Life After Death

Off Topic
412

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The motivation for behaving ethically is to do God’s will - to obey God. That is the only authentic ethical position.

[/quote]

Ok, so where do I find the correct set of ethical rules handed down by God? The Christian Bible? The Noble Qur’an? The Book of Mormon? It seems like if there’s only one right set of ethics, that are handed down by God, it would be pretty important to pick the right one. How do I choose and how do I know that I’ve chosen correctly?
[/quote]

This ^ also answers Irish’s question to me earlier.
[/quote]

This post must have popped up late. I didn’t see this post earlier in the discussion.

413

Push, assuming I agree with the statements in the link about what I should be looking for in a God, I don’t see how what I think I should be looking for tells me how I know that what I am looking for is actually the truth about what actually is. For example, whether or not I think the following link is full of shit, how do I know he’s actually wrong and your link is correct?

Or this link?

To me, at least, based on my faculties and limited knowledge, the link you posted and these two links above are roughly on the same footing regarding their persuasiveness in which book to follow. And this goes back to my post that gave you a chuckle. Using the faculties I was given, I judge all three links (including the one you posted) to contain unsatisfactory evidence of the true nature of God; none of the links, in my judgment, provide even persuasive reasons for me to follow one book over the other.

This puts me in a bad position, one that I don’t think a truly just God would put me in, if choosing correctly is, in fact, the most important choice that a person can make. But maybe God is laughing at me for my failure to correctly decide. Because, I guess, the joke is on me.

415

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.

Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.

And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]

Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]

It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.

Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.

In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.

What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.

So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong.

416

Some scientists suggest the universe will expand to a certain point from where it will reverse the process, imploding upon it self, only to expand once again once all the matter collides into a single point, from where a new big bang will emerge.
They also suggest that this has happended many times and that the universe is reapeating it self in a never ending loop.
If this is the case, you could say there is life after death.

Also if this is case, there are a multitude of scenarioes to think about.
Is this the first time around, if so, you better make the right choices, because you’ll be living with it for practically forever.
If this is not the first time, then could deja vu’s be linked to this and if this isn’t the first time, then fate is very real and nohing really matters because you can’t change a thing.

Don’t spend your time thinking about abstract ideas like an afterlife. You’ll properly know soon enough.

417

Just in: Russian and Chinese school athletes under 18 today began refusing to work with their overbearing strength coach since it violated their autonomy (they didn’t actively choose to be in that position) and caused self damage (muscular damage, ACL tears,…)

[quote]Severiano wrote:
So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. [/quote]

418

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.

Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.

And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]

Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]

It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.

Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.

In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.

What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.

So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]

Assuming everyone is wired nicely. Quite a leap, my friend!

419

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.

Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.

And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]

Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]

It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.

Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.

In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.

What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.

So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]

Assuming everyone is wired nicely. Quite a leap, my friend!

[/quote]

Exactly.

It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.

As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?

Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…

Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?

It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.

420

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.

Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.

And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]

Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]

It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.

Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.

In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.

What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.

So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]

Assuming everyone is wired nicely. Quite a leap, my friend!

[/quote]

Exactly.

It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.

As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?

Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…

Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?

It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.

[/quote]

Why should I or my ethics be “responsible” to science? It doesn’t even make sense.

Ethical behavior and empathy are present in some people, absent in others. For some these are strong guides to behavior regardless of religious upbringing or the lack of it; regardless of impoverishment or opulent wealth. For others all conditions can be met for optimal moral development, but positive qualities be underdeveloped or not at all.

I believe you are mistaken when you try to replace religion with science, which is what you seem to be doing, as an all-knowing entity which guides human belief and behavior.

423

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Push, assuming I agree with the statements in the link about what I should be looking for in a God, I don’t see how what I think I should be looking for tells me how I know that what I am looking for is actually the truth about what actually is. For example, whether or not I think the following link is full of shit, how do I know he’s actually wrong and your link is correct?

Or this link?

To me, at least, based on my faculties and limited knowledge, the link you posted and these two links above are roughly on the same footing regarding their persuasiveness in which book to follow. And this goes back to my post that gave you a chuckle. Using the faculties I was given, I judge all three links (including the one you posted) to contain unsatisfactory evidence of the true nature of God; none of the links, in my judgment, provide even persuasive reasons for me to follow one book over the other.

This puts me in a bad position, one that I don’t think a truly just God would put me in, if choosing correctly is, in fact, the most important choice that a person can make. But maybe God is laughing at me for my failure to correctly decide. Because, I guess, the joke is on me.[/quote]

I chuckled because your post was humorous to me but that’s not to be taken in a negative light. I wasn’t scoffing at you at all.

Look, Jack, faith is a requisite in all of this. You’ll never completely reason yourself to Him. Faith has always gotta be part of the deal.

I do, however, believe the words in Roman 1:18-22:

[i]The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…[/i]

I made the remark about God possibly chuckling because He has indeed made Himself known to men and yet we – for millennia now – have been foolishly darkening our hearts toward Him. But, I don’t think God laughs at this in a haughty manner; I think it actually grieves Him to be honest.

The God-is-chuckling comment comes from my speculation that He has done so much to reveal Himself and yet man – his crowning achievement – incessantly vexes and contorts himself into all kinds of intellectual positions to avoid His revelation at all costs. The mental gymnastics seen even here on this thread are staggering. It really doesn’t have to be as complicated as many have made it out to be.

Humble yourself.

Tell Him what you just told me.

Ask Him earnestly to reveal Himself to you.

Don’t insist on magic tricks from Him.

Ask Him to speak to your soul and lead you down the right path to the truth you say you’re seeking.

Don’t be flippant. Don’t be taunting. Don’t be a jack (no pun intended) ass.

Open yourself completely to Him. Have faith He will do His job and draw you to Him.

Don’t be impatient. Hang in there. Don’t necessarily put a time requirement on the process. Don’t give up. Search. You will find Him if your heart is sincere. He won’t turn you away.

That’s my best advice. I could probably rephrase it better or more eloquently but it will still boil down to the above.

Many great, highly intelligent thinkers have come to Him doing the above. Many simple thinkers have also. It’s not the megatons of logic and reason that get the job done – it’s the faith.

FWIW, you and I have been hanging around here for a number of years, interacting and even jabbing at times, but I’ve been meaning to look you up when I’ve traveled to Seattle which has been numerous times since around 2011-2012. Maybe we can make it happen.[/quote]

I appreciate this post. Drop a note in my O-35 section log if you are heading over the hill.

426

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.

Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.

And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]

Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]

It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.

Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.

In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.

What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.

So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]

Assuming everyone is wired nicely. Quite a leap, my friend!

[/quote]

And who/what did this “wiring?” Who was the electrician?[/quote]

The wiring was evolved, there is very similar wiring in Chimps, and it was actually chimps that helped us to discover the mirror neuron. You would know that if you had watched a single link I shared.

427

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?

Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…

[/quote]

You “propose,” eh? It’s been done before, dear proposer.

[photo]40575[/photo]

I know, I know, this time you’ll do it differently. Sure thing, pal.

http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html
[/quote]

nice strawman :slight_smile: Fear guides you

430

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.

Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.

And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]

Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]

It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.

Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.

In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.

What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.

So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]

Assuming everyone is wired nicely. Quite a leap, my friend!

[/quote]

Exactly.

It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.

As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?

Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…

Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?

It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.

[/quote]

Why should I or my ethics be “responsible” to science? It doesn’t even make sense.

Ethical behavior and empathy are present in some people, absent in others. For some these are strong guides to behavior regardless of religious upbringing or the lack of it; regardless of impoverishment or opulent wealth. For others all conditions can be met for optimal moral development, but positive qualities be underdeveloped or not at all.

I believe you are mistaken when you try to replace religion with science, which is what you seem to be doing, as an all-knowing entity which guides human belief and behavior.

[/quote]

Where did I say all knowing entity? Knowledge isn’t something there seems to be a ceiling for as far as I know… The concept of something knowing everything there ever will be to know, and at the same time us having autonomy is pretty abstract.

I want to rely on what knowledge we have. I want any sort of rule to not be rigid and to be subject to change when we learn new things. Remember how I defined open mindedness? That is part of what I propose, that it be encouraged to change. It’s supposed to mirror science’s self critiquing ways, and mistakes are expected because we are always learning and the environments are always changing.

That is actually opposite of what the various religions say they do. But, getting religions to change takes a lot of time because they are intended to be rigid and unchanging. The word of God is perfect and unchanging, and in those books.

431

I like this song, which speaks, to me, of true morality. Push’s God as I understand Him (the God of the Holy Bible) is a jealous, territorial god with a punitive bent. If I anthropomorphize God, I see instead a wise and benevolent parent, however that is not the God presented in he holy books of the major religions. I’ve also expressed in the past that I have trouble with His allowance, assuming an involved God, of the hellish conditions that many innocent people endure. Hence my confusion regarding religion. Ultimately I have to largely reject that. But that does not require that I reject God. “Stand up when justice calls, and you hear the sound.”