God-worship: might is right, in a nutshell
God-worship: might is right, in a nutshell
This will offend some religious people, so consider yourself warned.
Whenever atrocities committed by the gods of mainstream religions (yahweh, allah, whatever) are brought up, you can expect religious people to trot out the following argument: that those gods are beyond humanity's definition of right and wrong. That they are incomprehensible, that their logic is of a otherworldy nature, and more importantly, it's their universe, their rules, so if a god ate a baby's entrails, well, let's not bother being appalled. They must have had their reasons. And they're unfathomably powerful. Heh.
All of that really sounds like them saying might is right. The only difference between gods such as yahweh or allah and the likes of Hitler and Stalin is that the latter two were human, people that could be killed. But since gods cannot be physically encountered (probably because they don't exist), well, who are we to judge them. Sure, they're sentient beings with control over their own actions, but let's just act as if they're lions or something, as in, biologically needing to kill and do all sorts of terrible things.
These are just observations, that's all. All these gods are to me are tantrum-throwing, sociopathic losers. It's funny how characters like Shinnok would automathically be seen as heroes if they were considered real, like yahweh.
Whenever atrocities committed by the gods of mainstream religions (yahweh, allah, whatever) are brought up, you can expect religious people to trot out the following argument: that those gods are beyond humanity's definition of right and wrong. That they are incomprehensible, that their logic is of a otherworldy nature, and more importantly, it's their universe, their rules, so if a god ate a baby's entrails, well, let's not bother being appalled. They must have had their reasons. And they're unfathomably powerful. Heh.
All of that really sounds like them saying might is right. The only difference between gods such as yahweh or allah and the likes of Hitler and Stalin is that the latter two were human, people that could be killed. But since gods cannot be physically encountered (probably because they don't exist), well, who are we to judge them. Sure, they're sentient beings with control over their own actions, but let's just act as if they're lions or something, as in, biologically needing to kill and do all sorts of terrible things.
These are just observations, that's all. All these gods are to me are tantrum-throwing, sociopathic losers. It's funny how characters like Shinnok would automathically be seen as heroes if they were considered real, like yahweh.
About Me
0
"God has a plan" directly contradicts "God gave us free will".
Just sayin'...
Just sayin'...
Education, critical thinking and growing up and standing firmly up to the truth that once death finishes with you, you cease to exist will get rid of us from the miasma that religion and faith proposes and presents to us as truth.
We need to eradicate the illusion that believing in comfortable things is equally valid as believing in true things. Or in layman's terms you do not get to place your bullshit on the same shelf as mine. Or onto any other.
We need to eradicate the illusion that believing in comfortable things is equally valid as believing in true things. Or in layman's terms you do not get to place your bullshit on the same shelf as mine. Or onto any other.
About Me
Props to MINION for making this sig.
0
I'll never be able to fully wrap my mind around people who are otherwise decent, sane and respectable defending the vile actions of the god of the Bible.
About Me
0
DG1OA Wrote:
Whenever atrocities committed by the gods of mainstream religions (yahweh, allah, whatever) are brought up, you can expect religious people to trot out the following argument: that those gods are beyond humanity's definition of right and wrong. That they are incomprehensible, that their logic is of a otherworldy nature, and more importantly, it's their universe, their rules, so if a god ate a baby's entrails, well, let's not bother being appalled. They must have had their reasons. And they're unfathomably powerful. Heh.
Whenever atrocities committed by the gods of mainstream religions (yahweh, allah, whatever) are brought up, you can expect religious people to trot out the following argument: that those gods are beyond humanity's definition of right and wrong. That they are incomprehensible, that their logic is of a otherworldy nature, and more importantly, it's their universe, their rules, so if a god ate a baby's entrails, well, let's not bother being appalled. They must have had their reasons. And they're unfathomably powerful. Heh.
No Catholic and very few academic protestants believe this.
Most Christians subscribe to Natural Law theory. By classic standards and most of modern Christianity's views, morality is not dictated by God. Though this idea of divine-command theory existed in very small circles, it wasn't popular till Kierkegaard (though Locke may have been in that school as well, but it's not clear; he did believe our inalienable rights came from God, though).
The fact is that the vast majority of critics of religion have no clue how morality actually works. They don't realize that morality requires principles that exist independently of our subjective spheres, and if we've somehow (by a miracle) defended that premise, we have to explain how moral knowledge is obtained from these abstract ontologically-indepedent principles that we have no way of causally relating with, WHICH MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT ENDEAVORS IN PHILOSOPHY!
If one of the above conditionals isn't met, then your moral theory isn't really morality at all: it breaks down into nothing but preferences. Arbitary... temporary... preferences.
About Me
Props to MINION for making this sig.
0
TemperaryUserName Wrote:
No Catholic and very few academic protestants believe this.
Most Christians subscribe to Natural Law theory. By classic standards and most of modern Christianity's views, morality is not dictated by God. Though this idea of divine-command theory existed in very small circles, it wasn't popular till Kierkegaard (though Locke may have been in that school as well, but it's not clear; he did believe our inalienable rights came from God, though).
The fact is that the vast majority of critics of religion have no clue how morality actually works. They don't realize that morality requires principles that exist independently of our subjective spheres, and if we've somehow (by a miracle) defended that premise, we have to explain how moral knowledge is obtained from these abstract ontologically-indepedent principles that we have no way of causally relating with, WHICH MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT ENDEAVORS IN PHILOSOPHY!
If one of the above conditionals isn't met, then your moral theory isn't really morality at all: it breaks down into nothing but preferences. Arbitary... temporary... preferences.
DG1OA Wrote:
Whenever atrocities committed by the gods of mainstream religions (yahweh, allah, whatever) are brought up, you can expect religious people to trot out the following argument: that those gods are beyond humanity's definition of right and wrong. That they are incomprehensible, that their logic is of a otherworldy nature, and more importantly, it's their universe, their rules, so if a god ate a baby's entrails, well, let's not bother being appalled. They must have had their reasons. And they're unfathomably powerful. Heh.
Whenever atrocities committed by the gods of mainstream religions (yahweh, allah, whatever) are brought up, you can expect religious people to trot out the following argument: that those gods are beyond humanity's definition of right and wrong. That they are incomprehensible, that their logic is of a otherworldy nature, and more importantly, it's their universe, their rules, so if a god ate a baby's entrails, well, let's not bother being appalled. They must have had their reasons. And they're unfathomably powerful. Heh.
No Catholic and very few academic protestants believe this.
Most Christians subscribe to Natural Law theory. By classic standards and most of modern Christianity's views, morality is not dictated by God. Though this idea of divine-command theory existed in very small circles, it wasn't popular till Kierkegaard (though Locke may have been in that school as well, but it's not clear; he did believe our inalienable rights came from God, though).
The fact is that the vast majority of critics of religion have no clue how morality actually works. They don't realize that morality requires principles that exist independently of our subjective spheres, and if we've somehow (by a miracle) defended that premise, we have to explain how moral knowledge is obtained from these abstract ontologically-indepedent principles that we have no way of causally relating with, WHICH MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT ENDEAVORS IN PHILOSOPHY!
If one of the above conditionals isn't met, then your moral theory isn't really morality at all: it breaks down into nothing but preferences. Arbitary... temporary... preferences.
So you are going to the, "there is no objective morality without a god" well, eh?
For the sake of argument let's say that is true. So what? That isn't evidence for the existence of a god. Perhaps there is no objective morality. That might be the case. Just because you find reality to be objectionable or scary doesn't mean you can dismiss it so easily.
About Me
0
FerraTorr Wrote:
So you are going to the, "there is no objective morality without a god" well, eh?
So you are going to the, "there is no objective morality without a god" well, eh?
No, I do believe something like morality could exist without God, but the epistemology would be a lost cause, IMO. There's a lot of secular moral theories, though (check out utilitarianism).
Only the continental philosophers believe that might-makes-right stuff.
FerraTorr Wrote:
So you are going to the, "there is no objective morality without a god" well, eh?
For the sake of argument let's say that is true. So what? That isn't evidence for the existence of a god.
So you are going to the, "there is no objective morality without a god" well, eh?
For the sake of argument let's say that is true. So what? That isn't evidence for the existence of a god.
I don't think that's necessarily true, but even if moral intuition isn't evidence for God's existence, there are multiple strong arguments for the existence of a supreme agent.
That's another thread, though.
Rant:
Well , basically the morality question boils down to this:
Do you do good things because they are good, or because God defined them as good?
This is not a white and black question. I generally prefer it when people realize that good for the sake of good is the better choice, since it shows that they do not do it because of the heaven-carrot-on-a-stick motivation.
There are also those who say that those are equal. Fine, but then there is a biblical contradiction to that, as the inerrant word of god also states that nothing happens without his permission, thus, god also, for some reason allows evil (wether philosopchical or amthematically definable evil - such as entropy) to happen.
IN the last case I would not jump at the believers throat, as from my perception unfounded in his/her beliefs he/she may be, there is an intrinsic motivation for the better.
a.k.a. do not do good for rewards sake.
- - -
I do not believe that nature works on moral principles, I do not believe in absolutes and I most definitely do NOT WANT any kind of eternity of bliss/suffering.
Everything withers and dies, our universe is probably going out on a whimper instead of a bang. I am a cosmicist in a sense: I do not believe that our morals or principles hold intrinsic universal value. I do however believe that for us, for the time being and to our end they are OF UTMOST IMPORTNACE.
And here is the bit that fundamentalist Americans to my excperience cannot fathom:
yes, everything will end, you will cease to exist in every way and mankind's achievements are to the dust. That said however, the beauty of the world lies in that time while we exist, and the longer our legacy, our mark endures the bigger the testament of our perseverance is.
Being afraid of dying I can relate to. I am also afraid. Sometimes terrified, but consider this> I have been dead for billions of years before I was born, and I am/was fine with that.
Oblivion is the natural endstate to everything, and as it should be. The road to inevitable loss however is yours, ONLY YOURS TO FILL OUT AND GIVE MEANING TO!
Those who assert their superiority on baseless claims of a bronze age fairytale tyrant are the enemies of humanity and it's eventual legacy. The enmies of so much more we could be.
Well , basically the morality question boils down to this:
Do you do good things because they are good, or because God defined them as good?
This is not a white and black question. I generally prefer it when people realize that good for the sake of good is the better choice, since it shows that they do not do it because of the heaven-carrot-on-a-stick motivation.
There are also those who say that those are equal. Fine, but then there is a biblical contradiction to that, as the inerrant word of god also states that nothing happens without his permission, thus, god also, for some reason allows evil (wether philosopchical or amthematically definable evil - such as entropy) to happen.
IN the last case I would not jump at the believers throat, as from my perception unfounded in his/her beliefs he/she may be, there is an intrinsic motivation for the better.
a.k.a. do not do good for rewards sake.
- - -
I do not believe that nature works on moral principles, I do not believe in absolutes and I most definitely do NOT WANT any kind of eternity of bliss/suffering.
Everything withers and dies, our universe is probably going out on a whimper instead of a bang. I am a cosmicist in a sense: I do not believe that our morals or principles hold intrinsic universal value. I do however believe that for us, for the time being and to our end they are OF UTMOST IMPORTNACE.
And here is the bit that fundamentalist Americans to my excperience cannot fathom:
yes, everything will end, you will cease to exist in every way and mankind's achievements are to the dust. That said however, the beauty of the world lies in that time while we exist, and the longer our legacy, our mark endures the bigger the testament of our perseverance is.
Being afraid of dying I can relate to. I am also afraid. Sometimes terrified, but consider this> I have been dead for billions of years before I was born, and I am/was fine with that.
Oblivion is the natural endstate to everything, and as it should be. The road to inevitable loss however is yours, ONLY YOURS TO FILL OUT AND GIVE MEANING TO!
Those who assert their superiority on baseless claims of a bronze age fairytale tyrant are the enemies of humanity and it's eventual legacy. The enmies of so much more we could be.
About Me
0
Chrome and I agree on almost nothing at all ever, but everything he said in that last post is 100% how I feel on the matter as well.
Though I'd have said it with much better grammar.
Though I'd have said it with much better grammar.
0
Chrome Wrote:
Those who assert their superiority on baseless claims of a bronze age fairytale tyrant are the enemies of humanity and it's eventual legacy. The enmies of so much more we could be.
Those who assert their superiority on baseless claims of a bronze age fairytale tyrant are the enemies of humanity and it's eventual legacy. The enmies of so much more we could be.
This is my problem with either side of the argument. People that see others with different beliefs as enemies. People wonder where the intolerance comes from...it starts when we stop seeing a person with a different opinion and start seeing a threat that's just trying to shit on what we believe.
We're all just trying to feel our way through this experience. Maybe if we stop pissing and moaning and keeping this colossal game of "I'm right and you're wrong and fuck you if you feel different" going, we could all have a more pleasant time.
Detox Wrote:
This is my problem with either side of the argument. People that see others with different beliefs as enemies. People wonder where the intolerance comes from...it starts when we stop seeing a person with a different opinion and start seeing a threat that's just trying to shit on what we believe.
We're all just trying to feel our way through this experience. Maybe if we stop pissing and moaning and keeping this colossal game of "I'm right and you're wrong and fuck you if you feel different" going, we could all have a more pleasant time.
Chrome Wrote:
Those who assert their superiority on baseless claims of a bronze age fairytale tyrant are the enemies of humanity and it's eventual legacy. The enmies of so much more we could be.
Those who assert their superiority on baseless claims of a bronze age fairytale tyrant are the enemies of humanity and it's eventual legacy. The enmies of so much more we could be.
This is my problem with either side of the argument. People that see others with different beliefs as enemies. People wonder where the intolerance comes from...it starts when we stop seeing a person with a different opinion and start seeing a threat that's just trying to shit on what we believe.
We're all just trying to feel our way through this experience. Maybe if we stop pissing and moaning and keeping this colossal game of "I'm right and you're wrong and fuck you if you feel different" going, we could all have a more pleasant time.
The problem is this:
there is a difference between debating subjectigve opinions, and debating reality. Beliefs, no matter how conforting, have to have a basis in reality. If the religious claims are opposite of reality, then they are harmful, as it can easily be proven that believing in TRUE things is better than UNCERTAIN or FALSE things.
And since beliefs lead to actions, and actions have consequences... yeah. I will fight you tooth and nail on teaching Biblical text as fact, as it has not met it's buden of proof. And no, believing is not the same as KNOWING.
- - -
The exemption in the great faux-philosophical pissing game is that realist scepticism has evidence for it's statements and DOES NOT MAKE STATEMENTS OTHERWISE.
it is okay to not know the whole truth, to not see the whole picture. Infact, it is the only exciting thing in this beautifully terrifying world. HOWEVER, if you come and claim you have the answer to everything and everyone else is stupid you included, AND THEN fail to provide evidence...
That moment is when your beliefs have zero value. YOUR VALUES, NOT YOU! it hurts to have your own world torn down, but you will manage. Your morals are a result of logic, you can be - scratch that, YOU ARE MORAL because you are, and not because of some divine tyrant, or some muddy idea of an all encompassing something that you attribute intelligence to.
NONE OF US CAN BE RIGHT, ALL OF US CAN BE WRONG. And so far religion has nothing going for it in the truth department.
About Me
0
Okay, here we go...
Opposite of reality? Until the atheist demonstrates that there's a viable model of the universe that doesn't require agency, s/he has no business telling the theist that his/her beliefs are not grounded in reality. Everything we know about the universe points to a transcendent agent, and the only alternative models either violate logical laws, or they run into insane mathematical absurdities.
And let's go back moral theories for a second.
In order for the above to be relevant, the atheist has to have some viable theory of free will that relies on purely secular premises. There is none. It doesn't exist. If the mind and brain are numerically identical, then every choice you make is dictated by your neural and metabolic processes. The only thing that comes close is compatibilism... which as a theory, kinda sucks. And after you solve that problem, you still need moral absolutes to have any justified view of right/wrong conduct.
Listen dude, we all struggle with the free will problem. No one is exempt no matter what theories they adhere to. Even if you remove biology or divine providence, you still have the to resolve the complex nature of desires and choices. If you do decide to opt into a materialist theory of mind, then you're stacking the problem with insurmountable premises.
If people here don't think the Levitical laws make sense in the context of ancient Middle Eastern society, that's gravy. I'm not trying to sell anything here. My only point is that the truth isn't obvious. Ethics is difficult. Philosophy is difficult. If you think your position is so obviously right, then you're either ignoring the problems or not taking them seriously.
Chrome Wrote:
If the religious claims are opposite of reality, then they are harmful, as it can easily be proven that believing in TRUE things is better than UNCERTAIN or FALSE things.
If the religious claims are opposite of reality, then they are harmful, as it can easily be proven that believing in TRUE things is better than UNCERTAIN or FALSE things.
Opposite of reality? Until the atheist demonstrates that there's a viable model of the universe that doesn't require agency, s/he has no business telling the theist that his/her beliefs are not grounded in reality. Everything we know about the universe points to a transcendent agent, and the only alternative models either violate logical laws, or they run into insane mathematical absurdities.
And let's go back moral theories for a second.
Chrome Wrote:
And since beliefs lead to actions, and actions have consequences... yeah. I will fight you tooth and nail on teaching Biblical text as fact, as it has not met it's buden of proof. And no, believing is not the same as KNOWING.
And since beliefs lead to actions, and actions have consequences... yeah. I will fight you tooth and nail on teaching Biblical text as fact, as it has not met it's buden of proof. And no, believing is not the same as KNOWING.
In order for the above to be relevant, the atheist has to have some viable theory of free will that relies on purely secular premises. There is none. It doesn't exist. If the mind and brain are numerically identical, then every choice you make is dictated by your neural and metabolic processes. The only thing that comes close is compatibilism... which as a theory, kinda sucks. And after you solve that problem, you still need moral absolutes to have any justified view of right/wrong conduct.
Listen dude, we all struggle with the free will problem. No one is exempt no matter what theories they adhere to. Even if you remove biology or divine providence, you still have the to resolve the complex nature of desires and choices. If you do decide to opt into a materialist theory of mind, then you're stacking the problem with insurmountable premises.
If people here don't think the Levitical laws make sense in the context of ancient Middle Eastern society, that's gravy. I'm not trying to sell anything here. My only point is that the truth isn't obvious. Ethics is difficult. Philosophy is difficult. If you think your position is so obviously right, then you're either ignoring the problems or not taking them seriously.
TemperaryUserName Wrote:
Okay, here we go...
Opposite of reality? Until the atheist demonstrates that there's a viable model of the universe that doesn't require agency, s/he has no business telling the theist that his/her beliefs are not grounded in reality. Everything we know about the universe points to a transcendent agent, and the only alternative models either violate logical laws, or they run into insane mathematical absurdities.
And let's go back moral theories for a second.
In order for the above to be relevant, the atheist has to have some viable theory of free will that relies on purely secular premises. There is none. It doesn't exist. If the mind and brain are numerically identical, then every choice you make is dictated by your neural and metabolic processes. The only thing that comes close is compatibilism... which as a theory, kinda sucks. And after you solve that problem, you still need moral absolutes to have any justified view of right/wrong conduct.
Listen dude, we all struggle with the free will problem. No one is exempt no matter what theories they adhere to. Even if you remove biology or divine providence, you still have the to resolve the complex nature of desires and choices. If you do decide to opt into a materialist theory of mind, then you're stacking the problem with insurmountable premises.
If people here don't think the Levitical laws make sense in the context of ancient Middle Eastern society, that's gravy. I'm not trying to sell anything here. My only point is that the truth isn't obvious. Ethics is difficult. Philosophy is difficult. If you think your position is so obviously right, then you're either ignoring the problems or not taking them seriously.
Okay, here we go...
Chrome Wrote:
If the religious claims are opposite of reality, then they are harmful, as it can easily be proven that believing in TRUE things is better than UNCERTAIN or FALSE things.
If the religious claims are opposite of reality, then they are harmful, as it can easily be proven that believing in TRUE things is better than UNCERTAIN or FALSE things.
Opposite of reality? Until the atheist demonstrates that there's a viable model of the universe that doesn't require agency, s/he has no business telling the theist that his/her beliefs are not grounded in reality. Everything we know about the universe points to a transcendent agent, and the only alternative models either violate logical laws, or they run into insane mathematical absurdities.
And let's go back moral theories for a second.
Chrome Wrote:
And since beliefs lead to actions, and actions have consequences... yeah. I will fight you tooth and nail on teaching Biblical text as fact, as it has not met it's buden of proof. And no, believing is not the same as KNOWING.
And since beliefs lead to actions, and actions have consequences... yeah. I will fight you tooth and nail on teaching Biblical text as fact, as it has not met it's buden of proof. And no, believing is not the same as KNOWING.
In order for the above to be relevant, the atheist has to have some viable theory of free will that relies on purely secular premises. There is none. It doesn't exist. If the mind and brain are numerically identical, then every choice you make is dictated by your neural and metabolic processes. The only thing that comes close is compatibilism... which as a theory, kinda sucks. And after you solve that problem, you still need moral absolutes to have any justified view of right/wrong conduct.
Listen dude, we all struggle with the free will problem. No one is exempt no matter what theories they adhere to. Even if you remove biology or divine providence, you still have the to resolve the complex nature of desires and choices. If you do decide to opt into a materialist theory of mind, then you're stacking the problem with insurmountable premises.
If people here don't think the Levitical laws make sense in the context of ancient Middle Eastern society, that's gravy. I'm not trying to sell anything here. My only point is that the truth isn't obvious. Ethics is difficult. Philosophy is difficult. If you think your position is so obviously right, then you're either ignoring the problems or not taking them seriously.
I do not believe in free will. Neither is morality that hard. Maximize result without introducing / introducing the least amount of possible entropy or more precisely loss, discomfort.
There are some absolutes: life and comfort is generally preferable to death and pain. Though there are times when immediate relief is not advisable on the long term, therefore you must choose the option what leads to long-term positive result.
Also, Golden Rule. The basics are not hard to figure out, human development basically shows that we had understood this, otherwise we would not, could not function. Since it is genetically predisposed into living beings who possess thought patterns.
Now for something completely different - - - >
Disregarding the special pleading, divine exemptionism and cause-effect threads. I am not convinced particularly by Christianity or Abrahamic religions.
The creation of the universe depending on a primordial mover. Perhaps. I do not rule that out, but perhaps there is none. There might not be a cause, a time before, hell, causality outside this realm might be even a hollow concept.
The problem is not wether this universe was created. it's the assumption that one particular God, deity, pantheon created it, as we have no evidence. Your choice of life Temp is not completely free either.
My message is simple: while we may struggle with what is moral, we can do a better job in determining what is not. Christianity has some good morals, it has also astoundingly bad ones. Also, the Bible's message is itself not clear (many authors with different agendas, Luke for example).
Personally, I found Jesus disillusioningly naive, and sometimes contradictory, and perhaps amoral. But the one thing I cannot forgive, and will not ever is the goddamn toxic guilt culture.
TLDR: I do not believe in free will. I am a cosmicist, I do not necessarily believe that there is a logic to creation itself. I believe that narure on itslef is without morals. Morals are created by the need for life and the necessity for further life. I do not necessarily think I am right or all correct. i do however can identify Abrahamic theism as flawed.
Rare case, when I am agree with Chrome.
It also can explain his biter personality.
I believe in free will, however, as I believe there is no deities or pantheons. There is no fate, no predertemined outcome. There is only chaos. Humans can choose for themselves what to do. Though they choice somewhat predetermined by their biology / genetics and personality, which develops from them.
It also can explain his biter personality.
I believe in free will, however, as I believe there is no deities or pantheons. There is no fate, no predertemined outcome. There is only chaos. Humans can choose for themselves what to do. Though they choice somewhat predetermined by their biology / genetics and personality, which develops from them.
About Me
0
Chrome Wrote:
I do not believe in free will. Neither is morality that hard. Maximize result without introducing / introducing the least amount of possible entropy or more precisely loss, discomfort.
I do not believe in free will. Neither is morality that hard. Maximize result without introducing / introducing the least amount of possible entropy or more precisely loss, discomfort.
You can't maximize happiness/comfort without free will, but... wait, you don't believe in free will? if there's no free will, why are we even arguing? This whole subject moot without it. We're not even freely arguing, lol.
Chrome Wrote:
There are some absolutes: life and comfort is generally preferable to death and pain. Though there are times when immediate relief is not advisable on the long term, therefore you must choose the option what leads to long-term positive result.
There are some absolutes: life and comfort is generally preferable to death and pain. Though there are times when immediate relief is not advisable on the long term, therefore you must choose the option what leads to long-term positive result.
In theory, these values could all be channeled into something selfish. If we find ourselves in the prisoner's dilemma, these values could cause us to do horrible atrocities.
And if someone raises their own utility to the point where they don't have to worry about the prisoner's dilemma while everyone else does, we're all screwed.
Chrome Wrote:
Also, Golden Rule. The basics are not hard to figure out, human development basically shows that we had understood this, otherwise we would not, could not function. Since it is genetically predisposed into living beings who possess thought patterns.
Also, Golden Rule. The basics are not hard to figure out, human development basically shows that we had understood this, otherwise we would not, could not function. Since it is genetically predisposed into living beings who possess thought patterns.
But without moral law, every motive for acting on the golden rule is still inherently selfish. You're either enacting it to maintain things you value (objects/people/whatever), or you do it in hopes of personal preservation.
So if by some chance you don't value the well being of others and you've climbed high enough on the ladder where preservation is no longer necessary, all this stuff goes out the window.
And just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue incentive here. I'm not saying people should believe in objective morality so they'll be scared into acting moral. I'm just saying these are the logical consequences of ethical egoism.
Chrome Wrote:
Disregarding the special pleading, divine exemptionism and cause-effect threads. I am not convinced particularly by Christianity or Abrahamic religions.
Disregarding the special pleading, divine exemptionism and cause-effect threads. I am not convinced particularly by Christianity or Abrahamic religions.
Most people on this forum aren't. That's fine, too. No one here needs to agree. I'm just here to provide other perspective cause I don't write this stuff, no one else will.
Chrome Wrote:
The creation of the universe depending on a primordial mover. Perhaps. I do not rule that out, but perhaps there is none. There might not be a cause, a time before, hell, causality outside this realm might be even a hollow concept.
The creation of the universe depending on a primordial mover. Perhaps. I do not rule that out, but perhaps there is none. There might not be a cause, a time before, hell, causality outside this realm might be even a hollow concept.
This is an issue I've talked a lot about in the past, so I don't want to dwell too much on this. My opinion has always been that transcendent agency is a lock. I have never seen an alternative explanation that works.
If there is an outside-of-the-universe, I'm of the opinion that logic and casualty would work the same way there that it does here. Those things are immutable, IMO.
Chrome Wrote:
The problem is not wether this universe was created. it's the assumption that one particular God, deity, pantheon created it, as we have no evidence. Your choice of life Temp is not completely free either.
The problem is not wether this universe was created. it's the assumption that one particular God, deity, pantheon created it, as we have no evidence. Your choice of life Temp is not completely free either.
If an entity did create it, then that entity would have to be something dynamic. It can't just be a force of nature because if it was, it would be static, and creation would never happen.
Does that mean this entity is Jesus, Gaia, or Xenu? Nah. But the existence of God does have huge implications about human nature, and it does provide a starting point for organized religion.
Chrome Wrote:
Your choice of life Temp is not completely free either.
Your choice of life Temp is not completely free either.
Other philosophical problems of free will aside, I think Free Will is compatible with most interpretations of providence.
However, I'm going to take the Conan-the-Barbarian exit and save that for another day.
As if humans is the only intelligent creatures in the universe...which statistically is very doubtful.
Religions were created to explain to people forces of nature and to alleviate fear of dying. Then they were changed into tools of control and brainwashing.
Also to enhance people own self importance and provide comfort. It's much more comfortbale to think that you have been created by someone with some GREAT purpose and not that you are just temporarily inhabiting enormous universe in which you are just a tiny microbe, whose lifespan is laughable and whose accomplishments, most likely, will be forgotten in few dozen years. Also, idea about "someone watching and helping" you, is another point of comfort.
Basically, nowadays, aside from political tool, religion serves as anchor for some people who want to believe that they are special and they are not alone. Two greatesr fears of human being - being abandoned and feeling insignificant. For some it's enough to become insane.
But I'd like to believe, that at some point humans will overcome this stupid barriers and start believe, that there are special not because they were created by imaginary friends, but simply by fact of their existing here and now and that they don't need universal recognition, leave traces for million years and imaginary friends to live happy and fullfilling lives.
Believing in universal morals is stupid. There is no such thing.
Religions were created to explain to people forces of nature and to alleviate fear of dying. Then they were changed into tools of control and brainwashing.
Also to enhance people own self importance and provide comfort. It's much more comfortbale to think that you have been created by someone with some GREAT purpose and not that you are just temporarily inhabiting enormous universe in which you are just a tiny microbe, whose lifespan is laughable and whose accomplishments, most likely, will be forgotten in few dozen years. Also, idea about "someone watching and helping" you, is another point of comfort.
Basically, nowadays, aside from political tool, religion serves as anchor for some people who want to believe that they are special and they are not alone. Two greatesr fears of human being - being abandoned and feeling insignificant. For some it's enough to become insane.
But I'd like to believe, that at some point humans will overcome this stupid barriers and start believe, that there are special not because they were created by imaginary friends, but simply by fact of their existing here and now and that they don't need universal recognition, leave traces for million years and imaginary friends to live happy and fullfilling lives.
Believing in universal morals is stupid. There is no such thing.
About Me
If it tastes like chicken, keep on lickin'. If it smells like trout, then get the f*** out!
0
It's funny how in the last 2000 years so much has evolved, science, ideals, communication, tools/technology, gender roles, etc yet the one thing that hasn't are the Abrahamic religions. The fact that people in 2014 follow a 2000 year old book that has outdated philosophies (slavery, gender roles, punishments) is beyond baffling.
Some clarification: free will and free choice is not the same. While I think we are biologically locked in certain decision-making mechanisms, there are multiple choices one can make. The independent choices are peresent, it is just that we are naturally make certain ones... bad analogy/simile incoming: pehaps instinctively. I am not a neurosurgeon, so stone me.
- - -
Selfishness is in itself a natural occurence, and unless pathologically prominent, there is nothing wrong with it. Infact, it is necessary to survive. That does not mean that we can not be social people, and sharing is also essential to our survival. Also, it is one of our psychological needs.
Self-sacrifice is also natural. And selfish. Social bird males often fight for the right to perch atop trees to distract predators from their, and others offspring. It is a bioogical-social function that allows safekeeping the genepool. That is not to discount that there is genuine self-sacrifice. There are people for whom I would sacrifice myself if there is absolutely no choice left.
We are genetically predetermined to follow certain social functions, ritual is the same. Religion barely works without rritual which is a human need. Atheists, agnostics also have rituals in their social life, not necessarily tied to beliefs in something divine.
In summary i think my standpoints can be summed up as thus:
- I do not know wether any divine agent is behind the universe.
- so far it has not demonstrated evidence (falsifiable, repeatedly observable, up for testing) of it's existence.
- I am not justified in believing any holy text or religion as the evidence is nonexistent.
- the observable reality does not point to the existence of a divine agent or any kind of intelligence behind the cosmos.
Conclusion: I d not see god as an existing entity. I do not know if that means it does (not) exist, but it has no relevance so far in my life.
Even so, if there is some primordial yet unseen force, what makes you think that it's Yahveh? Or Amaterasu, or Byelobog, or whatever godhead, mythological person is that?
I do not know if there is such an entity, but I find the idea that anyone of the lsiten religions got it right is highly unlikely. My beef is mostly moral, and even if God would show himself, and it is in my capacity to choose, I still would not want the Christian god -as he is depicted- as a personal deity.
Then, God would have a lot to answer for.
- - -
Selfishness is in itself a natural occurence, and unless pathologically prominent, there is nothing wrong with it. Infact, it is necessary to survive. That does not mean that we can not be social people, and sharing is also essential to our survival. Also, it is one of our psychological needs.
Self-sacrifice is also natural. And selfish. Social bird males often fight for the right to perch atop trees to distract predators from their, and others offspring. It is a bioogical-social function that allows safekeeping the genepool. That is not to discount that there is genuine self-sacrifice. There are people for whom I would sacrifice myself if there is absolutely no choice left.
We are genetically predetermined to follow certain social functions, ritual is the same. Religion barely works without rritual which is a human need. Atheists, agnostics also have rituals in their social life, not necessarily tied to beliefs in something divine.
In summary i think my standpoints can be summed up as thus:
- I do not know wether any divine agent is behind the universe.
- so far it has not demonstrated evidence (falsifiable, repeatedly observable, up for testing) of it's existence.
- I am not justified in believing any holy text or religion as the evidence is nonexistent.
- the observable reality does not point to the existence of a divine agent or any kind of intelligence behind the cosmos.
Conclusion: I d not see god as an existing entity. I do not know if that means it does (not) exist, but it has no relevance so far in my life.
Even so, if there is some primordial yet unseen force, what makes you think that it's Yahveh? Or Amaterasu, or Byelobog, or whatever godhead, mythological person is that?
I do not know if there is such an entity, but I find the idea that anyone of the lsiten religions got it right is highly unlikely. My beef is mostly moral, and even if God would show himself, and it is in my capacity to choose, I still would not want the Christian god -as he is depicted- as a personal deity.
Then, God would have a lot to answer for.
About Me
0
Detox Wrote:
This is my problem with either side of the argument. People that see others with different beliefs as enemies. People wonder where the intolerance comes from...it starts when we stop seeing a person with a different opinion and start seeing a threat that's just trying to shit on what we believe.
This is my problem with either side of the argument. People that see others with different beliefs as enemies. People wonder where the intolerance comes from...it starts when we stop seeing a person with a different opinion and start seeing a threat that's just trying to shit on what we believe.
And what would you have us do about people who use religion as a reason to try to hold back progress in fields of science and medicine, for example stem cell research?
Also there is no two equal sides of the argument, when one can be justified with measurable outcomes and the other can not.
As I said, you do not get to put your religion's falsehoods on the same shelf as reason. That said, however this applies to religious statements that can be proven wrong (the leprosy cure comes to my mind).
I also keep in mind that Temp does not believe in the literal interpretation and not everyone ascribes to total iblical inerrancy (or any other holy scripture's).
As I said, you do not get to put your religion's falsehoods on the same shelf as reason. That said, however this applies to religious statements that can be proven wrong (the leprosy cure comes to my mind).
I also keep in mind that Temp does not believe in the literal interpretation and not everyone ascribes to total iblical inerrancy (or any other holy scripture's).
0
RazorsEdge701 Wrote:
And what would you have us do about people who use religion as a reason to try to hold back progress in fields of science and medicine, for example stem cell research?
Detox Wrote:
This is my problem with either side of the argument. People that see others with different beliefs as enemies. People wonder where the intolerance comes from...it starts when we stop seeing a person with a different opinion and start seeing a threat that's just trying to shit on what we believe.
This is my problem with either side of the argument. People that see others with different beliefs as enemies. People wonder where the intolerance comes from...it starts when we stop seeing a person with a different opinion and start seeing a threat that's just trying to shit on what we believe.
And what would you have us do about people who use religion as a reason to try to hold back progress in fields of science and medicine, for example stem cell research?
Great question...one I don't have an answer for sadly. If religious people truly believe that this is all God's plan, than why is it so far fetched that God would want us to do this research for the betterment of mankind?
Answers for questions like these won't exist as long as there is no common ground. The religious can keep on seeing the work that science does as an abomination unto the Lord, and the intellectual crowd can keep on dismissing the religious as naïve fools, all the while humanity is held back by the bickering.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
0
I'm convinced that the concept of right and wrong is all man-made. I don't believe in God or any other deity. Just people. Mortal humans who are worshipping a fantasy, and uses that as an excuse to how they act.
It can bring out the best of people, but it can certainly get the worst out of people as well, but that is because we are capable of both being good and being bad. But it is all human! Saying it is some god's will is just throwing the responsibility away from your own actions.
It can bring out the best of people, but it can certainly get the worst out of people as well, but that is because we are capable of both being good and being bad. But it is all human! Saying it is some god's will is just throwing the responsibility away from your own actions.
© 1998-2025 Shadow Knight Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Mortal Kombat, the dragon logo and all character names are trademarks and copyright of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.