[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now see, what we have here are three attempts to define morality, by not really defining it. In short, whatever helps a group survive/expand. Well, if a group could expand by taking another groups resources, a group they could easily crush, that would be moral. Of course, if you ask some enviromentalists they’d make it seem as if exapansion is, well, immoral. The whole earth devouring, humanity as virus, thing. Then there’s simply conscience. And we all know that varies by extremes. [/quote]
Not exactly. What you are describing is ‘might makes right’, which some moral theories deploy (such as Christianity). I think that most of the moral schemes here are not quite that simple, in that if various groups did as you say, the population would flutter out. In short, such a mentality (if it were wide spread) would eventually get taken care of via natural selection. Mankind has evolved alturism though and empathy, which can be seen in primitive form by our closest ancestors (chimps and bonobos). [/quote]
Ok, allow me to be more direct. If a clearly superior group needed the resources that another clearly inferior group possessed, in order to continue it’s expansion (perhaps to a superpower scale), then it would be moral to take those resources?[/quote]
What about imperalism? Didn’t that exact thing happen? They didn’t see anything wrong with it(Except the colonized) Or what?
Ok, allow me to be more direct. If a clearly superior group needed the resources that another clearly inferior group possessed, in order to continue it’s expansion (perhaps to a superpower scale), then it would be moral to take those resources? [/quote]
In what sense? It would not be moral under most moral schemes. However, under some it would be moral.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The problem I’m seeing is that as long as a group could increase it’s survival, the means would be justified.[/quote]
This isn’t the case though, since as I pointed out, not all actions that promote initial benefits actually increase survival odds. In other words, if I steal something from another, then that benefits me short term - however now I am on the outs with that person. If that person actually represents a group of people, then I am on the outs with that group of people. Within a set of ‘norms’ there is some wiggle room, but morality schemas are generally very similar, because those schemas are good at promoting the groups survival.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If slaughtering the puny group next door actually does enrigh your group, then you’ve acted ‘good.’ If remaining peaceful, or if not subjugating yourself to an oppressive invader, gets your group slaughtered, then it’s ‘evil’ that has been vanquished and the ‘good’ have triumphed. Pure tooth and claw natural selection morality. Whatever works for your ‘group.’
[/quote]
This only works for small groups though. You cannot have a functioning society based on this type of morality.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let’s entertain that morality is written upon our DNA, expressed as empathy and altruism. Well, again, these things vary. [/quote]
To some extent, yes.
This is what we actually experience in nature, as various cultures have various morals.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Morality could stop with myself, or my family, or my neighborhood, or my city, and so on. If Joe Thug’s morality ends with his gang, and he robs and kills someone outside of that gang without much if any remorse, then he’s acted morally.[/quote]
Or your religious group, right?
He’s acted according to his morals, but not societies morals. You seem to be looking for a general absolute morality, and that’s not what we perceive in nature.
Ok, allow me to be more direct. If a clearly superior group needed the resources that another clearly inferior group possessed, in order to continue it’s expansion (perhaps to a superpower scale), then it would be moral to take those resources? Meatros wrote:
Meatros wrote:
In what sense? It would not be moral under most moral schemes. However, under some it would be moral.[/quote]
Aha! If that is your stance then you must conceede 1) The man in the video can pass no judgements, or make any moral criticisms. 2) And that religious people can do no moral wrong if the belief or action being considered is a moral good within their group. Otherwise you’re attempting to project your morality, absolutely. 3) And, this is exactly why Pat asked:
“This dude passes judgment on things he clearly does not understand or has any capability of understanding. He speaks of metaphysical precepts such as judgment and morality, well what is his basis for morality? What is a good act versus an evil act? What makes one good vs. the other evil. He thinks he is being all deep and critically thinking but isn’t. He’s really going on decency and morality with out basing those concepts on anything.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The problem I’m seeing is that as long as a group could increase it’s survival, the means would be justified.
Meatros wrote:
This isn’t the case though, since as I pointed out, not all actions that promote initial benefits actually increase survival odds. In other words, if I steal something from another, then that benefits me short term - however now I am on the outs with that person. If that person actually represents a group of people, then I am on the outs with that group of people. Within a set of ‘norms’ there is some wiggle room, but morality schemas are generally very similar, because those schemas are good at promoting the groups survival.[/quote]
Yet, people often prefer short term payoffs. Look at savings and debt. Look at sex before marriage and financial security. See those who’ll bust their butt working a part time job and attending college courses or a trade school. On the otherhand, look at those who’d rather use that time to party, hang out, and goof it up. So, is that it? Morality is a completely subjective time preference?
But, let’s say my group knocks over the punies (spelling?)–perhaps keeping a few to work on our infant industries in our new lands–and we prosper for a number of generations, with no end to our fortune in sight. Say you were standing in the shoes of one of the inheritors of this prosperity. Was it moral? Even if the group developed into a superpower, developed the ultimate weapon as a deterent, and with civil rights laws and everything, were those past actions moral?
Slightly different observation and scenario. Your answer seems to come back to the ‘bad’ guys always losing. But what if they don’t? What if they successfully rule with a bloody and iron fist, with no foreseeable end to their reign? Since the risk (conquering/slaving/subjugating) paid off handsomely for their group, then it must be moral.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If slaughtering the puny group next door actually does enrich your group, then you’ve acted ‘good.’ If remaining peaceful, or if not subjugating yourself to an oppressive invader, gets your group slaughtered, then it’s ‘evil’ that has been vanquished and the ‘good’ have triumphed. Pure tooth and claw natural selection morality. Whatever works for your ‘group.’
Meatros wrote:
This only works for small groups though. You cannot have a functioning society based on this type of morality.[/quote]
Some rather large societies, groups, nations, and empires have been built upon–and prospered from–conquest, slavery, genocide, oppression, etc. These nations must have carried out these acts with a moral authority. Some still do today. Oh, and ‘functioning?’ By what group’s standards do we define what is functional or dysfunctional for all of humanity? A little turnabout there. =P
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Morality could stop with myself, or my family, or my neighborhood, or my city, and so on. If Joe Thug’s morality ends with his gang, and he robs and kills someone outside of that gang without much if any remorse, then he’s acted morally.
Meatros wrote:
Or your religious group, right?
He’s acted according to his morals, but not societies morals. You seem to be looking for a general absolute morality, and that’s not what we perceive in nature. [/quote]
Well, there you go. You must see the gentlemen in the video as having no ability to make absolute moral judgements. Which is all Pat pointed out. Oh, I’m sure you’d see me in the same light. But, I make no claim to moral relativism. Though, I’m not sure you’d say my position was absolutely immoral. =P
I’ve been making lengthy responses without noticing something about the group survival/expansion as morality, position. If some of you have truly adopted this as an absolute in your relative morality, then Christians are one of the most moral people in all of history. This group, the Christian group, has survived and thrived, afterall. Any other consideration for determing this group’s morality would be relative.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve been making lengthy responses without noticing something about the group survival/expansion as morality, position. If some of you have truly adopted this as an absolute in your relative morality, then Christians are one of the most moral people in all of history. This group, the Christian group, has survived and thrived, afterall. Any other consideration for determing this group’s morality would be relative.[/quote]
…now, if you mean by “moral” that Christians have been very succesful at manipulating, indoctrinating, eliminating, confiscating, obfuscating and debilitating the various peoples and it’s possessions of many continents, then yes: they are the most moral people in all of history…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve been making lengthy responses without noticing something about the group survival/expansion as morality, position. If some of you have truly adopted this as an absolute in your relative morality, then Christians are one of the most moral people in all of history. This group, the Christian group, has survived and thrived, afterall. Any other consideration for determing this group’s morality would be relative.[/quote]
…now, if you mean by “moral” that Christians have been very succesful at manipulating, indoctrinating, eliminating, confiscating, obfuscating and debilitating the various peoples and it’s possessions of many continents, then yes: they are the most moral people in all of history…[/quote]
Here’s one for you, Eph…
I was awakened one night by a voice that said “Vishnu”. That’s all. So, I google Vishnu and Vishnu is God, in Hinduism. I am not Hindu.
I think that God speaks to us until we’re convinced. I hope it happens to you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Aha! If that is your stance then you must conceede 1) The man in the video can pass no judgements, or make any moral criticisms.[/quote]
This is a non sequitur - it does not follow from moral relativism (which I admitted to earlier in the thread, it’s a puzzle why your only catching up to it now).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
2) And that religious people can do no moral wrong if the belief or action being considered is a moral good within their group. [/quote]
Another non sequitur. Moral relativism does not equate to ‘no morality’.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Otherwise you’re attempting to project your morality, absolutely.[/quote]
Again, this does not follow. In order to make these assertions, you have to justify them with argumentation, not assertion. I can say that cake tastes better then crap because the flavors are more palatable to humans. I can use a number of subjective (but, in a sense, objective) criteria to differentiate between a like of ‘cake’ and a like of ‘crap’. In the end, it’s still a subjective taste, however there is more of a rational basis for liking cake over crap, the same goes for morality.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
3) And, this is exactly why Pat asked:
“This dude passes judgment on things he clearly does not understand or has any capability of understanding. He speaks of metaphysical precepts such as judgment and morality, well what is his basis for morality? What is a good act versus an evil act? What makes one good vs. the other evil. He thinks he is being all deep and critically thinking but isn’t. He’s really going on decency and morality with out basing those concepts on anything.” [/quote]
Yeah, Pat makes the same strawman that you do - in that he assumes relativism equates to no morality.
Further, he simply presupposes objective morality, without defining it or defending it. There is no reason to take such a view seriously.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yet, people often prefer short term payoffs. Look at savings and debt. Look at sex before marriage and financial security. See those who’ll bust their butt working a part time job and attending college courses or a trade school. On the otherhand, look at those who’d rather use that time to party, hang out, and goof it up. So, is that it? Morality is a completely subjective time preference?[/quote]
Individuals are irrelevant to the equation, since populations evolve, people don’t. As I said, there would be outliers and that societies have a rough standard of what constitutes moral behavior simply because not every behavior will lead to a functioning society.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But, let’s say my group knocks over the punies (spelling?)–perhaps keeping a few to work on our infant industries in our new lands–and we prosper for a number of generations, with no end to our fortune in sight. Say you were standing in the shoes of one of the inheritors of this prosperity. Was it moral? Even if the group developed into a superpower, developed the ultimate weapon as a deterent, and with civil rights laws and everything, were those past actions moral?
Slightly different observation and scenario. Your answer seems to come back to the ‘bad’ guys always losing. But what if they don’t? What if they successfully rule with a bloody and iron fist, with no foreseeable end to their reign? Since the risk (conquering/slaving/subjugating) paid off handsomely for their group, then it must be moral.[/quote]
You are ignoring my position and attempting to insert a strawman position. Why should I take your scenario seriously when you don’t seem to want to address what I’ve actually said?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Some rather large societies, groups, nations, and empires have been built upon–and prospered from–conquest, slavery, genocide, oppression, etc. These nations must have carried out these acts with a moral authority. Some still do today.[/quote]
Yes, that is true - and it kind of blows a hole in the idea of an objective morality, don’t you think?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, and ‘functioning?’ By what group’s standards do we define what is functional or dysfunctional for all of humanity? A little turnabout there. =P
[/quote]
By functioning, I mean, obviously, a society that is able to use it’s resources, to grow, and to maintain an equilibrium. A non functioning society would break down and the population would dwindle.
So it’s not by a groups ‘standards’. You are confusing functionality with morality. Functionality is more related to biology in the sense I am using.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, there you go. You must see the gentlemen in the video as having no ability to make absolute moral judgements. Which is all Pat pointed out. Oh, I’m sure you’d see me in the same light. But, I make no claim to moral relativism. Though, I’m not sure you’d say my position was absolutely immoral. =P [/quote]
I don’t make any claims about what your position is, you haven’t said it. I can make claims about which morality is better simply by examining them, as I’ve demonstrated.
By absolute morality all you are trying to say is the morality you accept, in order to argue for absolute morality you first have to define it and the defend it - not simply assume it.
“Absolute”? You seem to be making up strawmen here.
If surviving and thriving were the only conditions, you might have a point, but since they are not, you don’t. You need to pay attention to everything I’ve said, not just pick and choose. Further Christian morality is subjective as I’ve said. It is not ‘objective’ and it certainly isn’t aimed at survival and thriving. Let’s remember that Paul said that those who were able to take castration should take it. Let’s also remember that Hebrew morality indicates that the Hebrews have select rights over other groups to rampantly slaughter them. This is not conducive to group morality.
Nice try though, I appreciate the effort. I will grant that many of the Abrahamist codes of laws are useful to functioning societies and moral schema, but in general, when a group tries to segregate themselves they actually limit their potential - further when more and more people realize that the religion is based on incoherencies and falsehoods, those ‘laws’ that don’t make an sense are dropped - which is what has been happening since the enlightenment. Keep the good, trash the bad.
[quote]Meatros wrote:
Further Christian morality is subjective as I’ve said. It is not ‘objective’ and it certainly isn’t aimed at survival and thriving. [/quote]
In a sense, I am wrong here, since Christianity is an attempt at surviving after death, but this - as Nietzsche (sp?) pointed out, actually has the effect of devaluing life.
[quote]pat wrote:
Light has two particular infinite properties. First it travels at the speed of light which is time=0.
Second, a beam of light will continue infinitely so long it is not inhibited.
I think the confusion that I am having hinges on your use of the term ‘infinite’. Neither of your uses mean that light has been around for ever, correct? This is not what you are saying, right?
[/quote]
To the beam of light, time stands still. Times stands still yet it still moves through space time. But if you were riding on the beam of light, there would be no time for you in the universe. That which cannot have time applied to it, are eternal. It is eternal in the sense that it does not have the burden of time and is not subject to it. It is a really difficult concept to explain, but once you get it, it makes sense. It took many nights of cigars and whiskey before I was able to grasp it.
Actually, what we experience within this universe is a change of either material or energy into a different type of material/energy. As to requiring a temporal order, I’m not sure what you are referring to - but then again, I don’t think that time exists. I also don’t think that the universe was caused. In fact, I don’t think it’s logically possible for the universe to have been caused.
As to things in the universe not being caused - what about quantum fluctuations? Also, applying what occurs within the universe to the universe potentially commits the fallacy of composition.[/quote]
We have to agree on definitions of time. Time does not exist as it’s own precept. Time is a measurement and measures movement and change. For instance, a day is measured by the movement of a point on the earth relative to the axis of the earth. A month/ year is the distance the earth has moved relative to it’s orbit around the sun.
Quantum anything requires understanding of space-time.
I don’t think we are in danger of committing the fallacy of composition, but point it out if it does occur.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Pat let me try to clarify my position to answer what I believe you are asking.
The head of a religion (christianity for example) or any leader or the religion, doesn’t need to be the top guy, can have a non-religious purpose for delivering violence to another group, be it religious or non-religious. I.E the Jihad against the west, regardless of our religion. Even if the head or leader of the religion does not have religious motives, he may use religious motivation, to spur his people to fight the battle he wants them to fight. He has power and some or many will not question his power. Also he has the potential to have considerably more sway over some really feeble minded people who view the consequences of going against thier religious leaders as eternal damnation. It has happened before and it can happen again.
Atheists, do not have a set of rules by which to live, they are only grouped together by thier common disbelief in god or religion. There is no common morals or values systems. You can ask one athiest what good and evil is and get one answer and you can ask another and get another different answer. That being said, you can do the same excercise with any religious folk, and while thier answers may be more uniform, there will still be large discrepancies. What you do not have with atheism, is a large central power structure that hold great influence over the masses. Therefore, no great wars can be made in the name of atheism. If an atheist leader of a nation starts a war, it’s motivation is nationalistic, not religious. Even if his targets are of a religious nature.
Contrary to popular belief, religion does not hold the patent on morals or values systems. I actually have my own moral code and it was developed by observing other human beings. My father, my mother, my aunts and uncles, my heroes, my friends, etc… I’m guessing more of your actual practiced morals and values have been developed the same way, not from reading the bible or listening to sermons. I could be wrong though.
V[/quote]
OK. So what is morality?
What is Good? What is evil?
What makes an act good or evil?
I want to know the basis of your morality, not the where, the why…[/quote]
I’m not atheist so I’m not sure how this would advance the discussion any. I’ll humor you though so we can get on with the discussion.
Morality to me, is what my personal beliefs are and how I act accordingly. My set of morals or my self rules if you will, is not measured on a continuum of good or evil as you would define it. My morals lead me to seek experience, nothing more, nothing less. However, I thirst for advanced civilization experiences, I urge to experience bliss as true as I can experience it, therefore for me, lifting up those around me seems like the best way to gain this experience. My studies have lead me to view people who try to attain bliss through pushing others down, do not really raise themselves up, they only percieve it that way for a short time. This is simplistic but I don’t have time to go on a 3 page explanation here, you get my point.
Good and evil are entirely mad made phenomena, and within the scope of humanity, I believe they exist, yet outside of humanity, they do not. An act of evil to me would be an intentional act which would likley result in a negative or undesireable outcome for another human or another living being. an act of good, would be the opposite, an intentional act which would likley result in a positive or desireable outcome for another human or another living being.
To clarify what I mean by good and evil not existing outside the human reality. If man nuked the world and tore it apart destroying it, that in my mind would be an act of evil. However, if a commet slams into the earth, ripping it apart and destroying it, that is not an act of evil. The result is the same, yet a human defines one as a judgeable act and one as not judgeable. If people truly believed that a spirit is everlasting, or immortal, or a peice of god, then truly our essence cannot be killed no matter what physical fate we suffer here on earth. In that case, murder to me while viewed in the human experience is evil, the two souls who have the exchange most likley do not view it that way and they both most likley carry on with whatever it is sould do when not inhabiting a human body. Maybe they grab another human to experience some more 3d living, maybe they move on to some other thing.
So for me, good acts are ones that help me reach my personal goals, based on my moral foundation. I want to experience 3D bliss in this lifetime, so things that help me get to that reality are viewed by me to be good and things which take me farther away from that are bad. IF however someone had some really opposite beliefs and desires, if they came here seeking the experience of pain and suffering, well then they would be at odds with my desires and it would be reasonable for me to eliminate or help eliminate that force. Be it a singular man or a group of people. So for me killing is absolutely not a black and white, good or evil deed. It is entirely dependant upon the circumstances, and only for me is it relative. I think there are a lot of other humans who are looking to experience a blissful existance here, so I don’t feel like I am out on an island alone.
Hopefully I have answered your questions in a sufficient manner to get the ball rolling again, however like I siad, I believe in a god or a source and life after death, i’m just not into any organized religion.
V[/quote]
I took your disdain for organized religion as you being atheist, my bad. Anyway, I think your explained yourself very well. I agree with a lot of what you said, but I do not agree with morality, good or evil being remotely relative in any way though.
I see these ideas as only applicable to those who have freewill. If you are not free to choose, you cannot be committing a good or evil act.
If you tie a bomb to your waist, walk in to a coffee shop and blow your self up that would be evil. If someone ties a bomb to you, throws you in a coffee shop and blows you up, you committed no evil.
[quote]orion wrote:
Therefore they did not kill in the name of atheism, but of communism.
[/quote]
Well, except that they did.
[/quote]
Is the limit to your evidence based on the amount that you assert this?
How do you ‘kill in the name of atheism’? What does that look like?
.[/quote]
Well, you take an atheist person or persons, ok? Call them the something like the “League of the Militant Godless.” Then either put rifles in their hands, or carry the rifles on their behalf. Then persecute the religious. They don’t neccessarily need to be exterminated all in one go, mind you. They simply need to be controlled and subjugated.
[/quote]
And where was there ever stand alone militant atheism?
[/quote]
Stand alone?[/quote]
Well I say political religion, you say atheism.
They were atheists but just because they were gnostic whorshippers on a jihad, their god was a jealous god.
No militant true believer accepts or respects other religions that has little to do with what shape the religion has.
So you would need to show me a belief system that centers around the fact that there is no god and has some collectivist militant agenda.
Just because quasi religious movemenst happened to be atheists does not mean that their atheism made them violent, its like claiming that all sun whorshippers are violent even though there is a range from complete hippies to the aztecs.
Atheism is like sun whorshipping in that respect, it is not a defining characteristicm it just happens to be there.
[/quote]
You can also flip this around and use this exact same logic when accusing religion of source which bad things are done.
I cannot speak for other religions because I do not know them as well, but I can assure you anybody who does evil or speaks evil because of or for Christianity are violating it’s most basic of tenants. Christians are called upon to never do evil even to achieve good.
What is good? Well, something that is beneficial to the “group” you are a part of. f.eks.
Murder isn’t generealy looked well upon, it damages the pack, and doesn’t bring anything other than fear and so forth - and unnatural decrease in population.
Don’t know if my idea gets through properly. I guess what I’m saying is:
“Good is defined by the group one exists in”, since most groups are different on alot of levels, good must be a relative term.
By benefitial I mean whatever helps the group expand.
I guess it’s kinda the same as meatros, so this post is kinda redundant
[/quote]
I appreciate the answers. You seem to have a very utilitarian view.
I would say a good act is relative, but “good” itself is not. For instance, if you buy a car for a poor american to get to work, that would be a good act. If you buy a car for someone in Darfur, where it would be useless them, it is not a good act as it does nothing for them; that says nothing about intention though.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now see, what we have here are three attempts to define morality, by not really defining it. In short, whatever helps a group survive/expand. Well, if a group could expand by taking another groups resources, a group they could easily crush, that would be moral. Of course, if you ask some enviromentalists they’d make it seem as if exapansion is, well, immoral. The whole earth devouring, humanity as virus, thing. Then there’s simply conscience. And we all know that varies by extremes. [/quote]
True, but they are difficult questions. They are about as abstract as concepts get. My point in asking atheists specifically, is that as evidenced in the video that started the thread, the term is used by them a lot. If you recall he kept saying things like “You are ‘better’ than this ‘book’” and “I am better and more moral than this book”, etc. He immediately put the poor evangelical dude on the defensive and he could never recover. I would have eaten the guy for lunch. Atheists like to deal in the concrete, which is fine, but if you start dealing in the abstract and define them as relative things we have a problem. You cannot determine on thing is better than another, or more moral or what ever if it’s all relative. If it’s relative, then you can never discern one is “more moral” or better or anything. That is the biggest problem with relative morality.
The definitions or descriptions I have heard so far basically boils down to this “morality is relative, to a point”. This of course will not stand. But if you look at the exercise and the responses in general, everybody has a sense of morality, right and wrong, but are having a hell of a time describing it, further cannot describe where it comes from. Not to worry,I haven’t exempted myself from the exercise, my responses are forth coming.
I have squats today, I usually think clearer after a good squat session.
A lot has gone on since I last posted but I wanted to respond to sloths idea that the guy in the video has no basis for his morals, or that his morals should only apply to his group or whatever. Based on the aforementioned survival theory, if something helps the group prosper then it is good/moral if something is detrimental to the group it is bad/evil.
So we could look at the jihad against the russians when they invaded afgahnistan as a moral and actually good use of violence by a muslim group. However, the current jihad against non-believers, particularly westerners, is not moral because it is not enhancing the survival of the group. It is religiously motivated and thier benefit is in an afterlife that cannot be proven or experienced.
Thier violence based on this premise is no different than someone who drowns thier 6 kids because the voices told them to. This is why the atheist has a moral highground over religion. He bases his morals on tangible measurable events, whereas a religious person CAN measure thier morals on tangible things, but they can also measure their morals on an invisible, untouchable, unkowable set of events that may or may not happen after the body dies.
If christians want to claim thier morality is because of thier own unkowable set of post human life circumstances or events, then they have no right to challenge another group or individuals ideas about thier own post life circumstances or events. And if that means muslims have to kill christians to get to heaven, then christians should accept that and offer themselves to the muslims as sacrifices so they will both go to thier respective heavans. After all, helping a muslim achieve thier heavan by your own death must be a sacrifice big enough to get you into christian heaven.
The problem is that christians want to say the muslim “religion” or set of beliefs on the afterlife is wrong. The Muslims want to say the christian “religion” or set of beliefs on the afterlife is wrong, but in doing so they have to deep down somewhere know that thier religion is set upon just as much make believe stuff as the others. This conundrum is WHY organized religions are more dangerous and harmful to the human race than any other group. In order to accept your own religion 100% and reject another religion 100% you actually have to abandon logic. When you abandon logic in one area, I feel like it sets people up for irrational behavior, or at least the potential for irrational behavior down the road.
If you could experience my family, you would be able to see clearly that I am the single most stable person in all of my extended family. The most religious people in my family are the least emotionally stable. They have the most problems and they cannot deal with them on thier own. Some have come to me for help, wary, knowing I’m not a believer in thier religion. Some I have helped, others have rejected my logic and have went back to thier religious teachings to help them through thier problems. Sometimes thier situations improve and sometimes they don’t. But the common theme is that once I can get someone using logic to solve thier day to day problems, even if they still hold onto the idea of jesus and his sacrifice and striving to be like him. That can work great, but they still need to apply logic on the day to day stuff, the bible cannot help you there and may actually hurt you if you follow it’s teachings in certain situations. Especially interpersonal and family relations.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
A lot has gone on since I last posted but I wanted to respond to sloths idea that the guy in the video has no basis for his morals, or that his morals should only apply to his group or whatever. [/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
We have to agree on definitions of time. Time does not exist as it’s own precept. Time is a measurement and measures movement and change.[/quote]
I doubt we will agree on the nature of time - no offense. We might, but I have found that not a lot of people hold to the B-Theory of time. More people just accept the A-Theory, even though I do not think it jives with the theory of relativity.
In short, I do not think that time exists. I do not think that it is a measurement, change, etc. I think it is useful to talk of such things in such terms, but ultimately when we get down to the ontology of the matter, I think that the past, present, and future all exist. The A Theory, which I’m assuming you hold to (just because most people do, if you don’t, my apologies) is the view that the past existed, the present is the only thing that exists, and the future will exist. Talking about time is very complicated and I’m not an expert, so if anything is confusing please point it out because I’m sure that it has to do with my explaining of the concepts as opposed to the concepts themselves.
[quote]pat wrote:
For instance, a day is measured by the movement of a point on the earth relative to the axis of the earth. A month/ year is the distance the earth has moved relative to it’s orbit around the sun.[/quote]
Fair enough.
[quote]pat wrote:
Quantum anything requires understanding of space-time. [/quote]
That’s true, but I’m not sure how that relates to what I was putting forth. It seems to me that if we accept the A series and we suppose that something can come from nothing, then the only way that this can make sense is if it were uncaused. To cause something is to act upon space/time/material/energy. One cannot cause ‘nothing’ to do something, since there is nothing upon which to act. This is one of the reasons I think that the Kalam cosmological argument (as well as other cosmological arguments) do not work. The other, more important reason is because all cosmological arguments posit the A theory of time - which I do not think actually makes sense. I would say this latter reason takes precedence over the former.
[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t think we are in danger of committing the fallacy of composition, but point it out if it does occur. [/quote]
I do, but I think we are more endanger of getting the issue muddled, primarily because I am jumping back and forth between assuming the A theory and the B theory of time. I think you are intelligent and can keep up, however I am not so sure that I am able to communicate these issues properly (in otherwords, if there is a jumble, it’s most likely because I’m not articulating things properly).
Incidentally, my main problem with morality arguments is that while I think cultural relativism makes sense, I’m not entirely convinced that morality is coherent. I find a lot of sympathy with the non cognitive view of morality (which is different and not dependent on the non cognitive argument against god’s existence).
Reading through that I think I left an idea fluttering in the wind a little. The idea of christianity in my opinion, if you look only at jesus, his life and trials, his teachings. I think that is a good thing for people to learn and understand. But I think the centralized power structure of the church is an abomination and a disservice to the teachings of humility and being humble and loving that jesus tought.
The high steeples, the massive decorations, the painted glass. Everything about a church goes against what I think the person jesus would have been ok with. I just see the religion of christianity to be a farse. It seems like once jesus was gone, there were several power grabs, and each time things got changed and altered and because these people were close to jesus, the changes were credible and things may have even been re-written to suit one or the others personal needs.
So again, I think the teachings of jesus are a great thing, I’m not going as far as believing he is the christ, and I must accept him as my savior to get to heavan, but I think if people followed his lead, the world would be a beter place. I think the catholic faith would be better off decentralizing. Getting rid of the stupid rituals and sacraments and the “show” and get back to focusing on teaching people that the real way to get to “heavan” is to act like jesus as much as you can.
That would make it a much more tolerable religion, even though I would still not be a part of it, I think it would serve humanity better than christianity is now.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
A lot has gone on since I last posted but I wanted to respond to sloths idea that the guy in the video has no basis for his morals, or that his morals should only apply to his group or whatever. [/quote]
Not my idea. I’m using their idea against them. [/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve been making lengthy responses without noticing something about the group survival/expansion as morality, position. If some of you have truly adopted this as an absolute in your relative morality, then Christians are one of the most moral people in all of history. This group, the Christian group, has survived and thrived, afterall. Any other consideration for determing this group’s morality would be relative.[/quote]
…now, if you mean by “moral” that Christians have been very succesful at manipulating, indoctrinating, eliminating, confiscating, obfuscating and debilitating the various peoples and it’s possessions of many continents, then yes: they are the most moral people in all of history…[/quote]
Here’s one for you, Eph…
I was awakened one night by a voice that said “Vishnu”. That’s all. So, I google Vishnu and Vishnu is God, in Hinduism. I am not Hindu.
I think that God speaks to us until we’re convinced. I hope it happens to you.[/quote]
…you seem to be hearing a lot of voices HH. Perhaps you should have that checked out?
