Which would you believe in more?

[Lhii]

Feb 11, 2011 12:06:25 GMT -5 BulgarianMenace said:

Doesn't matter what the definition is. If you allow that a person CAN be good without religion, then there's no point for religion. It's just a completely arbitrary condition for salvation which wouldn't make sense if god was truly wise and benevolent. Indeed, if someone makes the right choices without believing in religion and heaven or hell, essentially being good for the sake of it not for any threat or promise, that for me has even greater value.

What do you mean by good? Not mass murdering? I can't think of a single 'good' human being. If there was such a person, I guess they might not have to be forgiven, but seeing as it is near impossible I don't see how that is an alternative to forgiveness+salvation.

[BulgarianMenace]

Feb 11, 2011 15:45:14 GMT -5 @herotithe said:

but sometimes i think there is some kind of god or we wouldn't know right and wrong. we wouldn't know what good is in the first place. everything would just be an opinion. people could say "i like chocolate" and "i like rape" and it would just be a matter of personal preference.

It is a matter of personal preference. There is no absolute good or evil, they are both relative.

It falls to each individual to be their own moral compass and to hold themselves accountable for their actions. Of course, that takes strength of character to do, and those who are too weak to govern themselves are the ones that need the guidance of outside sources, like religion.

[Lhii]

Feb 11, 2011 17:01:21 GMT -5 BulgarianMenace said:

Of course, that takes strength of character to do, and those who are too weak to govern themselves are the ones that need the guidance of outside sources, like religion.

Those who are too weak to govern themselves need religion? So you are saying that everyone that has any kind of religion is weak and can't watch after himself. Am I wrong?

So you are saying that religion is just some kind of guideline to keep you along the boundaries of morality? I will remind you that some religions out there allow people to brutalize each other and commit murder for little to no reason at all. Is that moral?

[Deleted]

"There is no absolute good or evil"

that statement defeats itself tho.

it's like saying: there are no absolute truths. is that statement itself absolutely true? it it is, then it's self-defeating. if it isn't, then it's meaningless.

you're saying: there is no absolute moral law. that statement itself is a moral law. same problem. defeats itself or is meaningless. you're falling into relativism.

it's logically impossible to argue against objective good and evil.

and i think people know what good and evil are in their heart.

[BulgarianMenace]

On the contrary. Good and evil are not truths. Therefore it is logically sound to state that good and evil are relative and not absolute.

[BURNZILLA47]

One of the tools used by the religious elite to keep their minions in control is the concept of sin, by which they keep everybody nervous and hold the key to salvation. The rules, such as the 10 Commandments, which guide these matters are almost entirely focused on actions not to be taken and how to stay in line. Apparently, immobilized, the devout will be thus saved from damnation. Who benefits from this? Those in positions of authority within the religion and no one else. It is no accident that Church and State are frequently allied. Both want to control, to limit independent thought and action, to focus attention away from freedoms by describing the dangers therein.

When we are concerned more about following the rules and limiting repercussions, we are not thinking about how to help others. One need only be in a crowded theater when fire breaks out or on a sinking ship to see what happens to us when eminent danger is near. Panic, fear, me first, and all thought of helping others is put aside until the self is safe and secure. It is the rare person, the exception, who thinks of others in these situations, as the treatment and attention these heroes receive attests. They are given awards, even post humus. How does the concept of sin, as publicized by the religious elite, serve themselves? By limiting concern for others.

Also, when we structure ourselves around a set of rules we are giving power and authority to those who set the rules and, in essence, giving ourelves as possessions to those who set the rules. We are owned. We are not free. Blind obedience does not entail any options or qualifications. Blind obedience is not what occurs when someone runs a red light in an emergency, knowing that stop and go lights are simply a practical way of preventing collisions at intersections. Blind obedience occurs when the flock follows the rules, so as not to sin, and lets the religious elite rule on when infractions have occurred. Who will be the judge? Not God, but those who own and possess the sinner. The religious elite, who sets the rules, decides not only what rules should be established but when infractions occur.

Rather than focus on the rules, and the resulting punishment or rewards, we would do well to focus on whether our behavior is helping or hurting others which is the true importance of our actions. Also, I second BM's suggestion that God is much wiser than Christians think. Just a few more reasons why religion has got to go.

[Lhii]

So Burn and Menace both think that God exists, but how do you both think you reach him?

[BulgarianMenace]

I never said that.

[BURNZILLA47]

I only use the term God as a convenient means of communication in discussion. I have absolutely no anthropomorphic perception of God as a deity with human characteristics (including bad ones like wrath and jealousy). I'm not saying I know what God is. No human can. But I am saying I know what god isn't.

[Deleted]

Feb 11, 2011 17:59:40 GMT -5 BulgarianMenace said:

On the contrary. Good and evil are not truths. Therefore it is logically sound to state that good and evil are relative and not absolute.

no because the statement "good and evil are relative" is a truth claim. you are saying: there is no absolute moral law, but that statement is itself a statement of morality that claims to be objective/absolute (or else it is meaningless)

[BulgarianMenace]

it's not a statement of morality, it is a statement of fact about morality. Morality and truth are not the same thing.

[Deleted]

i agree, you're right that truth and morality are different, but your statement also in itself has obvious objective moral implications and is therefore a universal moral law claiming that there are no universal moral laws.

[BulgarianMenace]

Having an "objective moral implication" does not make something a "universal moral law."

You're missing a step from premise to conclusion.

[BulgarianMenace]

Here's where your logic breaks down:

Take your example "There are no absolute truths." As you correctly noted, that statement is presented as an absolute truth itself. Those are your two premises (henceforth to be abbreviated as "P").

P1: There are no absolute truths.
P2: P1 is true.

If P2, then P1 is false.

If you prefer to switch out "P2" with the full premise, it would read "If P1 is true, then P1 is false." Thereby, it is a paradox.


Then take my statement, "Good and evil are relative." It too is a statement presented as a truth.

P1: Good and evil are relative.
P2: P1 is true.

So tell me, wherein does the paradox occur?



It might be easier for you to see if I presented it slightly differently:

P1: There are no absolute morals.
P2. P1 is a truth.
P3: A truth and a moral are different.

If truth=/=moral, and P1 is a truth, then it is not a statement about itself.

[Onde Aander]

I was told there was gossip in this thread, but I'm disappointed . Oh well, now you got me started.

I am perfectly satisfied dismiss any theistic notions on the basis of irrelevance. I don't feel the need to disprove the existence of a God for whom I've never encountered any evidence in the first place. For the exact same reason, I'm not interested in disproving the existence of unicorns. It's not just the fact that God is makes for an overly elaborate explanation for human existence. Modern science allows for the possibility that a new Mercedes could suddenly materialize in your driveway, with a certain probability. Just try reading about quantum mechanics - it's genuinely that trippy. The difference is that it can be used to PREDICT things with incredible accuracy. Not only does it provide a way to understand the origins of human existence as we know it, but it can explain and predict the physical world with never-before-seen accuracy - and it's JUST A MODEL so it doesn't require faith or worship in order to have meaning. If you prefer to ask God to inform your in-car navigation system of your global position rather than GPS (which uses technology that relies on the same theories which predict a comfortably Godless universe), well fine . Let me know how it goes.

I think it's simply a misperception that we believe there must have been a "creation event" at all. The reason we keep searching for this "creation event" is because we are taking our intuitive understanding of daily life - in which all things appear to move in one direction in time and have a beginning and end, cause and effect - and we are applying that intuition to the whole universe - as if the universe would be subject to the laws of which it is the cause. We think: "Everything I've ever seen is subject to cause and effect, therefore the universe must have a cause, a beginning and an end, therefore (since in my personal experience, complex things don't appear randomly out of thin air, but are created by humans or complex physical processes) there must have been a creator." This is simply NOT a valid approach. Let me say that again. THIS IS NOT A VALID APPROACH. I will not even entertain arguments over this point. There is NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO HAVE A BEGINNING, AND END, OR A CAUSE. To exaggerate only slightly, it's like thinking that because we use crayons to colour a piece of paper, that the whole world must have been coloured in by a giant toddler with billions of crayons, and it was only black and white before that. You just can't apply cause-effect logic backwards like that; for the same reason that in the dictionary, you can't use a word in its own definition (otherwise you're not providing any new information). If TIME is one of the effects of the creation of the universe, we can't talk about the "time before time". That's simply stupid. It's a critical error.

In fact, it's impossible for the universe to have a true beginning, end, or cause because that would require that it's possible for NOTHING to exist by way of contrast, and it were possible for nothing to exist, then nothing WOULD exist (it's another paradox... in order for the universe to come out of nothingness, there must have been SOMETHING in that nothingness which caused it to turn into the universe, hence there was ALWAYS something and NEVER nothing - even if you want to call it "God"). The fact that we exist means that the universe exists and it's impossible for it not to exist. Cause and effect just aren't relevant. The world exists because it can't not exist. It doesn't not exist, because it exists. In other words, we exist "just because". Lol.

So what makes us think it has a beginning and an end? Because time happens to be the vector of our consciousness. Time is just one dimension which happens to be special to us. Draw a circle on a piece of paper and you have a nice little self-contained circle-universe. Does it have a beginning and an end? No. And if it was really the universe, e.g. everything that existed, there would be nothing outside of it - so it wouldn't really have edges, because if it did, there would be something else outside of those edges, which means it's not actually the whole universe (etc.). Anyway. Take the paper, and rotate it away from you so the circle becomes more and more like an oval... thinner and thinner, and eventually you've only got a line, the same length as the diameter of the circle. (That is, we've taken a 2-dimensional circle and decided to view it from the perspective of a SINGLE dimension). Unlike the circle, the line appears to have a clear beginning and end. Now show the 'line' to someone else who didn't see you draw the circle, and ask him what he sees - he'll say something like: a line 3 inches long with a beginning and an end. He can't see that you actually drew a circle.

I think that's exactly how we see the universe. We have the concept of a 'timeline' only because of our perspective. Time is the vector of consciousness, so by definition, time appears linear to us. There's not only no need for God, here - there's no room for him. Theology doesn't even come into the picture. God was supposed to play quarterback in the Superbowl but he got lost and confused on the way and ended up playing pool in a smoky downtown bar - only he still thinks it's the Superbowl. I'm not saying belief in God is necessarily without personal, symbolic, and social value (I kind of do think that, but that's an entirely different topic). Considering the fact that drawing a line between reality and perception is also something of a paradox [we think of reality as an absolute, but ironically it's reality that's abstract and only perception which is immediately tangible - so reality is a special case of perception in which many stimuli are perceived to be synchronous], I'm not even saying that God doesn't exist (though he doesn't for me). What I AM saying is that for anyone capable of complex, abstract reasoning, God can't POSSIBLY compete on the same level as purely rational explorations. God is boring.