Science deals only with what is. Ethics tells us what should be REGARDLESS of what is. People here seem trying to build a scientific law of ethics are misguided. They are describing moral law as scientific when it cannot be. Scientific law specifically describes universal standards that confines behavior patterns. If gravity stated that things should pull one another, but in actuality a lot of matter didn’t obey the law of gravity then gravity would be disproved as a scientific law.
That is why moral law is completely different than scientific law. A scientific law of ethics would exactly describe the results of human moral decisions. It would not be possible for people to do bad. A person can choose to ignore ethics BUT NOT GRAVITY. Ethics is a third party measuring stick there regardless of what people choose (which places it outside the scope of science), or it simply means “the way people behave regardless of what they choose” which is completely pointless because an act makes itself moral.
Mainly your #4 but to get off on this would really derail the thread.
I think SMH & SM and I argued this in PWI at least once. [/quote]
Yep. And it’s not necessarily a theological question. smh takes a materialist position that rights don’t exist; that they’re just a “social construct”. My position is that they can’t be empirically shown to exist but that by reductio ad absurdum it can be shown it’s very likely they do - ie, any ethical system that assumes they don’t exist leads to absurd outcomes.
I just discovered this thread yesterday and have enjoyed every minute of reading everyone’s posts.
On the thread topic:
I believe in God and the afterlife for many of the reasons already posted.
Unrelated to the thread topic:
I happen to be a working musician (this is how I support my family). While I’m very much far from being an expert in music, or even attaining a high level of expertise in my own musicianship, I am inclined to agree with SexMachine that music is fundamentally more than a pattern. Yes, music can be distilled to its constituent parts, music majors all take music theory class. But this is just theory, a discussion of what’s happening, the science of what it is that creates a particular sound. There are many patterns of sound I wouldn’t ordinarily classify as “music.” (The drone of my car engine as I drive overnight to South Carolina for vacation, for instance). Music is emotion expressed aurally. It’s transportive. It’s an integration of mind, body, and soul (if you believe in the soul that is). It’s so many things, that’s why I have trouble calling it a pattern. Few things transport me from the present moment’s troubles like Ferruccio Tagliavini and Magda Olivero singing The Cherry Duet from L’Amico Fritz. And that’s just listening to an old youtube recording.
I once heard a devout atheist say, upon listening to Durufle’s Requiem, “It’s in hearing this music that I can I think: maybe there’s a God.”
Mainly your #4 but to get off on this would really derail the thread.
I think SMH & SM and I argued this in PWI at least once. [/quote]
Yep. And it’s not necessarily a theological question. smh takes a materialist position that rights don’t exist; that they’re just a “social construct”. My position is that they can’t be empirically shown to exist but that by reductio ad absurdum it can be shown it’s very likely they do - ie, any ethical system that assumes they don’t exist leads to absurd outcomes.[/quote]
I would alter this to say that I take the position that we cannot know rights to exist. In other words, I spent that thread arguing against a position of certainty.
My actual position is agnostic, with the hope that you and CB are correct.
Mainly your #4 but to get off on this would really derail the thread.
I think SMH & SM and I argued this in PWI at least once. [/quote]
Yep. And it’s not necessarily a theological question. smh takes a materialist position that rights don’t exist; that they’re just a “social construct”. My position is that they can’t be empirically shown to exist but that by reductio ad absurdum it can be shown it’s very likely they do - ie, any ethical system that assumes they don’t exist leads to absurd outcomes.[/quote]
I would alter this to say that I take the position that we cannot know rights to exist. In other words, I spent that thread arguing against a position of certainty.
My actual position is agnostic, with the hope that you and CB are correct.[/quote]
My apologies for mistakenly misrepresenting your position. I enjoy our discussions because unlike most atheists/agnostics around here you seem to be philosophically honest and aware of some of the conundrums associated with atheism.
Mainly your #4 but to get off on this would really derail the thread.
I think SMH & SM and I argued this in PWI at least once. [/quote]
Yep. And it’s not necessarily a theological question. smh takes a materialist position that rights don’t exist; that they’re just a “social construct”. My position is that they can’t be empirically shown to exist but that by reductio ad absurdum it can be shown it’s very likely they do - ie, any ethical system that assumes they don’t exist leads to absurd outcomes.[/quote]
I would alter this to say that I take the position that we cannot know rights to exist. In other words, I spent that thread arguing against a position of certainty.
My actual position is agnostic, with the hope that you and CB are correct.[/quote]
My apologies for mistakenly misrepresenting your position. I enjoy our discussions because unlike most atheists/agnostics around here you seem to be philosophically honest and aware of some of the conundrums associated with atheism. [/quote]
As do I, as do I – and for similar reasons. You read and understand the opposition’s arguments. That is more important than people know.
You said you sin without fear… Which one is it hon?
I’ve built up my position, and at every point you have been there with all of your emotion to express how wrong I am and in the process you have insinuated that I’m the one that is afraid, to I’m not qualified to tell you such things.
If those things are true then it shouldn’t matter what I say.
I want to point out that you have been averse to my perspective since I brought up Existentialism, which led you to claim that I’m more inclined to feel fear than most based on something that has been recognized by people long before me, and by lots of people who faced some of the bloodier wars of our times. You claimed that existentialism isn’t limited to the faithful, and with the exception of investment I agree with you. But, it seems you are just as invested as others with your more generalized conception of the western God, which I absolutely nailed about you.
The critiques of organized religion I have given are based on what the various religions believe.
The information I’ve given from the sciences are contemporary and relevant.
The way I characterized your generalized faith is accurate as far as I can tell, you even refer to God as a male and as if he actually exists.
You seem to fall into exactly what I’ve been talking about when it comes to people who become too invested in bullshit. You are entrenched in your position because you are invested in it, or you are just averse to being influenced to change by a simpleton like myself… So what’s the point?[/quote]
Severiano, you may be the single most obtuse poster on this board - and I don’t say that lightly. There are a lot of obtuse posters on the board!
Your position is bullshit. It does not hold water, and it struggles to hold a reader’s attention due to its meandering and constant shifting. In answer to the question of “who believes in an afterlife and why,” my position is:
And
[quote]I’m not adverse to reason, lol. I simply don’t think your argument is based in it. It’s emotion-driven and founded in your experiences as a youth, apparently. You have a bad habit of making assumptions about other people and what drives them, then defending these assumptions as truths no one wants to hear.
Your SHOCKING DECLARATION is not the first I’ve heard of people not believing in God or afterlife. I acknowledge a complete lack of certainty and a preference-based belief system. Where on earth is the fear or entrenchment in that?
You frankly don’t have the debate skills to challenge my beliefs.[/quote]
And
[quote]Yes, I believe I’ve heard something about existential angst and despair. I flatly disagree that these can be avoided by not believing in God.
Your premises are, I believe, faulty. You are making associations that are superficial and hence your argument is weak. I say that not to attack you, but to offer another explanation as to why people are not compelled to change in response to them.[/quote]
Back to the original question:
Back to responses to you:
[quote]I think there’s some irony in posts like this given your willingness to argue various matters from a position of understanding the underlying thoughts and motives of others despite people telling you “no, that’s not how I think or feel at all.”
An example is the fear thing. Your argument against faith in afterlife is predicated on it, but multiple people have disputed that you understand them.
Personally, I find empathy lacking in general. “What is the view from the perspective of another?” is an extremely challenging concept for many. Possibly most.[/quote]
Anyway, enough of that. It’s time for me to work out. I have said over and over again that I don’t care what you think or feel wrt religion and God and am not sure why you care what I think, but you certainly have NO valid reason to argue with me what I believe or why. I have been consistent in that “I don’t know, but what I believe is thus and such.”
I have not uttered a single word about Existentialism, my mention of fear was in response to your assumption that religion leaves a trail of terrorized victims. I disagree. Not for myself, as I am not religious, but because I know many people of faith who contradict your assertions.
This thread has been interesting and enlightening for me, but enlightenment and interest have been utterly lacking from your direction. I’m done discussing the with you. SexMachine seems to believe as I do. Why don’t you call him “hon”?
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear.
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.
[quote]pabergin wrote:
I just discovered this thread yesterday and have enjoyed every minute of reading everyone’s posts.
On the thread topic:
I believe in God and the afterlife for many of the reasons already posted.
Unrelated to the thread topic:
I happen to be a working musician (this is how I support my family). While I’m very much far from being an expert in music, or even attaining a high level of expertise in my own musicianship, I am inclined to agree with SexMachine that music is fundamentally more than a pattern. Yes, music can be distilled to its constituent parts, music majors all take music theory class. But this is just theory, a discussion of what’s happening, the science of what it is that creates a particular sound. There are many patterns of sound I wouldn’t ordinarily classify as “music.” (The drone of my car engine as I drive overnight to South Carolina for vacation, for instance). Music is emotion expressed aurally. It’s transportive. It’s an integration of mind, body, and soul (if you believe in the soul that is). It’s so many things, that’s why I have trouble calling it a pattern. Few things transport me from the present moment’s troubles like Ferruccio Tagliavini and Magda Olivero singing The Cherry Duet from L’Amico Fritz. And that’s just listening to an old youtube recording.
I once heard a devout atheist say, upon listening to Durufle’s Requiem, “It’s in hearing this music that I can I think: maybe there’s a God.”
[/quote]
I think both are right in terms of music. At its essence music is just an organized pattern of waves carried on an air medium. Pretty much like any other sound other than it’s been purposefully organized to carry a message. But at the same time it’s much more than that as the people generating the sounds are using particular instruments to generate these sounds in order to communicate in a unique way. Organization of the sounds by a musician can communicate in a unique way where such feelings and story telling can convey things that cannot otherwise be expressed. Music, as in all art is an essential way of communicating.
So it is right to say that music is nothing but a pattern of sounds, that’s true. It’s also right to say that music is so much more than that as an essential communication medium that cannot be replaced. A good musician can convey a multitude of emotions, thoughts, and even the otherwise inexpressible. The relationship between a musician his audience is often an intimate one as what the musician an audience is sharing is an intimate connection. Analytically, it’s just a pattern of sounds but such analysis has no place in judging music.
Sadly so much music today has become so vertical and one dimensional that conveys a very superficial message. But perhaps that’s a reflection, as art often is, of us. We’ve become pretty superficial and narcissistic as a society. So if music is a reflection than “I’m all about that bass” is about as deep as it gets.
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and without any reason to believe anything.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
So if music is a reflection than “I’m all about that bass” is about as deep as it gets. [/quote]
Well… I don’t think singling out pop music to represent humanity is fair.
I mean, there are movie scores out there that have more passion in 16 notes than a pop station has in a week of air play.
Pop music to me is like a Snickers Bar. It’s a feel good, guilty pleasure that I enjoy. But it certainly isn’t a meal, nor does it move me in any fashion remotely close to say a bone-in ribeye from Del Frisco’s.
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
I do not remember if I posted this here, but in my search, this statement did resonate with me.
“The materialist would have us believe that non-living, non-sentient energy accidentally assembled itself in such a way as to discover itself. That energy now ponders itself through chance chemical reactions in the brain of an insignificant life form next to an unremarkable star in a far away corner of the universe.”
[/quote]
I actually picked up the argument from CS Lewis. There are a number of his writings and/or lectures that I found very thought provoking on this subject.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Not to turn this into a music thread but:
[quote]pat wrote:
So if music is a reflection than “I’m all about that bass” is about as deep as it gets. [/quote]
Well… I don’t think singling out pop music to represent humanity is fair.
I mean, there are movie scores out there that have more passion in 16 notes than a pop station has in a week of air play.
Pop music to me is like a Snickers Bar. It’s a feel good, guilty pleasure that I enjoy. But it certainly isn’t a meal, nor does it move me in any fashion remotely close to say a bone-in ribeye from Del Frisco’s. [/quote]
No it’s not totally fair, and it doesn’t represent humanity. But it is the largest and most popular category in music and it does seem to represent a fairly large chunk of American society. It sure as hell doesn’t represent me, I can’t stand it. I have a musical background and while I am not very good at it, I get it and know that the computers of today cannot replace true musicianship and what it take to be truly good at your craft.
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
I do not remember if I posted this here, but in my search, this statement did resonate with me.
“The materialist would have us believe that non-living, non-sentient energy accidentally assembled itself in such a way as to discover itself. That energy now ponders itself through chance chemical reactions in the brain of an insignificant life form next to an unremarkable star in a far away corner of the universe.”
[/quote]
True. There is no meaning unless you can ground it in something meaningful. Meaning cannot be derived from stuff since it’s utterly meaningless in itself, so you have to ground it in something meaningful, which ultimately you would have to ground in an ‘Ultiamate Meaning’ in a Kantian reductionist type of way. This of course smacks of God.
Or we can understand it as bumper sticker wisdom “No meaning, no God. Know meaning, Know God”… Hmmm, that could get me rich.
