trash out is with critical thinking. So critically speaking, did Jesus: A) exist B) teach things C) rise from the dead? I've thought about these things long (and yes.. critically) and I firmly believe that he did. So do many other intelligent people. Even reading wiki on those topics will show you that the issue more complicated than "clever people think Jesus was a myth and stoopid people still believe in him."
You're probably biased (and therefor not thinking critically). I also don't think you're completely intellectually honest. Or, you are simply ignorant. People from lots of religions say they thought about their religion long and critically, but they can't all be right. However, they can all be wrong. And comically enough, almost all of them pick the religion of the country they were born in.
But if you have good evidence for your beliefs, I want to know what that evidence is. Send me a PM with your reasons for believing this. If you're actually right, I will convert.
|
On April 23 2013 23:49 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:47 kerpal wrote:On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral. Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason. I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow. Hope that clears that up? Purpose and meaning are still as subjective as they were before. My parents may have created me for a purpose, and I may get a purpose from them. Or I may not. I could easily reject what they want me to do. If you're going to call that objective purpose, then you've proven that god wouldn't give any more purpose than what already exists anyway, which is what I'm saying. Same thing if a scientist creates a life form, and tells it to do stuff. He created the life form for a purpose. This gives just as much, or little, purpose as if a god created humanity.
Yup. Except scale everything up because God creates not only you, but the entire universe for you to live in.
Subjective purpose to me suggests that you decide your purpose, which clearly isn't the case as you already have a purpose, which you are choosing to accept or reject.
I'm not saying that you will accept God's purpose, I'm just saying that if he exists he has one, which you seem to understand/agree. As that purpose exists regardless of your decision to follow it, I would call it an objective purpose.
In rejecting God's purpose you might decide that you choose your own, which would be a subjective purpose, but doesn't change the fact that there was a pre-existing, objective purpose.
|
On April 24 2013 00:00 kerpal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:49 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 23:47 kerpal wrote:On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral. Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason. I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow. Hope that clears that up? Purpose and meaning are still as subjective as they were before. My parents may have created me for a purpose, and I may get a purpose from them. Or I may not. I could easily reject what they want me to do. If you're going to call that objective purpose, then you've proven that god wouldn't give any more purpose than what already exists anyway, which is what I'm saying. Same thing if a scientist creates a life form, and tells it to do stuff. He created the life form for a purpose. This gives just as much, or little, purpose as if a god created humanity. Yup. Except scale everything up because God creates not only you, but the entire universe for you to live in. Subjective purpose to me suggests that you decide your purpose, which clearly isn't the case as you already have a purpose, which you are choosing to accept or reject. I'm not saying that you will accept God's purpose, I'm just saying that if he exists he has one, which you seem to understand/agree. As that purpose exists regardless of your decision to follow it, I would call it an objective purpose. In rejecting God's purpose you might decide that you choose your own, which would be a subjective purpose, but doesn't change the fact that there was a pre-existing, objective purpose.
Pre-existing purposes exist without god anyway, so he doesn't change anything (speaking hypothetically, assuming he exists). It's the exact same thing except "more awesome, because he created everything!!!!!111"
|
Did we just come to an agreement in a thread about religion?
|
On April 24 2013 00:15 kerpal wrote:
Did we just come to an agreement in a thread about religion?
We seem to agree on this issue.
Now, if you have evidence for christianity, I'm actually interested. I will either realize that it's actually true (and I will avoid eternal torture) or I will understand how someone can think critically and still end up being christian. It will be interesting either way.
|
I have had my fair share of education, but I don't remember any of it being about my morality. How does education lead to us being better people?
I certainly don't think that the internet is helping people be more moral! Even in the news, it's more about being judgemental of other people rather than what is right and what is wrong, as for social media, the day my facebook feed get's to decide what is moral will be a sad day. Morality defined by the most vocally ignorant?
Education? history, social sciences, ethics maybe? Those stuff teach you a bit of morality, one way or another. taught you what was bad, what was acceptable.
Yes, I would say the internet is not the most moral source but that is because the material you are looking at is immoral, there is moral content in the internet too. Lots of websites, university studies all those stuff. Personal development websites and the list go on.
Religion in modern society makes people go backward if they preach their nonsense.
uuh... do you actually read how that makes you sound?
Here's an interesting fact, in england, the universities with the largest Christian unions are typically the more academic ones, like oxford and cambridge. (I could go in to why, but at very least it shows being intelligent and educated doesn't 'cure' religion)[/QUOTE]
Well because most of the oldest and largest schools were mostly Christian founded in England or all over the world. Christian/catholic/protestant whatever branch it is founded schools and thats where they would evangelize, instill their doctine.
I believe there is morality without religion, a morality without dogmatic commands but of rational values and unbreached respect for the life of the individual.
|
On April 24 2013 00:27 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 00:15 kerpal wrote:
Did we just come to an agreement in a thread about religion? We seem to agree on this issue. Now, if you have evidence for christianity, I'm actually interested. I will either realize that it's actually true (and I will avoid eternal torture) or I will understand how someone can think critically and still end up being christian. It will be interesting either way.
sent.
Obviously we don't agree about everything, but I'm surprised in a thead like this to agree about ANYTHING. 
|
On April 23 2013 23:53 kerpal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:47 vOdToasT wrote:
Being educated dose reduce the chance of you being religious, because the reality of the universe often contradicts religious claims. That's why religion is dying, but it wasn't in the past. It's also why religion is more widespread in less educated places like Africa and the middle east.
However, it does not cure it. No matter how much you learn about the universe, you can always come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be disproved.
The only cure is critical thinking. When you have that, and you apply it to everything, including religion, the only way to be religious is to be deceived; to be given false evidence, and to have real evidence hidden from you.
With critical thinking, you realize that religions have no more evidence than fairies, ogres, or elves, or anything else from the literally infinitely long list of things that could possibly exist. I can come up with an infinite amount of things that could exist, and that can not be disproved. The only way to filter all of that trash out is with critical thinking. So critically speaking, did Jesus: A) exist B) teach things C) rise from the dead? I've thought about these things long (and yes.. critically) and I firmly believe that he did. So do many other intelligent people. Even reading wiki on those topics will show you that the issue more complicated than "clever people think Jesus was a myth and stoopid people still believe in him."
A) Probably. Many historians agree that two events occurred: that Jesus was baptized, and that he was crucified.
It is somewhat perplexing that there are no contemporary sources on his existence (the earliest sources can be found usually at least 30-40 years after his death), but I am not an expert and so I will defer that to people who actually know what they're talking about. I have my own ideas, but obviously they are biased and may not even be accurate.
B) Who knows? There are only really two things that historians agree upon with regards to Jesus and this is not one of them.
C) Almost certainly not.
There are hundreds of religions just like Christianity that make claims just like these. You clearly have rejected them, or are ignorant of them, since you believe in Christianity.
My guess is this is because of the environment you were born in, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you actually independently came to the conclusion that Christianity is true all by yourself.
It's rather funny that the vast majority of people in this world only seem to hold the beliefs they were taught as children to be true, don't you think?
|
On April 24 2013 00:00 kerpal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:49 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 23:47 kerpal wrote:On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral. Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason. I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow. Hope that clears that up? Purpose and meaning are still as subjective as they were before. My parents may have created me for a purpose, and I may get a purpose from them. Or I may not. I could easily reject what they want me to do. If you're going to call that objective purpose, then you've proven that god wouldn't give any more purpose than what already exists anyway, which is what I'm saying. Same thing if a scientist creates a life form, and tells it to do stuff. He created the life form for a purpose. This gives just as much, or little, purpose as if a god created humanity. Yup. Except scale everything up because God creates not only you, but the entire universe for you to live in. Subjective purpose to me suggests that you decide your purpose, which clearly isn't the case as you already have a purpose, which you are choosing to accept or reject. I'm not saying that you will accept God's purpose, I'm just saying that if he exists he has one, which you seem to understand/agree. As that purpose exists regardless of your decision to follow it, I would call it an objective purpose. In rejecting God's purpose you might decide that you choose your own, which would be a subjective purpose, but doesn't change the fact that there was a pre-existing, objective purpose.
Even if this is true, it seems to me that if God exists and created us, then God's purpose for us was to create our own purpose. Otherwise why are we (hat tip to Sartre) forced to do so as part of our existence? If this is true, then our subjective purpose is our only purpose.
Of course, I think that most religious folks would say that God's purpose for us is for us to choose 'Correctly', but I don't think this follows whatsoever if one holds a more neutral (non-religious) view of what God is.
|
On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
|
On April 24 2013 04:39 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral. I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
Omnipotence is impossible. It is literally not possible for anything to be omnipotent. You can't create a challenge so hard that no one can solve it, because the omnipotent one could solve it. If he can't, then he's not omnipotent.
Also, you can't make 2 + 2 = 5.
You can't create a square circle.
And you can't make rape moral. 
And if he was omnipotent, he'd be evil anyway... and in that case, fuck him, lol.
|
On April 24 2013 04:46 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:39 Birdie wrote:On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral. I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral. Omnipotence is impossible. It is literally not possible for anything to be omnipotent. You can't create a challenge so hard that no one can solve it, because the omnipotent one could solve it. If he can't, then he's not omnipotent. Also, you can't make 2 + 2 = 5. And if he was omnipotent, he'd be evil anyway... and in that case, fuck him, lol.
Come now, I'm sure you can do better than "omnipotence isn't possible because it's impossible."
|
On April 24 2013 04:50 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:46 vOdToasT wrote:On April 24 2013 04:39 Birdie wrote:On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral. I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral. Omnipotence is impossible. It is literally not possible for anything to be omnipotent. You can't create a challenge so hard that no one can solve it, because the omnipotent one could solve it. If he can't, then he's not omnipotent. Also, you can't make 2 + 2 = 5. And if he was omnipotent, he'd be evil anyway... and in that case, fuck him, lol. Come now, I'm sure you can do better than "omnipotence isn't possible because it's impossible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
Omnipotence is logically not possible.
Neither is a God that is both omniscient and benevolent (nor a God that is omniscient and has granted us free will)
|
On April 24 2013 05:36 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:50 Birdie wrote:On April 24 2013 04:46 vOdToasT wrote:On April 24 2013 04:39 Birdie wrote:On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral. I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral. Omnipotence is impossible. It is literally not possible for anything to be omnipotent. You can't create a challenge so hard that no one can solve it, because the omnipotent one could solve it. If he can't, then he's not omnipotent. Also, you can't make 2 + 2 = 5. And if he was omnipotent, he'd be evil anyway... and in that case, fuck him, lol. Come now, I'm sure you can do better than "omnipotence isn't possible because it's impossible." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradoxOmnipotence is logically not possible. Neither is a God that is both omniscient and benevolent (nor a God that is omniscient and has granted us free will)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Proposed_answers
Don't link wikipedia and not read wikipedia.
|
On April 24 2013 04:39 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:36 vOdToasT wrote:On April 23 2013 07:29 Birdie wrote:On April 22 2013 23:38 vOdToasT wrote:On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote:I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it. 100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole". Also, please read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=346001Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal. That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is. I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism. It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans. 2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind. So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it? Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand. ' It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal. If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever. If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral. I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
Wait a minute
Surely it would be possible to be omnipotent (if we assume that omnipotence itself is possible, which I don't, but whatever) and evil?
Given the nature of life in this universe, if a god existed and was omnipotent, he would have to be evil, or at the very least indifferent.
Are we supposed to learn morality from someone who lacks it?
A proposed answer:
A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or Richard Swinburne is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he can't, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18 which says it is "impossible for God to lie." This raises the question, similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma, of where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey, comes from. According to these theologians, this law is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience or omnibenevolence. God obeys the laws of logic because God is eternally logical in the same way that God doesn't perform evil actions because God is eternally good. So, God, by nature logical and unable to violate the laws of logic, cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force. This is similar to the Hebrews 6:18 verse, which teaches that God, by nature honest, cannot lie.
According to this answer, god could not change what is moral. He could not make rape moral (although he does think it's ok according to the bible), or selfless acts immoral. However, a religious person would just say that he is also incapable of lying, and so if he tells you that something immoral is moral, it only seems immoral to you because you're a dumb human.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
