[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Where did society get it’s ideas from?[/quote]
progamming x environment
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Where did society get it’s ideas from?[/quote]
progamming x environment
[/quote]
Programming must have an origin. It’s inherent in the meaning of the word.
Software must be written by someone somewhere at some point in time. You’re killing yourself here, buddy.[/quote]
Yeah? I simply answered the question.
Now let me delve further.
Programming comes from the creator.
The creator could be some personal God or something very unpersonal that we can’t or don’t understand.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Where did society get it’s ideas from?[/quote]
progamming x environment
[/quote]
Programming must have an origin. It’s inherent in the meaning of the word.
Software must be written by someone somewhere at some point in time. You’re killing yourself here, buddy.[/quote]
Yeah? I simply answered the question.
Now let me delve further.
Programming comes from the creator.
The creator could be some personal God or something very unpersonal like the Big Bang.
My guess: Its ineffable.
I roll with Aquinas on this one: “The highest knowledge of God is to know God as unknowable.” [/quote]
Methinks ye misunderstands Aquinas. If you understood him as he intended you would be on your knees worshiping a God that is so mighty, so transcendent, that you know you can’t know Him, i.e., all about Him. If you wanna roll with Aquinas it’d be a good idea to roll in the same direction.
How does a Big Bang program you? And the wolf?
If you stay on this path you can certainly arrive at no other destination than Big Bang = God. You will have created your own god in an attempt to escape a responsibility to another. Ironic, eh? [/quote]
-
I editing my post 2 seconds after I submitted it. You, my good sir, are fast.
–I simply listed two popular ways many think the Universe came about. But I immediately regretted that. -
If I knew God like Acquinas did, I would be affraid of God?
another edit: I was using the quote out of context.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
To have fear and be afraid have different meanings. Yes, having fear CAN mean being afraid but the proper definition in this case is reverence and respect. I suspect you probably knew that but decided to play the ol’ coy card with Uncle Push.[/quote]
ahhh yes.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]
Why are people berating the Pope and the Catholic Church? I don’t know why, maybe because we have so much influence when it comes to morals. However, no one has proven to me yet that the Pope had anything to do with those cases, actually the case that he is being mostly blamed for Murphy, he came in three years to late, Murphy had been dead for sometime before Benedict was put in position to enforce doctrine on Sin and Morality.[/quote]
…here’s why: This is London Magazine
http://www.miketidmus.com/blog/2010/03/26/evidence-of-the-popes-involvement-grows/
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]
Umm, who here has done that so far?
Dawkins is a pompous, hubristic, opportunistic ass who couldn’t give two shits about “the children.”
This is yet another attempt to destroy Catholicism via malicious defamation and mudslinging, nothing more.
Tell me again about “religious nuts” and their “righteousness.” [/quote]
…is it your opinion that much of the child abuse accusations from all over the world are malicious defamation and mudslinging? If it’s not, then what’s your stance on this issue?[/quote]
Child abuse in any instance is wrong. Its perpetrators should be prosecuted and its victims or potential victims protected.
What Dawkins (and Mak) is doing here has nothing whatsoever, at its heart, to do with punishing the perpetrators of child abuse. It has everything to do with jumping opportunistically at a chance to harm the Catholic Church and, by extension, all religions that subscribe to a deity or deities.
[/quote]
…but, as it turns out, the pope = the catholic church conspired to cover-up child abuse cases and stifle whistleblowers. It’s not just a priest that’s guilty of child abuse, but it’s the entire catholic church system that’s guilty of enabling these practices to continue for decades on decades![/quote]
So you are saying I am responsible for someone’s else actions because I am part of the Catholic Church? I should go to jail, even if I disagree with sexual assault? Interesting, you take what the Media says instead of looking at the facts of the dates when people were given power to do things, and if things were even brought to a certain person with power do something. No you didn’t otherwise you would see that Pope Benedict was not given information on certain circumstances he is being blamed for ‘letting’ go, and other circumstances he was not in power to deal with. Yes, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of people underneath him, however criminally you’ll have a hard case to prove. He is taking responsibility by establishing new ways to stop these violations, and apologizing to the families of victims. [/quote]
…are you clergy of the church, and have you actively surpressed evidence pertaining to child abuse? If you are not then don’t be such a pussy, but if you are then you should be persecuted by law…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]
If it’s so obvious, you should have no problem justifying for us just why this is so.
(btw, “religious damnation” is not the reason most Christians use to justify our own moral opposition to this practice)[/quote]
…because i say it’s wrong to sexually abuse a defenseless child. Because the law states it’s wrong. What more do you need?[/quote]
Someone else says it is not wrong, and other countries do not have laws that state it…we need to know how you get your morality, even you stated in another thread about strongest of the fittest like the cannibals, and many have practices that involve children sexually. I’m not following.[/quote]
…the cannibals? I decide for myself what’s moral and what’s not…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay Cortes, let’s get back to the point. In order to prove that absolute morality exists, you need to prove God exists. Correct?[/quote]
Thanks eph. It doesn’t surprise me, as an American who has now lived in Japan for 8 years, that the person who appears to actually be speaking the same language I am is one whom I assume is not even a native speaker of that language.
I think there are two ways to go at this. First, yes, I do believe that the existence of an absolute morality assumes, even requires the existence of a God. However, I’m not so sure you need to prove He exists in order to prove there is an absolute morality. I think that there is a ton of evidence that we humans do work off of a law that has always existed and is unchangeable (some will argue details and play word games, but no society will ever come to see lying, selfishness or greed as a virtue, or necrophilia as a noble pursuit, for example).
Indeed, I believe that if you dig deep enough, the morality will (and does) reveal God to us in that that morality is a reflection of His nature. A peek into who God really is, if you will.
Second, I think that the onus is first on the moral relativist to defend why his version of morality is justifiable, as moral absolutism (not to be confused with despotism) has a long history of producing some of the most stable, productive, “evolved” societies in our human history. Whereas you could argue that moral relativism either has not really been tested in earnest, or it has resulted in some of the most spectacularly evil societies our world has ever known. [/quote]
…firstly, altough i don’t mind defending my position, the reasons you gave in support of your position are clearly false. When you argue that societies [alledgedly] based on absolute morality have been the most evolved societies we’ve had, you clearly fail to take into account the horrors that accompanied the founding of those nations…
…i have to assume you’re talking about the USA, a budding society that violently and mercilessly slaughtered the indigenous peoples of that continent in order to make it it’s own. You can’t call that moral no matter how you stretch the definition…
…secondly, you can’t separate religion from society. The Catholic Church has been so influential throughout history, and made an [almost] everlasting impression on the Western world, but especially in light of current events, this church can hardly be called “moral”…
…i would even go as far as suggesting that the failure of the church and modern society to act morally, based on the religious absolute morality it holds so dearly, is proof in itself that no such thing exists. Now, before you pull the “born as sinners”-card from your sleave, you still need to show that there is a divine source of morality instead of a set of rules that humankind developed in order to structure a society in such a way that it prospers…
…for me personally, humankind is the only kind of animal that is able, within limits, to make a conscious choice whether an act benefits the tribe or not, and it’s this ability to choose that’s the foundation of morality. Many, if not all, acts of ‘evil’ are the result of a sick mind; a mind whose ability to make the appropriate choice is obscured by trauma or fascination…
…what guides us to make the appropiate choice is upbringing; it’s taught behaviour that’s honed by experience and not innate to humankind…
[/quote]
Let me be more clear. I’m not arguing that humans (and by extension societies) who ascribe to a philosophy of moral absolutism are, themselves, morally pure. Absolutely not! I’m asserting that there IS a moral standard that does exist. I disagree that is has been taught to us, rather we discovered the existence of this law, and have learned that societies and individual lives work best when it is adhered to.
The problem comes with the fact that we ARE human, and our instincts and desires and also our tendency to justify our actions so as to avoid cognitive dissonance, lead us down the wrong path very often. That doesn’t prove, however, that an absolute morality does not exist.
Indeed, I would submit to you that these transgressions can actually serve as evidence of an overarching morality. When you look at the actions of, say, Alexander the Great, or the Nazis, or, okay, America, you have no problem saying that those actions are wrong. Am I correct?
But all of these societies, while perpetrating the actions with which you disagree, were making choices which they felt were for the benefit of their tribe. However, I’ll bet you would have no personal qualms about calling the actions in question wrong, or bad, perhaps even evil. Am I right or wrong?
If so, then what is the standard by which you are judging your morality? To assume that one society is doing something “bad” and another something “good” assumes that there is some standard by which we can make those judgments. So then, what is this standard?
It’s late here and if you reply tonight I may not get back to you until later, but thanks for arguing with me in good faith.
[/quote]
…i’m confused Cortes, you say there are societies who “evolved” due to following absolute morality, and then you say we’re led down the wrong path often. Name the societies that followed the absolute moral path and show that they indeed followed that path, please…
…my moral yardstick stems from what i think is fair play and what’s not. It’s origins lie in my upbringing and my subsequent experiences, and how i want to be treated. It’s as simple as that…
…taking the bible, which is supposed to be the innerant word of god, as your moral compass may not be the wisest choice…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]The Goose. wrote:
“It exists because it is the essence of His nature.”
The thing about religion is people always use these really arbitrary terms. Can you specify exactly what this means? How could you know what the essence of “His nature” is, other than him saying so?
Religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Through your belief in God, you have “discovered” the “absolute morality”. This belief in God is your religion. Yet, you specify that absolute morality does not come from religion…[/quote]
You really do not know the first thing about religion, do you? You’d like to box it up and label it and set it on a shelf so that you can easily knock it down, but it doesn’t work that way. A swan doesn’t suddenly become a duck just because you say so.
Anyway I see how you operate. You just set up straw man after straw man, arguing with some imaginary persona you’ve concocted. Have fun with him, because I’m done replying to you.
[/quote]
Apologies (sincerely), dude. I see now how my previous posts were inappropriate, perhaps I let my atheistic views get the better of me.
But, can you explain to me what you mean by “it is the nature of his essence”? You claim that I don’t know jack about religion. Enlighten me! (no sarcasm intended).
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]
If it’s so obvious, you should have no problem justifying for us just why this is so.
(btw, “religious damnation” is not the reason most Christians use to justify our own moral opposition to this practice)[/quote]
…because i say it’s wrong to sexually abuse a defenseless child. Because the law states it’s wrong. What more do you need?[/quote]
Someone else says it is not wrong, and other countries do not have laws that state it…we need to know how you get your morality, even you stated in another thread about strongest of the fittest like the cannibals, and many have practices that involve children sexually. I’m not following.[/quote]
…the cannibals? I decide for myself what’s moral and what’s not…
[/quote]
Actually, Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies would suggest cannibalism isn’t a good idea, even if the person being eaten gives consent.
As for cultures that use children sexually, yeah those survived real good they did. They are the most prevalent cultures in modern so-- oh.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…message for pushharder; message for pushharder: i put you on ignore yesterday and i quite enjoy the respite from your often innane ramblings. These measures will stay in effect until i deem you worthy of my attention once more. End of message…[/quote]
Poor kid. LOL
I don’t blame you. You’re a drowning man and you surely don’t need me handing you a gallon jug of water to keep you hydrated.
(I guess someone will have to quote this for him)[/quote]
If Someone is ignored by Nobody, does Someone know? Does Someone care? Can Anyone tell the difference?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay Cortes, let’s get back to the point. In order to prove that absolute morality exists, you need to prove God exists. Correct?[/quote]
Thanks eph. It doesn’t surprise me, as an American who has now lived in Japan for 8 years, that the person who appears to actually be speaking the same language I am is one whom I assume is not even a native speaker of that language.
I think there are two ways to go at this. First, yes, I do believe that the existence of an absolute morality assumes, even requires the existence of a God. However, I’m not so sure you need to prove He exists in order to prove there is an absolute morality. I think that there is a ton of evidence that we humans do work off of a law that has always existed and is unchangeable (some will argue details and play word games, but no society will ever come to see lying, selfishness or greed as a virtue, or necrophilia as a noble pursuit, for example).
Indeed, I believe that if you dig deep enough, the morality will (and does) reveal God to us in that that morality is a reflection of His nature. A peek into who God really is, if you will.
Second, I think that the onus is first on the moral relativist to defend why his version of morality is justifiable, as moral absolutism (not to be confused with despotism) has a long history of producing some of the most stable, productive, “evolved” societies in our human history. Whereas you could argue that moral relativism either has not really been tested in earnest, or it has resulted in some of the most spectacularly evil societies our world has ever known. [/quote]
…firstly, altough i don’t mind defending my position, the reasons you gave in support of your position are clearly false. When you argue that societies [alledgedly] based on absolute morality have been the most evolved societies we’ve had, you clearly fail to take into account the horrors that accompanied the founding of those nations…
…i have to assume you’re talking about the USA, a budding society that violently and mercilessly slaughtered the indigenous peoples of that continent in order to make it it’s own. You can’t call that moral no matter how you stretch the definition…
…secondly, you can’t separate religion from society. The Catholic Church has been so influential throughout history, and made an [almost] everlasting impression on the Western world, but especially in light of current events, this church can hardly be called “moral”…
…i would even go as far as suggesting that the failure of the church and modern society to act morally, based on the religious absolute morality it holds so dearly, is proof in itself that no such thing exists. Now, before you pull the “born as sinners”-card from your sleave, you still need to show that there is a divine source of morality instead of a set of rules that humankind developed in order to structure a society in such a way that it prospers…
…for me personally, humankind is the only kind of animal that is able, within limits, to make a conscious choice whether an act benefits the tribe or not, and it’s this ability to choose that’s the foundation of morality. Many, if not all, acts of ‘evil’ are the result of a sick mind; a mind whose ability to make the appropriate choice is obscured by trauma or fascination…
…what guides us to make the appropiate choice is upbringing; it’s taught behaviour that’s honed by experience and not innate to humankind…
[/quote]
Let me be more clear. I’m not arguing that humans (and by extension societies) who ascribe to a philosophy of moral absolutism are, themselves, morally pure. Absolutely not! I’m asserting that there IS a moral standard that does exist. I disagree that is has been taught to us, rather we discovered the existence of this law, and have learned that societies and individual lives work best when it is adhered to.
The problem comes with the fact that we ARE human, and our instincts and desires and also our tendency to justify our actions so as to avoid cognitive dissonance, lead us down the wrong path very often. That doesn’t prove, however, that an absolute morality does not exist.
Indeed, I would submit to you that these transgressions can actually serve as evidence of an overarching morality. When you look at the actions of, say, Alexander the Great, or the Nazis, or, okay, America, you have no problem saying that those actions are wrong. Am I correct?
But all of these societies, while perpetrating the actions with which you disagree, were making choices which they felt were for the benefit of their tribe. However, I’ll bet you would have no personal qualms about calling the actions in question wrong, or bad, perhaps even evil. Am I right or wrong?
If so, then what is the standard by which you are judging your morality? To assume that one society is doing something “bad” and another something “good” assumes that there is some standard by which we can make those judgments. So then, what is this standard?
It’s late here and if you reply tonight I may not get back to you until later, but thanks for arguing with me in good faith.
[/quote]
…i’m confused Cortes, you say there are societies who “evolved” due to following absolute morality, and then you say we’re led down the wrong path often. Name the societies that followed the absolute moral path and show that they indeed followed that path, please…
[/quote]
Those societies that used the philosophies of Moses, Jesus, Confucius and Muhammad as their foundations tended to do pretty well. I am not in any way arguing that those societies were free from wrongdoing. In fact I already said that once. But their establishing principles clearly served them well. Thousands of years well, in fact.
So, would you say that your determination of morality is determined by your conscience?
[quote]The Goose. wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]The Goose. wrote:
“It exists because it is the essence of His nature.”
The thing about religion is people always use these really arbitrary terms. Can you specify exactly what this means? How could you know what the essence of “His nature” is, other than him saying so?
Religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Through your belief in God, you have “discovered” the “absolute morality”. This belief in God is your religion. Yet, you specify that absolute morality does not come from religion…[/quote]
You really do not know the first thing about religion, do you? You’d like to box it up and label it and set it on a shelf so that you can easily knock it down, but it doesn’t work that way. A swan doesn’t suddenly become a duck just because you say so.
Anyway I see how you operate. You just set up straw man after straw man, arguing with some imaginary persona you’ve concocted. Have fun with him, because I’m done replying to you.
[/quote]
Apologies (sincerely), dude. I see now how my previous posts were inappropriate, perhaps I let my atheistic views get the better of me.
But, can you explain to me what you mean by “it is the nature of his essence”? You claim that I don’t know jack about religion. Enlighten me! (no sarcasm intended).[/quote]
Cool. Apology kindly accepted.
To your question: to be honest, this is a whole 'nother argument, and I think it would end up derailing the topic at hand.
To help you understand where I’ve developed my own beliefs about God and provide you with a semi-answer, I’ll quote Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. To be fair, though, this is not a complete explanation, which would take up a LOT more space, so I’ll just provide the link so you can read more, if you so choose. It’s good stuff, even if you don’t believe in God.
[i]It is impossible that matter should exist in God.
First, because matter is in potentiality. But we have shown (I:2:3) that God is pure act, without any potentiality. Hence it is impossible that God should be composed of matter and form.
Secondly, because everything composed of matter and form owes its perfection and goodness to its form; therefore its goodness is participated, inasmuch as matter participates the form. Now the first good and the best–viz. God–is not a participated good, because the essential good is prior to the participated good. Hence it is impossible that God should be composed of matter and form.
Thirdly, because every agent acts by its form; hence the manner in which it has its form is the manner in which it is an agent. Therefore whatever is primarily and essentially an agent must be primarily and essentially form. Now God is the first agent, since He is the first efficient cause. He is therefore of His essence a form; and not composed of matter and form. [/i]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
…i’m confused Cortes, you say there are societies who “evolved” due to following absolute morality, and then you say we’re led down the wrong path often. Name the societies that followed the absolute moral path and show that they indeed followed that path, please…
Those societies that used the philosophies of Moses, Jesus, Confucius and Muhammad as their foundations tended to do pretty well. I am not in any way arguing that those societies were free from wrongdoing. In fact I already said that once. But their establishing principles clearly served them well. Thousands of years well, in fact. [/quote]
…does it matter to you that there were ancient culture that existed for thousands of years without the aid of the god of Abraham? I see you mention Confucius, but i don’t understand why exactly. Was that intended to include Eastern religion?
[quote]…my moral yardstick stems from what i think is fair play and what’s not. It’s origins lie in my upbringing and my subsequent experiences, and how i want to be treated. It’s as simple as that…
So, would you say that your determination of morality is determined by your conscience?
[/quote]
…not solely, but conscience playes a part, sure. Conscience is a function of the brain, and for some it’s underdeveloped, and for some it’s highly sensitive. The brain is the key to understanding our place in nature, and the reason why humankind’s society evolved the way it did. Divine intervention is not required to explain morality…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
One of the truly ominous viewpoints presented here (can’t remember who said it) is that our morals and subsequently our laws and its trappings were developed within us as a method to “advance the species”. Wow. Think about the implications of that gem.
Orion knows exactly where I’m coming from. What about the rest of you?[/quote]
But I do not agree with you.
I am just saying that there is very little practical difference between your views and mine and that you at least know where you are coming from whereas they see their unchecked premises as “being rational”.
I like people who at least know that they are religious better because usually they have thousands of years of moral reasoning to fall back on.[/quote]
…seriously? I mean, come one… really?
[/quote]
Ya RLY!
Who do you think actually studied these topics for millenia if not churches?
Religious people have at least some experience with discussing ethics, most people do not an mistake their gut feeling for moral behavior which is a mistake religious people tend to avoid.