Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 04:22 AM

Big Richard

Aug 14 2011, 03:48 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 12:03 AM

Big Richard

Aug 13 2011, 11:39 PM

that was a wall of text painful to read, do you really believe all that or are you just playing devil's advocate?

How can I possibly know anything about Him for sure other than what He explicitly says?

well then how are you so sure God is a "he". Why do you even consider if what "He" says or doesn't say is true without even first really considering if he actually exists or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo

Merely a matter of course. The "word" is that God is masculine, but there reeeeally isn't a lot to it either way. Or do you mean no gender whatsoever? Because I don't want to speak too much about what God is so much as what God does.

I'm pretty sure I've explained about my faith a couple of times. It's not really a question for me anymore. There is no controversy, there is no big debate. I'm too philosophical to buy into a world governed by scientific principles that humans can explain everything with. We're barely smarter than most animals, honestly. We sit on a higher plane of intellect (sapience) but what's to say there isn't a plane of intellect above that? We have no way of knowing for sure, but we know that lower animals have no way of even comprehending the existence of sapience. And if we don't have the highest plane of knowledge, we can't explain everything, even just in the realm of the physical.

No human can definitively prove God (or any deity for that matter) exists without some kind of divine intervention. Scientifically, it's not really possible to disprove the existence of a deity, either. Totally a matter of personal choice, and I picked the former. Anyway, can we steer this back to the regular topic? I like what we're talking about, but this is going to turn into just another debate thread if it goes into "Does or doesn't a higher power exist 101".

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 10:51 PM

The difficulty with the "needs and desires" theory is when conflicts between individuals and between groups and group vs individual arise. How does one measure what is good in what way, to what degree, and then apply it so as to define it as right or wrong in an objective manner? I would consider that a strong, reasonable subjective moral map but it's so theoretical that trying to make it into something definitive and objective isn't really possible. Also, what is it that makes fulfilling desires, in particular, good? In other contexts it may be considered to be the ultimate demonstration of good to transcend any kind of desire--but that's deprivation of a moral desire. That, in your map, would be wrong. But if they consider it to be right...where do you go with that?

DragonLegend

Aug 14 2011, 01:00 AM

Hyperactive Jam

Aug 13 2011, 09:28 PM

DragonLegend

Aug 13 2011, 07:26 PM

Hyperactive Jam

Aug 13 2011, 07:02 PM

DragonLegend

Aug 13 2011, 05:45 PM

Spirituality is what gives life meaning, or purpose. Everything physical (including intelligence) is empty, temporary, and ultimately meaningless.

So you aren't talking about the supernatural then.

Spirituality may or may not be exclusively supernatural. I'll have to chew on that some more.

Btw, without our intelligence we wouldn't be able to comprehend what is right and wrong, we wouldn't be able to appreciate art and literature so it's silly to say that intelligence is meaningless and doesn't set us a apart from other animals.

As I said, I was talking about inherent spiritual differences.

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 08:22 PM

All morality originates from religious practice. No higher power means nothing that can set into place right and wrong in any kind of objective state. Otherwise it's just people deciding to pick and choose, and that doesn't mean anything that's objective.

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:42 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:06 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 06:53 PM

gs

Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM

but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in.

and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own?

1. That's an empty statement to make. No faithful Christian, for instance, is going to think that the Bible, its principles and its accounts are irrelevant to God's word and structure for humanity. If I believe in God, I kind of have to recognize that Bible's legitimacy (especially with Christ's teachings) or I don't really "believe in" Him.

2. And how do you suppose we have such a thing as law? Underlying moral principles. No moral principles means no laws, plain and simple.

underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ...

If they're not objective, then why should they bind us as individuals and govern how we behave?

because people think they're objective and treat them that way. and i don't think they bind us at all because you don't have to follow them if you don't want to...

Laws are most certainly binding. If you don't follow them you can be punished in a variety of ways. You don't physically have to follow the laws, but negative consequences are yielded from breaking them. If people are subjectively defining what is objective, then it's not objective at all. It's just subjective. And if it's subjective, then what qualifies it as a way to govern others? Because some people decided it was right? I don't want to get into one of those "Hitler sez" situations but do you see where I'm getting at here?

If anything that is moral is subjective, what makes murder any better or worse than pickpocketing? Because of the severity? What defines the severity? What makes a human life lost worse than a transfer of money to another person against the victim's will? Again, that's just people picking and choosing at will, and that's arbitrary and baseless.

Big Richard

Aug 14 2011, 05:00 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 04:22 AM

Big Richard

Aug 14 2011, 03:48 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 12:03 AM

Big Richard

Aug 13 2011, 11:39 PM

that was a wall of text painful to read, do you really believe all that or are you just playing devil's advocate?

How can I possibly know anything about Him for sure other than what He explicitly says?

well then how are you so sure God is a "he". Why do you even consider if what "He" says or doesn't say is true without even first really considering if he actually exists or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo

Merely a matter of course. The "word" is that God is masculine, but there reeeeally isn't a lot to it either way. Or do you mean no gender whatsoever? Because I don't want to speak too much about what God is so much as what God does.

I'm pretty sure I've explained about my faith a couple of times. It's not really a question for me anymore. There is no controversy, there is no big debate. I'm too philosophical to buy into a world governed by scientific principles that humans can explain everything with. We're barely smarter than most animals, honestly. We sit on a higher plane of intellect (sapience) but what's to say there isn't a plane of intellect above that? We have no way of knowing for sure, but we know that lower animals have no way of even comprehending the existence of sapience. And if we don't have the highest plane of knowledge, we can't explain everything, even just in the realm of the physical.

No human can definitively prove God (or any deity for that matter) exists without some kind of divine intervention. Scientifically, it's not really possible to disprove the existence of a deity, either. Totally a matter of personal choice, and I picked the former. Anyway, can we steer this back to the regular topic? I like what we're talking about, but this is going to turn into just another debate thread if it goes into "Does or doesn't a higher power exist 101".

but before you do what a stranger on the street tells you to do you first have to know about them to see if they're trustworthy. Why do you take "god's word" so wholeheartedly if you don't even know what your God really is nor how your texts and such came to the conclusion that God is a "He".

What is this plane of intellect or whatever you're talking about? Humans developed the frontal lobe region of their brains and began to think critically/abstractly. That doesn't mean anything. We're just animals that have adapted for survival through use of intellect rather than brawns or hiding. There is no objective "plane of intellect" its just dependent on how advanced any one brain is. I suggest reading Carl Sagan's book "The dragons of eden" or something similar to that title if you want to know more on the nature of our intelligence and its relevance to other animals.

Science is about understanding the world around us through rigorous experimentation and formulating theories. Just because a scientist has a theory doesn't mean he thinks he knows how something works. It's only definitive when it has been tested objectively. Which means science isn't more about humans explaining things themselves, science is an instrument used by humans to let nature explain itself, rather than humans explaining nature. It is in fact religion which makes the premise that humans can explain everything with simply pointing to a higher power.

It is certainly possible to deny the existence of a deity, by finding the faults and contradictions found within the books and stories in which the "deity" came from. It's like saying "no one can definitively prove or disprove Santa's existence." when really we all eventually thought for ourselves "how can a fat man in a sled possibly deliver all these presidents in one night around the world" etc. You disprove the myth by going at its roots, for if its basis is unfounded, than the entire topic can be dismissed.

gs

Aug 14 2011, 11:00 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:42 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:06 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 06:53 PM

gs

Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM

but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in.

and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own?

1. That's an empty statement to make. No faithful Christian, for instance, is going to think that the Bible, its principles and its accounts are irrelevant to God's word and structure for humanity. If I believe in God, I kind of have to recognize that Bible's legitimacy (especially with Christ's teachings) or I don't really "believe in" Him.

2. And how do you suppose we have such a thing as law? Underlying moral principles. No moral principles means no laws, plain and simple.

underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ...

If they're not objective, then why should they bind us as individuals and govern how we behave?

because people think they're objective and treat them that way. and i don't think they bind us at all because you don't have to follow them if you don't want to...

Laws are most certainly binding. If you don't follow them you can be punished in a variety of ways. You don't physically have to follow the laws, but negative consequences are yielded from breaking them. If people are subjectively defining what is objective, then it's not objective at all. It's just subjective. And if it's subjective, then what qualifies it as a way to govern others? Because some people decided it was right? I don't want to get into one of those "Hitler sez" situations but do you see where I'm getting at here?

If anything that is moral is subjective, what makes murder any better or worse than pickpocketing? Because of the severity? What defines the severity? What makes a human life lost worse than a transfer of money to another person against the victim's will? Again, that's just people picking and choosing at will, and that's arbitrary and baseless.

oh i thought we were talking about the moral code from your higher power. yeah, the law is also subjective and far from perfect and the only reason i'm following it is because otherwise i could get in trouble. it's not my moral basis because i (rarely i guess) don't genuinely want to follow it. my moral basis is the set of morals i made up myself, which you apparently consider lack of a moral basis because everyone including me knows it's not objective. but why can't i have a moral basis that's not objective?

but the much more interesting questions here are why would you believe your higher power's morals are any better than your own? and how would you know for sure which of the 50 religions follows the right higher power? and even if you knew that, how would you know for sure whether the morals in those religions' books are a real representation of the higher power?

fact is all those books were written by people, so what you're doing is following someone else's morals and calling them objective...

Ultra-Musketeer

Aug 14 2011, 09:16 AM

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 08:22 PM

All morality originates from religious practice. No higher power means nothing that can set into place right and wrong in any kind of objective state. Otherwise it's just people deciding to pick and choose, and that doesn't mean anything that's objective.

Are you serious? What were the objective moralities employed by the Nazi societies of Germany, and the Communist societies of Russia and China? They certainly weren't influenced by religion, I can tell you that.

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 12:10 PM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 11:00 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:42 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:06 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 06:53 PM

gs

Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM

but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in.

and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own?

1. That's an empty statement to make. No faithful Christian, for instance, is going to think that the Bible, its principles and its accounts are irrelevant to God's word and structure for humanity. If I believe in God, I kind of have to recognize that Bible's legitimacy (especially with Christ's teachings) or I don't really "believe in" Him.

2. And how do you suppose we have such a thing as law? Underlying moral principles. No moral principles means no laws, plain and simple.

underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ...

If they're not objective, then why should they bind us as individuals and govern how we behave?

because people think they're objective and treat them that way. and i don't think they bind us at all because you don't have to follow them if you don't want to...

Laws are most certainly binding. If you don't follow them you can be punished in a variety of ways. You don't physically have to follow the laws, but negative consequences are yielded from breaking them. If people are subjectively defining what is objective, then it's not objective at all. It's just subjective. And if it's subjective, then what qualifies it as a way to govern others? Because some people decided it was right? I don't want to get into one of those "Hitler sez" situations but do you see where I'm getting at here?

If anything that is moral is subjective, what makes murder any better or worse than pickpocketing? Because of the severity? What defines the severity? What makes a human life lost worse than a transfer of money to another person against the victim's will? Again, that's just people picking and choosing at will, and that's arbitrary and baseless.

oh i thought we were talking about the moral code from your higher power. yeah, the law is also subjective and far from perfect and the only reason i'm following it is because otherwise i could get in trouble. it's not my moral basis because i (rarely i guess) don't genuinely want to follow it. my moral basis is the set of morals i made up myself, which you apparently consider lack of a moral basis because everyone including me knows it's not objective. but why can't i have a moral basis that's not objective?

but the much more interesting questions here are why would you believe your higher power's morals are any better than your own? and how would you know for sure which of the 50 religions follows the right higher power? and even if you knew that, how would you know for sure whether the morals in those religions' books are a real representation of the higher power?

fact is all those books were written by people, so what you're doing is following someone else's morals and calling them objective...

They're written by people, yes, but in the Abrahamic religions, for example, God would intervene into the speech and thought of people and tell them explicitly what to do and what not to do on a variety of occasions. If you don't accept any of what's in any of the Abrahamic holy texts, such is to deny the very word of, and therefore the existence, of the Abrahamic God. That's not to say you can accept everything, either. Christ claimed to be the Son of God (and thus a part of God) and Muhammad claimed Christ was just a prophet. Well both of them can't be right, and I choose to believe that God did not speak through Muhammad, thus at the very core, I could not possibly believe in Islam.

If an all-powerful being tells me that something is good or bad, like I said, as a person on a lower plane of intellectual capacity, I cannot even begin to seriously question any of what I've been told. Following it is a matter of course.

But let's rewind. Notice how way back I said "higher power" and not "God" even though I'm Christian. That was not unintentional. I'm no pantheist, but I do think there is a spiritual precedent from which objective good and evil are drawn from as a model (like on the very common moral theme that murder is wrong, just for the sake of example) and possibly other entities responsible for the formations of many religions.

I just happen to think Abrahamic religions are the better-founded ones, in this case.

Hyperactive Jam

Aug 14 2011, 05:54 AM

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 10:51 PM

The difficulty with the "needs and desires" theory is when conflicts between individuals and between groups and group vs individual arise. How does one measure what is good in what way, to what degree, and then apply it so as to define it as right or wrong in an objective manner? I would consider that a strong, reasonable subjective moral map but it's so theoretical that trying to make it into something definitive and objective isn't really possible. Also, what is it that makes fulfilling desires, in particular, good? In other contexts it may be considered to be the ultimate demonstration of good to transcend any kind of desire--but that's deprivation of a moral desire. That, in your map, would be wrong. But if they consider it to be right...where do you go with that?

There is no 'goodness scale', to what degree something is good is a relative measurement, something is more good than something else. It is because people disagree on what is good that it is not valid to say, kill innocents because you think it's good. I didn't not define good as being objective, I defined good a subjective to the individual and moral as those actions of people towards eachother which causes good, respective to the individual that you are acting towards. Of course there will be conflicts where you have to make a decision that will affect one person in a good way and another in a bad way. First of all, needs trump wants, compromise should be made if possible. If compromise is not possible then the more moral person is more deserving.

As for the monk example, it's just an attempt at paradox. If someone thinks they are better off without their earthly desires, that is what they want. I did not say that desires are moral. It is not even a moral question because it does not deal with the interactions between people.

As for all the god stuff, you are still begging the question. Humans can't know right from wrong because we can't, and this version of god and what he wants us to do is right because it is. Taking a list of rules as being absolutely true is not being objective, and since no moral system I have every seen spells out what to do in every situation then you will have to make your own moral judgments based on fundamental principles of what makes something right or wrong.

gs

Aug 14 2011, 12:25 PM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 12:10 PM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 11:00 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:42 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:06 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 06:53 PM

gs

Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM

but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in.

and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own?

1. That's an empty statement to make. No faithful Christian, for instance, is going to think that the Bible, its principles and its accounts are irrelevant to God's word and structure for humanity. If I believe in God, I kind of have to recognize that Bible's legitimacy (especially with Christ's teachings) or I don't really "believe in" Him.

2. And how do you suppose we have such a thing as law? Underlying moral principles. No moral principles means no laws, plain and simple.

underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ...

If they're not objective, then why should they bind us as individuals and govern how we behave?

because people think they're objective and treat them that way. and i don't think they bind us at all because you don't have to follow them if you don't want to...

Laws are most certainly binding. If you don't follow them you can be punished in a variety of ways. You don't physically have to follow the laws, but negative consequences are yielded from breaking them. If people are subjectively defining what is objective, then it's not objective at all. It's just subjective. And if it's subjective, then what qualifies it as a way to govern others? Because some people decided it was right? I don't want to get into one of those "Hitler sez" situations but do you see where I'm getting at here?

If anything that is moral is subjective, what makes murder any better or worse than pickpocketing? Because of the severity? What defines the severity? What makes a human life lost worse than a transfer of money to another person against the victim's will? Again, that's just people picking and choosing at will, and that's arbitrary and baseless.

oh i thought we were talking about the moral code from your higher power. yeah, the law is also subjective and far from perfect and the only reason i'm following it is because otherwise i could get in trouble. it's not my moral basis because i (rarely i guess) don't genuinely want to follow it. my moral basis is the set of morals i made up myself, which you apparently consider lack of a moral basis because everyone including me knows it's not objective. but why can't i have a moral basis that's not objective?

but the much more interesting questions here are why would you believe your higher power's morals are any better than your own? and how would you know for sure which of the 50 religions follows the right higher power? and even if you knew that, how would you know for sure whether the morals in those religions' books are a real representation of the higher power?

fact is all those books were written by people, so what you're doing is following someone else's morals and calling them objective...

They're written by people, yes, but in the Abrahamic religions, for example, God would intervene into the speech and thought of people and tell them explicitly what to do and what not to do on a variety of occasions. If you don't accept any of what's in any of the Abrahamic holy texts, such is to deny the very word of, and therefore the existence, of the Abrahamic God. That's not to say you can accept everything, either. Christ claimed to be the Son of God (and thus a part of God) and Muhammad claimed Christ was just a prophet. Well both of them can't be right, and I choose to believe that God did not speak through Muhammad, thus at the very core, I could not possibly believe in Islam.

If an all-powerful being tells me that something is good or bad, like I said, as a person on a lower plane of intellectual capacity, I cannot even begin to seriously question any of what I've been told. Following it is a matter of course.

But let's rewind. Notice how way back I said "higher power" and not "God" even though I'm Christian. That was not unintentional. I'm no pantheist, but I do think there is a spiritual precedent from which objective good and evil are drawn from as a model (like on the very common moral theme that murder is wrong, just for the sake of example) and possibly other entities responsible for the formations of many religions.

I just happen to think Abrahamic religions are the better-founded ones, in this case.

all in all it's about what you believe or maybe what you want to believe so your set of morals is by no means objective. you might treat them that way but that doesnt make it so.

and if you believe in that higher power that sets the rules but you don't necessarily believe in the christian god or whatever, which book of rules are you actually following right now?

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 12:11 PM

Ultra-Musketeer

Aug 14 2011, 09:16 AM

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 08:22 PM

All morality originates from religious practice. No higher power means nothing that can set into place right and wrong in any kind of objective state. Otherwise it's just people deciding to pick and choose, and that doesn't mean anything that's objective.

Are you serious? What were the objective moralities employed by the Nazi societies of Germany, and the Communist societies of Russia and China? They certainly weren't influenced by religion, I can tell you that.

They most certainly were. Any one of them could be claimed to be isolated but each of them took in legal and moral principles with a religious origin. If they didn't, there would've been nothing legally codifiable in any of them.

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 12:39 PM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 12:25 PM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 12:10 PM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 11:00 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:42 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:06 AM

gs

Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM

Redemption

Aug 13 2011, 06:53 PM

gs

Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM

but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in.

and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own?

1. That's an empty statement to make. No faithful Christian, for instance, is going to think that the Bible, its principles and its accounts are irrelevant to God's word and structure for humanity. If I believe in God, I kind of have to recognize that Bible's legitimacy (especially with Christ's teachings) or I don't really "believe in" Him.

2. And how do you suppose we have such a thing as law? Underlying moral principles. No moral principles means no laws, plain and simple.

underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ...

If they're not objective, then why should they bind us as individuals and govern how we behave?

because people think they're objective and treat them that way. and i don't think they bind us at all because you don't have to follow them if you don't want to...

Laws are most certainly binding. If you don't follow them you can be punished in a variety of ways. You don't physically have to follow the laws, but negative consequences are yielded from breaking them. If people are subjectively defining what is objective, then it's not objective at all. It's just subjective. And if it's subjective, then what qualifies it as a way to govern others? Because some people decided it was right? I don't want to get into one of those "Hitler sez" situations but do you see where I'm getting at here?

If anything that is moral is subjective, what makes murder any better or worse than pickpocketing? Because of the severity? What defines the severity? What makes a human life lost worse than a transfer of money to another person against the victim's will? Again, that's just people picking and choosing at will, and that's arbitrary and baseless.

oh i thought we were talking about the moral code from your higher power. yeah, the law is also subjective and far from perfect and the only reason i'm following it is because otherwise i could get in trouble. it's not my moral basis because i (rarely i guess) don't genuinely want to follow it. my moral basis is the set of morals i made up myself, which you apparently consider lack of a moral basis because everyone including me knows it's not objective. but why can't i have a moral basis that's not objective?

but the much more interesting questions here are why would you believe your higher power's morals are any better than your own? and how would you know for sure which of the 50 religions follows the right higher power? and even if you knew that, how would you know for sure whether the morals in those religions' books are a real representation of the higher power?

fact is all those books were written by people, so what you're doing is following someone else's morals and calling them objective...

They're written by people, yes, but in the Abrahamic religions, for example, God would intervene into the speech and thought of people and tell them explicitly what to do and what not to do on a variety of occasions. If you don't accept any of what's in any of the Abrahamic holy texts, such is to deny the very word of, and therefore the existence, of the Abrahamic God. That's not to say you can accept everything, either. Christ claimed to be the Son of God (and thus a part of God) and Muhammad claimed Christ was just a prophet. Well both of them can't be right, and I choose to believe that God did not speak through Muhammad, thus at the very core, I could not possibly believe in Islam.

If an all-powerful being tells me that something is good or bad, like I said, as a person on a lower plane of intellectual capacity, I cannot even begin to seriously question any of what I've been told. Following it is a matter of course.

But let's rewind. Notice how way back I said "higher power" and not "God" even though I'm Christian. That was not unintentional. I'm no pantheist, but I do think there is a spiritual precedent from which objective good and evil are drawn from as a model (like on the very common moral theme that murder is wrong, just for the sake of example) and possibly other entities responsible for the formations of many religions.

I just happen to think Abrahamic religions are the better-founded ones, in this case.

all in all it's about what you believe or maybe what you want to believe so your set of morals is by no means objective. you might treat them that way but that doesnt make it so.

and if you believe in that higher power that sets the rules but you don't necessarily believe in the christian god or whatever, which book of rules are you actually following right now?

I do believe in God and attempt to follow in His ways

DragonLegend

Aug 14 2011, 07:03 AM

Souls and a higher purpose is what I'm talking about.

By 'ultimately meaningless" I mean that intelligence is simply another physical quality. It's no different than eye color or clothing style. You can have it, lose it, change it, improve it. All these things are temporary, and in the larger sense, meaningless. The only thing that never changes or dies, the only thing that matters, is the soul.

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 12:35 PM

But is it really a want if someone thinks they're better off without what they desire? What if they don't want it but do it anyway, despite great emotional duress?

That said, humans can't know right from wrong because right and wrong exist at tiers that are beyond human comprehension, and a higher power is right because it sets that comprehension at a level that even us idiots can understand, and we have no way of questioning otherwise because that power has defined something that we cannot define on our own. Yes, that reasoning is circular and the conclusion and premise go hand-in-hand, but just because the logic is circular does not mean that it's incorrect. Though this is something that I've wondered for some time, where a person can make the "logical insert" that causes this to not be circular.

Back to the first thing you brought up--I thought you were trying to map things out to create an objective good, or were you strictly speaking subjectively to try to create the "reasonable" subjective good?

...you might have to explain that one to me in more detail, I might have missed out on something when I was reading through, sorry.

Redemption

 

All morality originates from religious practice.

_Saladin_

Aug 14 2011, 05:08 PM

Redemption

 

All morality originates from religious practice.

Prove it. I don't see why the onus is on us to disprove all the time. Half of the posts in this thread are making statements as if they're the default and we have to disprove them.

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 06:19 PM

_Saladin_

Aug 14 2011, 05:08 PM

Redemption

 

All morality originates from religious practice.

Prove it. I don't see why the onus is on us to disprove all the time. Half of the posts in this thread are making statements as if they're the default and we have to disprove them.

It's impossible for me to prove to someone who doesn't buy into theology because the hard evidence either way isn't really there.

That's why, normally, the onus is on you most of the time because I'm outnumbered 5 to 1 on this board. Why should I try to prove anything to you? Why should you try to prove anything to me? I was expressing my views in this thread but I don't feel like spending all week fighting an unwinnable battle with the armchair intellectualism brigade over something that we so thoroughly disagree on, and no one will be swayed. Hell, I don't even know what I'm arguing anymore because the discussion is getting so diluted and contorted right now.

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 11:33 AM

Quote:

 

If God is all-powerful, why would I dare dispute anything that I am told or ordered to do?

"What is the plane of intellect"? Have you not been reading what I said? Humans analyze and think on a level that other animals cannot, and they also cannot conceive this kind of intelligence that we have. To do so would be the very essence of having sapience. Similarly, how do we know if there isn't a level of intelligence, reasoning and processing that we do not possess nor can conceive that lies above human limitations? That's my point with that.

And no, you still can't prove that something supernatural can't exist when you try to analyze it in strictly rational terms and "let nature explain itself" because by the very nature of these deities, they transcend nature in scientifically explainable terms. This is why this debate simply cannot be won by either side.


I'm telling you that there's no possible way for either of us to win this discussion because it's up to one of us to make a choice. Either you don't think that a supernatural higher power can control us, or you do. It's strictly philosophical and up to the individual.

Hyperactive Jam

Aug 14 2011, 03:27 PM

DragonLegend

Aug 14 2011, 07:03 AM

Souls and a higher purpose is what I'm talking about.

By 'ultimately meaningless" I mean that intelligence is simply another physical quality. It's no different than eye color or clothing style. You can have it, lose it, change it, improve it. All these things are temporary, and in the larger sense, meaningless. The only thing that never changes or dies, the only thing that matters, is the soul.

Intelligence is a process, without thought life surely would be meaningless. Your argument is that temporary=meaningless, that may be your conviction, that unless we live forever there was no point in living at all, but other people are able to find meaning in the life they have. You may have many wonderful experiences in this life, and may it come to an end they still occurred to make that life worth living. Do you have nothing good to say about life itself? Everything we do is temporary and will eventually be forgotten, even if we live forever. Better to have lived and died than to have never lived at all.

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 01:03 PM

Yeah seriously. I'm confusing myself because I'm making four different arguments at the same time.

Ultra-Musketeer

Aug 14 2011, 06:40 PM

Internet discussions chiefly consist of people striving either to preserve, or intensify, their pride. It's almost ludicrous to imagine that any of them are ever in an effort towards the seeking of honest truths.

Redemption

Aug 14 2011, 06:19 PM

_Saladin_

Aug 14 2011, 05:08 PM

Redemption

 

All morality originates from religious practice.

Prove it. I don't see why the onus is on us to disprove all the time. Half of the posts in this thread are making statements as if they're the default and we have to disprove them.

It's impossible for me to prove to someone who doesn't buy into theology because the hard evidence either way isn't really there.

That's why, normally, the onus is on you most of the time because I'm outnumbered 5 to 1 on this board. Why should I try to prove anything to you? Why should you try to prove anything to me? I was expressing my views in this thread but I don't feel like spending all week fighting an unwinnable battle with the armchair intellectualism brigade over something that we so thoroughly disagree on, and no one will be swayed. Hell, I don't even know what I'm arguing anymore because the discussion is getting so diluted and contorted right now.

DragonLegend

Aug 14 2011, 11:23 PM

Hyperactive Jam

Aug 14 2011, 03:27 PM

DragonLegend

Aug 14 2011, 07:03 AM

Souls and a higher purpose is what I'm talking about.

By 'ultimately meaningless" I mean that intelligence is simply another physical quality. It's no different than eye color or clothing style. You can have it, lose it, change it, improve it. All these things are temporary, and in the larger sense, meaningless. The only thing that never changes or dies, the only thing that matters, is the soul.

Intelligence is a process, without thought life surely would be meaningless. Your argument is that temporary=meaningless, that may be your conviction, that unless we live forever there was no point in living at all, but other people are able to find meaning in the life they have. You may have many wonderful experiences in this life, and may it come to an end they still occurred to make that life worth living. Do you have nothing good to say about life itself? Everything we do is temporary and will eventually be forgotten, even if we live forever. Better to have lived and died than to have never lived at all.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that we should give up our intelligence and become Jersey Shore-like characters. Intelligence is good and useful in this life. What I'm saying is that a person's ultimate value is not measured by their intelligence, just as it's not measured by their other physical qualities (and intelligence is physical, not spiritual, because it's from the brain). You're intelligent. If you suffered a brain injury and lost much of your intelligence, would you be a lesser being? Less worthy of Heaven? No, you wouldn't. When you look at the big picture, the only thing that matters is your soul.

I hope that was explanatory enough, but I understand if it wasn't. I don't like discussing my spiritual beliefs precisely because I can never describe and explain them well with mere words.