Ameen, thank you.
Are you Muslim btw?
What are you, and why?
(if you don’t mind me asking)
Heh, well if there were to happen to be any sort of a theologist anywhere in there, he/she/it probably would
Studying it for 8 years alongside RCIA was enough for me, haha.
1 Like
So, you know, there is a woowoo thread, lol.
Just found this and skimmed it. It’s kind of a big deal to me. I’ve been searching for answers (O Brother allusion) for years. Never found an “answer” so developed my own concept. Certainly not an original concept, but it is working for me.
An atheist for most of my life, that belief ended up leading me down a path that was not productive. I guess I started “searching for answers” in my thirties. Perhaps it is a beginning of the understanding of our own mortality that motivates us to search for meaning.
So, while I didn’t start being religious in my thirties, I did begin to search for meaning in my life. That search did not lead me to “religion” but rather to spirituality.
However, it took me almost another thirty years to find a sense of peace in this world.
1 Like
I don’t agree to that at all. I don’t want to pay taxes, or go to jail for doing something illegal. Can’t say either is wrong though.
Its funny because your first response above is what my response used to be so i feel like im arguing against myself lol.
You seem to be employing the genetic fallacy to explain why current morality is the way it is, that isn’t really an argument and it isn’t even an argument in the context of trying to explain morality as a concept.
Ultimately your argument is meaningless because extending your logic to its logical conclusion we don’t know we aren’t a brain in a vat, taking your scepticism consistently we don’t know anything except maybe we exist which decarte actually started to doubt, then you don’t know anything so why speculate at all?
You only apply this level of scepticism when it suits your moral nihilism. You can’t actually go through life like this.
Yes subjective moraloitu os arbitrary ultimately, thats the exact point. If I rape and murder you, thats not immoral on your own argument, its simply one biological organism having sex with and killing another. But you don’t really believe that. You can claim that its all merely societal conditioning and evolutionary programming but that isn’t a fact that is just your hypothesis.
Morality is tied to the contingency argument because if God exists he is the root of all morality so morality can be grounded hence be objective. If God doesn’t exist then nothing is good or bad and infact concepts don’t exist in reality outside of our minds. As Nietzsche said “if God does not exist everything is permissable”.
Now you can be a moral nihilist or a moral antirealist, but then you need to say rape and murder of children is not good or bad. But you don’t feel that and you know you don’t and I suspect you feel that it is true that such a thing is evil and even if you say you don’t you sure live like you do.
I just worked out so I am exhausted so maybe we can discuss this when im recovered from the stairmaster na di can actually type properly.
I don’t believe you don’t think rape is wrong and i don’t believe youd consider rape if you couldn’t be arrested or killed for it.
Not trying to hijack your back and forth but using Ze’s example, could you say that rape is wrong?
I never said I don’t believe it’s wrong. I said it can’t be objectively proven.
Could you elaborate on the genetic fallacy? I’m not familiar, and I’m curious in this context where you think I applied it.
Why is it wrong? Why is your subjective opinion rape is wrong important? What if I enjoy raping disabled down syndrome boys and then cooking and eating them? Isn’t it morally positive from a utilitarian perspective if me and another sadist do it together so our pleasure outweighs one persons suffering?
I mean you’re introducing a whole new question, not the one you originally posed or I originally addressed. I cannot explain why it’s wrong. That was my point. And neither can religion. It can provide a nice coherent comfortable narrative why it’s wrong. But can’t be objectively proven.
1 Like
Nothing in particular exactly, just a more relevant possibility in my mind
An example would probably require far more effort from me then it would be worth to you, if I were capable at all
Think of it like this maybe
There are religions out there that are internally consistent - they make sense, but yet I don’t live them all
It can be like connecting to a wall outlet in a sense
1 Like
Of course religion can, it is wrong because the one who created us and all things whose morality is perfect because he is omnipotent and without fault etc, decreed it so.
Objective morality can ONLY exist of God does who is perfect. Even Sam Harris and Dawkins agree with this, they just don’t think he exists.
Exactly what I said and knew you would say. That’s not an objective proof. It’s a coherent story. But you have to just believe it in absence of proof.
I can say rape is wrong because there’s sentient army men that live inside my chimney that tell me so. It explains it… but doesn’t prove anything.
It explains how it is wrong, but not why.
Sure we totally agree, so then we agree to that point and move to does God exist, then we discuss that and epistemology etc.
That’s a whole other can of worms for me lol. I’m of the belief that it does not matter. If Jesus were to come down and reveal himself to me and say “btw, all of Christianity teachings are true,” I would not change any aspect of how I live my life tbh. If a higher power does not exist, all this time spent worshipping or reflecting on its existence is a waste of time. If a higher power does exist, it just doesn’t make sense to me why such a power would want us to waste time thinking about if they are real instead of living our short time to its fullest and getting the most out of every moment. Sorry if that’s a copout reply 
As one who believes in God, are you open to the idea of a God that exists but doesn’t have any concept of morality associated with it.
1 Like
I’ve read quite a bit of Ghazali in English translations, but I don’t put much weight in logical arguments for the existence of God. He wasn’t too big on Kalam either if I remember correctly
I believe that everyone believes deep down, they just don’t all admit it to each other or themselves - doing so in the wrong way, in the wrong context, could be extremely costly you see
Argumentation is mostly a way to tire out the petty animalistic fearful side of man while the better portion grows stronger, imo
That is actually the argument for why non believers are thrown into hellfire because they know the truth but they deny it due to worshiping their desires. I think I quoted it above but the Qur’an says exactly what you said:
Even if We sent the angels down to them, and the dead spoke to them, and We gathered all things right in front of them, they still would not believe, unless God so willed , but most of them are ignorant [of this].
As for those who persist in disbelief, it is the same whether you warn them or not—they will never believe .
I actually respect you far more than the weasels who pretend they are open to religion they just need proof. As you have stated you wouldn’t believe even if God proved himself to you. I respect your honesty.
Well if the test were harder than to just to be of the correct opinion that God exists, such a showing might make sense
Quran 18:7
Edit: Surah 103, Al Asr would have been a far better citation for the concept that it’s a test of heart rather than calculatory ability…