Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I took a contemporary theory course last summer with a Prof who was both a member of the board for the Unitarian Church and a Nihilist.

Seeing as this is a strange combination, I took every chance I could to hear his discertation on God. He even gave me a couple of articles he had written, and as an athiest myself (I even hate having to use that word to describe my disbelief in nonsense) I was very surprised to find myself nodding along to the majority of what he had written.

So, lets make some assumptions that are needed for this to even work:

1) God exists in the classic Christian interpretation
2) The bible is fact
3) There is no reason to question these facts

Moving from there, we see that in 2000+ years of moral philosophy, man has come to realize certain truths that seem to be at odds with the origional philosophy given to us by this God.

Slavery, Abortion, Racism, Science, Homosexuality, freedom from violence, of speech and pretty much every one of our human rights fly in the face of what it appears that God truly wants from us.

Why is it then, that a doctrine of suffering is considered more moral than a doctrine that promotes peace and tolorance. For instance, if God really wants people to keep slaves, maybe we, as a people who have decided unamimously that slavery is wrong, need to say God is the one who is wrong.

My point is this: If God exists, and what he wants us to do is considered evil by any moral interpretation we can imagine, would that not make God an evil spirit?

If God is trying to enforce slavery, wouldn't it be more appropriate for us as a people to oppose him?

(please note: You can replace slavery with homosexual discrimination or any other weird moral issue religions seem to attach themselves to)

Making those three assumptions leads you to come to this impasse: How could you oppose God, and how could God be wrong?


The problem is with the three assumptions.

That is true.

The whole question is a paradox in general, but one that I think should open up some discussion. Clearly if God is all knowing it is a justification for the hatred proposed in the bible. And if god is all powerful then we can't stop him from making us hate.

The question is more about why we would be willing to do evil just because an authority directs it and whether intentional harm and discrimination can be justified through an appeal to said authority, simply because it says it is all knowing.

Maybe the assumptions should clarify that the bible is the WORD of god, and we have no reason to assume that God isn't lying to us.

There is always the escape clause: god works in mysterious ways.

lol

ok fine, nobody is forcing you to participate

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

ok fine, nobody is forcing you to participate

I am participating.

God Works in Mysterious Ways...so do psychopaths

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
God Works in Mysterious Ways...so do psychopaths

Christianity has been snaking around these argument for centuries, they have every door guarded.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am participating.

I know

I'm just bitter that you pointed out my flaws so quickly

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Christianity has been snaking around these argument for centuries, they have every door guarded.

agreed, they do have a way out of any paradox it seems.

I see nothing "mysterious" about the sun circling the Earth, but maybe that's just me.

That "God works in mysterious ways" is in response to religious document being scientifically and undeniably wrong. So what do people do? They put their own spin on it, such as saying that God's ways are a mystery, and you shouldn't try to comprehend them. People made that up, and it says it nowhere in holy text, as far as I know. You can't believe in half a book when it is obviously filled with human errors.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Christianity has been snaking around these argument for centuries, they have every door guarded.


Too true.Theirs a great book by Jeffrey Burton Russell called the devil,Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity.It shows how Christianity tried to stay a monistic religon,yet also shows the influence of the dualism of Zoroastrianism and how it put Christianity into a funny little problem.While it claims to be a religon based in monism,it also tries to say it's a dualist system.Christianity wanted an all powerful God yet they had to explain evil.So while god was in charge of everything they put the devil on the evil side of things.theirs a few points I would like to bring up.

1.God is either all powerful and allows evil to happen,or he is of limited power and can do nothing about it.Some Christians even,Unknowingly,put god as a being of limited power.Inticing us to belive we are involved in a war against evil.God needs our help yet he is the all-mighty,creator.

2.Evil is nessecary.Without evil with what would we measure good?How could we know something was good without knowing of,or what bad was.

3.God is a pantheistic deity who IS existance and is identical to the universe.O

You could also take the view that all evil eventualy works in the favor of good.But then all this realy means is that the word evil does not mean evil and that it represents something else.Maybe tough love?

The nature of a supposed God is a tough subject.Especialy when the god we are speaking of is all loving and all mighty yet tolerates a world of evil

Damn i missed this former.I'm so happy to be posting again!

Originally posted by inimalist
lets make some assumptions that are needed for this to even work


I think you already solved the problem when you said that.

For that to work you needed to make the assumptions. The paradox just exists because of the assumptions. Analyzing this logically the assumptions are wrong, or there is a wrong inference.

This subject is well know and many people arrived at the same paradox, so I think there is a problem with the assumptions.

There are some simple philosophies who can solve this problem of evil easily, like karma or the yin yang thing. So its not difficult to solve this paradox, but you have to change the assumptions and some don´t want to do that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Christianity has been snaking around these argument for centuries, they have every door guarded. And yet, they're still at the very bottom.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And yet, they're still at the very bottom.

Some of your posts are very mature and well thought out, and then there is this one.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is always the escape clause: god works in mysterious ways.

I believe it was you who once said man was incapable of fully understanding God. Therefore his actions may sometimes seem very odd to us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Some of your posts are very mature and well thought out, and then there is this one. Being a teenager is a very stressful time and can cause mood-swings. Or in this case, intelect-swings.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Being a teenager is a very stressful time and can cause mood-swings. Or in this case, intelect-swings.

Trust me, it only gets worse.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Trust me, it only gets worse.

amen

IT's gotten better for me...I am much happier now than I was as a teenager, beleive it or not...

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
IT's gotten better for me...I am much happier now than I was as a teenager, beleive it or not...

Ya, but you are not supposed to tell him that.

Originally posted by inimalist

My point is this: If God exists, and what he wants us to do is considered evil by any moral interpretation we can imagine, would that not make God an evil spirit?


Yes... He's a malicious prick. Accept on the sabbath day because that's when your male or female slave can rest.

-bump-

i ask myself one question at times and that is this:
if god's knowledge truly is true then will that knowledge change according to our inconsistent ideas of rights and wrongs? if it really is infinte wisdom will it really depend on what we, as fallible human beings whose history repeatedly shows how foolish we can be, think should be right and what should be wrong?
think about how constant has the idea of "good" and "evil" been over the ages? homosexuality was considered wrong well before judeo-christian traditions even came in the picture (the pharoanic egyptians for example). a few hundred years ago homosexual men and women were prosecuted and now even preists are open homosexuals. are we evolved? have we found out what right and wrong is or is this just another peak in our fluctuating beliefs of right and wrong?
if there is anything the world has ever shown us over the passage of centuries it's that our beliefs are inconsistent and shallow, one step away from going to the polar oppositte side when the general consensus shifts. religion often gets the blame for doing so but science is no different. how open to new ideas has science been over the ages? people always point fingers at religion being the source of evil. but religion just happened to be the most powerful marketing campaign back in the day. it was the only one there was next to amassing a huhge army and saying that you are going to "liberate" the other country. but anyone who reads up on religion knows that religion is a human construct and like all human constructs it is abused for power. like always, saying god supported them was the best marketing move to make. but was god really supporting them? no one can say. but there is no stopping people from bending words, rules, books and anything else under the sun to support their own cause.
take feminism for example. late 1800's and early 1900's saw the greatest female minds in history ask the world to give them an equal footing in the world's affairs. and that was considered correct. a working woman was doing the "right" thing. come 1950's and feminism slided and for almost 3 decades the "right" thing to do was being a homemaker for a woman. take the "white man's burden". as for as the colonizers were conscerned they were doing mankind a service. as far the ones being colonized were conscerned was it so?
what would god's stand on the subject be? what would be the right thing to do? if god said "stay in the kitchen" then that would be "good" in 1950's and "evil" today. that is, our perception of right and wrong will be relative to the standards of that time and our own egotistic opinions. take suicide bombers. as far as terrorists are concerned they are the good guys. god's on their side. but as the 95% of muslim community and the rest of the world is concerned, they are "evil".
the problem begins when we start speaking on god's behalf. anti-abortionists are quick to point out that god forbids all kinds of killing, yet pro-abortionists (in the muslim world atleast) will side passages from the same book that say that the feotus doesn't have life in the initial few weeks and hence is not killing.
judging god as good or evil is besides the point really. no one's spoken to him to date, no one knows what he thinks and no one can truly even fathom what he is. inconsistencies and rifts between us and him arise only when people begin talking on his behalf and forget that their highly overrated notions of good and evil are subjective, inconsistent and change over time....sometimes going full circles to the opposite end. whose to say, maybe 20 years from now homosexuality might be banned again, feminism might fade away again, slavery might become the in-thing again while abortion might become an offense again......what then will your stand on god be? will he be good or will he be evil?
i think the one most overlooked fact of this world is that god is virtually powerless here. i don't mean this in a blasphemous way but fact of the matter is that we judge what good and evil is, those of us who are in a position to sway the masses and influence opinions. not god. god was never even an issue. he's just the most successful promotion trick to get people flocking under your banner and not the other guy's.

my question to you then is: do you think you'd call him evil 100 years ago? what about 200? 500?

~Sado

God's law is eternal, true and unchanging.

Our laws are finite and based on ever changing understandings and ideas.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
God's law is eternal, true and unchanging.

Our laws are finite and based on ever changing understandings and ideas. So...you are saying he is stubborn and evil?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So...you are saying he is stubborn and evil?

I think to a person with an imperfect, limited and finite moral outlook...he could appear so.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think to a person with an imperfect, limited and finite moral outlook...he could appear so. Maybe he appears so to himself, but he enjoys it?

Out of curiosity does the Bible ever come straight out and say that god's power has absolutely no limits?

dont forget that our "laws" are often for our own ambitions, delusional, misdirected and based on limited knowledge and subjectivity.


all species on this planet understand the universe to their best capacity. and we are all integrated with each other but our capacity for understanding varies from creature to creature.
for an example, take human beings and cats. do you think cats do not understand our world or do they understand the world according to their own capacity. to them, tv is that strange box with moving things that they cannot touch, the garbage bin is the place constantly stuffed with food for them, the table is something to mark their territory, the fridge is where the food is. but are these things really that?
same with god and us. our laws and understanding of the universe is still limited and shallow. we don't even understand our own world yet, let alone the universe. based on this limited understanding how can we judge god and hislaws. we are just cats that think that the earth is their little ball.

~Sado

Originally posted by Sado22
dont forget that our "laws" are often for our own ambitions, delusional, misdirected and based on limited knowledge and subjectivity.


all species on this planet understand the universe to their best capacity. and we are all integrated with each other but our capacity for understanding varies from creature to creature.
for an example, take human beings and cats. do you think cats do not understand our world or do they understand the world according to their own capacity. to them, tv is that strange box with moving things that they cannot touch, the garbage bin is the place constantly stuffed with food for them, the table is something to mark their territory, the fridge is where the food is. but are these things really that?
same with god and us. our laws and understanding of the universe is still limited and shallow. we don't even understand our own world yet, let alone the universe. based on this limited understanding how can we judge god and hislaws. we are just cats that think that the earth is their little ball.

~Sado

Your argument is sound, but it has only one problem: we cannot be the cat in your cat/human analogy. The cat knows that the human is real in the same way that a human knows that the cat is real. No one has proved that any god is real. Therefore, all that exists (per your analogy) is the cat.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your argument is sound, but it has only one problem: we cannot be the cat in your cat/human analogy. The cat knows that the human is real in the same way that a human knows that the cat is real. No one has proved that any god is real. Therefore, all that exists (per your analogy) is the cat.

The cat is still wrong, though.

How about ants. They have no idea that we exist (they're not capable of it) but we still do all sorts of ineffable things from their point of view.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The cat is still wrong, though.

How about ants. They have no idea that we exist (they're not capable of it) but we still do all sorts of ineffable things from their point of view.

But even an ant can bite us, can we bite god?

Originally posted by Sado22
based on this limited understanding how can we judge god and hislaws.

easy, by the material consequences they have for people, or by the theological spiritual consequences.

I'd come off a lot of what I said in the first post, but only a little.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But even an ant can bite us, can we bite god?

Not every ant can bite. And even when they do they have no idea if we felt it or that they were biting us. If we bit god might never know.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, lets make some assumptions that are needed for this to even work:

1) God exists in the classic Christian interpretation
2) The bible is fact
3) There is no reason to question these facts

. . . .

My point is this: If God exists, and what he wants us to do is considered evil by any moral interpretation we can imagine, would that not make God an evil spirit?

Well no, see point one. If you're actually operating on those premises then God clearly is not an evil entity no matter what.

You can't define or comprehend what God is if hes supposed to be eternal and infinite....its a waste of time really having a discussion about it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not every ant can bite. And even when they do they have no idea if we felt it or that they were biting us. If we bit god might never know.

I'm sure that an ant knows that she has bitten something. However, in a way I agree with you. We effect God every day. But the god of the bible is no different then the gods of the Greeks, Pagans or Egyptians. They are man made to reflect things in nature that we do not understand.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well no, see point one. If you're actually operating on those premises then God clearly is not an evil entity no matter what.

by its own definition however

If its own definition causes immeasurable pain and suffering, including eternal suffering, to people for reasons that the most intelligent humans must do intellectual cart-wheels to justify, then I'm pretty confident calling it evil.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You can't define or comprehend what God is if hes supposed to be eternal and infinite....its a waste of time really having a discussion about it.

Then let us establish that god is neither eternal or infinite. Now we can discus this matter.

Originally posted by inimalist
by its own definition however

If its own definition causes immeasurable pain and suffering, including eternal suffering, to people for reasons that the most intelligent humans must do intellectual cart-wheels to justify, then I'm pretty confident calling it evil.

Then you're denying your first supposition . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you're denying your first supposition . . .

ya, I get your point

that was 2 years ago

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, I get your point

that was 2 years ago

You are not supposed to change.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You can't define or comprehend what God is if hes supposed to be eternal and infinite....its a waste of time really having a discussion about it. Realizing that may be the most fruitful conclusion one can come to, hence no waste.

Many esoteric schools of thought might also say that when one reaches this conclusion, it's time to meditate, to bring into play a possible means of comprehending more of the Ineffable, a means not bound by the limits of verbal-logical discourse (ie, meditation brings one closer to a direct experience of the Ineffable).

thanks. you have an interesting point, but i wasn't drawing a direct analogy between cat/humans to humans/god as much as I was talking about how limited perception really.


and his "laws" have had different consequences on us depending on our level of understanding at various points in history...which was my point to begin with. more often than not, we have twisted around what he said or used his words to sheild our own ignorance. case in point, people labelling scientists heretics for suggesting that the earth revolves around the sun. then there is eschatology. people from all the judeo-christian traditions have been commenting on how the world will end soon....since 2nd century AD for the matter and they've used the bible as citations.


what?

Originally posted by LatinoStallion
God Works in Mysterious Ways...so do psychopaths

They usually congragate on Sundays too. Little subsections of torment for others spreading their gospel of "follow us or burn." Nice bunch of people....

Originally posted by Sado22
and his "laws" have had different consequences on us depending on our level of understanding at various points in history...which was my point to begin with. more often than not, we have twisted around what he said or used his words to sheild our own ignorance. case in point, people labelling scientists heretics for suggesting that the earth revolves around the sun. then there is eschatology. people from all the judeo-christian traditions have been commenting on how the world will end soon....since 2nd century AD for the matter and they've used the bible as citations.

no, I totally don't disagree with that. My point was that God actually can be judged based on the material consequences that come from his commands.

Or like, some conceptions of Hell, where honest people would eternally suffer, simply because they had never been a Christian

Originally posted by Sado22
what?

The view in the initial post is a little ignorant. To say the least, discussing on this forum has broadened my understanding of religious people.

i think it's fair to consider how much good his commands have brought. to concentrate ONLY on either +ve or -ve is far from coming at a reasonable conculsion. I'm not a christian but i'm inclined to believe that the 10 commandments have done more good for the christian community than bad. of course, homosexuality has been an issue but how many homosexual men and women were prosecuted as opposed to the number of lives that were saved because murdering someone in cold blood was deemed a mortal sin? or how much good honoring your parents as opposed to having a slave has done?
as you can imagine, the issue is rather tricky because like all things, there is a flip side of the argument.


to date no one knows for certain how "literal" talks about hell really are. i get your point of course but i'm just saying that judging god on basis of a concept that's either spoken of in hyperbole or never explicity spoken of is a little farfetched.

~Sado

Originally posted by Sado22
i think it's fair to consider how much good his commands have brought. to concentrate ONLY on either +ve or -ve is far from coming at a reasonable conculsion. I'm not a christian but i'm inclined to believe that the 10 commandments have done more good for the christian community than bad. of course, homosexuality has been an issue but how many homosexual men and women were prosecuted as opposed to the number of lives that were saved because murdering someone in cold blood was deemed a mortal sin? or how much good honoring your parents as opposed to having a slave has done?
as you can imagine, the issue is rather tricky because like all things, there is a flip side of the argument.

From a purely mathematical perspective far more people have been unquestionably hurt in the name of religion than have unquestionably been helped. That said, it's just as unfair to judge religion by the Crusades as it is to judge secular humanism by the destruction of Hiroshima.

Besides atheists don't go around murdering people in crazy blood orgies simply because they don't think it's a sin. The most that could be said is that atheists might be less likely to go out of their way to help someone than theists.

Honoring you're parents and owning a slave do not balance out in any way shape or form.

I would also be very careful to attribute the actions of people to religion specifically.

Like I said, this was two years ago. I tend to believe now that people act how they do, good or bad, then use whatever exists in their culture to justify these actions, not the other way around.

i find that hard to believe. the thing is people are likely to remember and talk about bad things as oppossed to good things. if some religious fanatic kills somebody in the name of god, that's more likely to be remembered than another religious guy giving charity. it's just how the world works. if religion has caused war it has also caused peace in other places.


agreed.


i never said that. i get along better with atheists than theists and personally i've always felt that Atheist are more concerned with god than theists. but keep in mind that atheism came into being well after a certain base idea of "morality" had already been established because atheism came well after religion. but the idea of "no higher power to judge you" in the early years of civilization would've been a different story IMO. it's easy for us to imagine human beings acting like good people without god's presence but i for one feel skeptical that would be the case centuries ago.


it was an example rough example. albeit a bad one as i realize in retrospect.


yes that is very true.

~Sado

Originally posted by inimalist
I took a contemporary theory course last summer with a Prof who was both a member of the board for the Unitarian Church and a Nihilist.

Seeing as this is a strange combination, I took every chance I could to hear his discertation on God. He even gave me a couple of articles he had written, and as an athiest myself (I even hate having to use that word to describe my disbelief in nonsense) I was very surprised to find myself nodding along to the majority of what he had written.

So, lets make some assumptions that are needed for this to even work:

1) God exists in the classic Christian interpretation
2) The bible is fact
3) There is no reason to question these facts

Moving from there, we see that in 2000+ years of moral philosophy, man has come to realize certain truths that seem to be at odds with the origional philosophy given to us by this God.

Slavery, Abortion, Racism, Science, Homosexuality, freedom from violence, of speech and pretty much every one of our human rights fly in the face of what it appears that God truly wants from us.

Why is it then, that a doctrine of suffering is considered more moral than a doctrine that promotes peace and tolorance. For instance, if God really wants people to keep slaves, maybe we, as a people who have decided unamimously that slavery is wrong, need to say God is the one who is wrong.

My point is this: If God exists, and what he wants us to do is considered evil by any moral interpretation we can imagine, would that not make God an evil spirit?

If God is trying to enforce slavery, wouldn't it be more appropriate for us as a people to oppose him?

(please note: You can replace slavery with homosexual discrimination or any other weird moral issue religions seem to attach themselves to)

You cannot make this assumptions, then have an objective nor logical philosophical discussion on God and Evil.

Heh. This thread is older than I thought.

Anyway, the dude in the first post is unintentionally unique, in as far as I've encountered in my life. It's a refreshingly bizarre take on Biblical literalism, even if it kinda sucks for the dude who believes it.

Two of the traits of many Christians are to either ignore or reinterpret sections of the Bible to match current morality (or to simply place them in context with the era they were written), and the second is to accept such "immoral" acts as truths and incorporate them into their own morality (i.e. homosexual discrimination, for example). He does neither, which is a rare combination. He at once accepts all of it as God's Word, and rejects it as a moral premise. Like inamilist said, you have to accept those 3 assumptions to even have the discussion, because many people would obviously not accept them. But if you do accept them, I like that he's rebelled against God's morality, though it's unfortunate that it's driven him to nihilism.

Boy, boy, inimalist used to be an angry little atheist

Someone HAS to admit those Templar Knights at least looked kick ass.

Originally posted by inimalist
I tend to believe now that people act how they do, good or bad, then use whatever exists in their culture to justify these actions, not the other way around.

...not sure I agree. This would not account for the massive changes society has made on regard to "morality" over the centuries. If we simply "act how we do, good or bad" our moral decisions should not be appreciably different than the earliest of our species. Moral culture, then (religion included), affects our moral choices....rather than our choices dictating morality.

If we think of treating people good/bad in terms of in-group/out-group distinctions (I'm sure you're more familiar with such models than I am, as they are frequently used in reference to evolved reciprocal altruism), we have much larger "in" groups as a species than we did centuries ago. This is from what? Communication technology, education, etc. etc. Advancements in culture.

And if people simply acted how they would regardless of societal pressures, I feel like we'd have a lot more murder, theft, etc. It's the social norms that keep many in check, and those norms don't provide justification for acting however they would in any cirucumstance.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. But reading it as I am, I can't agree with it.

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, the dude in the first post is unintentionally unique, in as far as I've encountered in my life. It's a refreshingly bizarre take on Biblical literalism, even if it kinda sucks for the dude who believes it.

I really liked his ideas. It was cool having him as a prof.

He didn't seem too torn up about the idea, and still was a Christian (and a Nihilist?)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Boy, boy, inimalist used to be an angry little atheist

I did eat the books of Timothy out of a bible...

Originally posted by Digi
...not sure I agree. This would not account for the massive changes society has made on regard to "morality" over the centuries. If we simply "act how we do, good or bad" our moral decisions should not be appreciably different than the earliest of our species. Moral culture, then (religion included), affects our moral choices....rather than our choices dictating morality.

If we think of treating people good/bad in terms of in-group/out-group distinctions (I'm sure you're more familiar with such models than I am, as they are frequently used in reference to evolved reciprocal altruism), we have much larger "in" groups as a species than we did centuries ago. This is from what? Communication technology, education, etc. etc. Advancements in culture.

And if people simply acted how they would regardless of societal pressures, I feel like we'd have a lot more murder, theft, etc. It's the social norms that keep many in check, and those norms don't provide justification for acting however they would in any cirucumstance.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. But reading it as I am, I can't agree with it.

I see your point, and ya, obviously culture has some affect on how people envision morality.

So, the role of women in society, child abuse, slavery, ya, I get you. There are an abundance of things that have NOT changed, or moral maxims that exist cross culturally essentially in every group studied, so I am not coming off what I said, but ya, I can't argue that large scale society has a major effect on how people behave.

What I was saying has more to do with how people justify or are motivated, which imho has much more to do with immediate context and the like, but that is all obviously informed by cultural norms. It is impossible to tease the two apart. Long story short, point taken.

Originally posted by Sado22
-bump-

. but religion just happened to be the most powerful marketing campaign back in the day. it was the only one there was next to amassing a huhge army and saying that you are going to "liberate" the other country. but anyone who reads up on religion knows that religion is a human construct and like all human constructs it is abused for power. like always, saying god supported them was the best marketing move to make. but was god really supporting them?
~Sado

Illustrated in the political forum daily.

Man, this is an old 1, back in my "Mark Question" days.

Originally posted by inimalist
I really liked his ideas. It was cool having him as a prof.

He didn't seem too torn up about the idea, and still was a Christian (and a Nihilist?)



I did eat the books of Timothy out of a bible...

*Letters to Timothy.

oops, my bad

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But even an ant can bite us, can we bite god?

I think Terry Pratchet covers this in his Discworld novels. If we all as a species stopped believing in him, will he cease to exsist?

Originally posted by MilitantDog
I think Terry Pratchet covers this in his Discworld novels. If we all as a species stopped believing in him, will he cease to exsist?

No

So did God, create Evil? or is Evil a result of man? But then according to Intelligent Design isn't then Evil, the product of man, a by product of God's creation?

The Forbidden Fruit Tree? What was the point of that? Surely if God was all knowing then surely he would of known the result of leaving the Tree in Eden.

But then is Evil the flip side of God? Maybe Satan isn;t the be all and end of all when it comes to the ultimate bad guy. Maybe there is something as equal in power to God thwarting God at every turn.

Or is Evil completely separate from Religion and an intrinsic in existence? Or is it just a mental mind set and position. If a culture sticks puppies on spikes on Tuesdays and has done since time immemorial, they themselves would not view it as Evil but an outsider would consider it a horribly evil thing to do.

Or is Evil a man made idea, like Time? No animal in nature displays Evil behaviour.

(Steps back into padded cell and speaks to the wall.)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No

Prove it.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Prove it.

Done.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
I think Terry Pratchet covers this in his Discworld novels. If we all as a species stopped believing in him, will he cease to exsist?

Yes!

Just look at what happen to the Egyptian gods, or the Greek gods.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Done.

You have proved nothing. Hence doesn't exist.

So what if all mankind was wiped from the Earth tomorrow (plague, war take your pick). Who would worship God then? Who would praise Jesus? They are both constructs of the human mind and with out humans to propagate the belief that these constructs exist, the would cease to exist.

Or would God upgrade the duck billed platypus to the chosen life form?

Originally posted by MilitantDog
I think Terry Pratchet covers this in his Discworld novels. If we all as a species stopped believing in him, will he cease to exsist?

Pratchet's Gods are personifications of various concepts they are explicitly dependent on belief and worship for existence. The Christian God is never stated to have any of those qualities.

Also the real kicker is that most people of the Disc are atheists anyway . . . and the Gods still exist.

We can also say that Jack Kirby covered the subject and proved you wrong. "Gods are not dependent on mortals, mortals are dependent on the Gods."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Pratchet's Gods are personifications of various concepts they are explicitly dependent on belief and worship for existence. The Christian God is never stated to have any of those qualities.

Also the real kicker is that most people of the Disc are atheists anyway . . . and the Gods still exist.

We can also say that Jack Kirby covered the subject and proved you wrong. "Gods are not dependent on mortals, mortals are dependent on the Gods."

Unfortunately for Kirby's statement proving me wrong I think your arse is getting more of a chance at control than your brain.

Mortals exist. Undeniable. Mortals believe in Gods. Unfortunate but also true. Gods existing. Wells that is where the problem lies. They don't so Jack Kirby is just so much hot air.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Pratchet's Gods are personifications of various concepts they are explicitly dependent on belief and worship for existence. The Christian God is never stated to have any of those qualities.

Also the real kicker is that most people of the Disc are atheists anyway . . . and the Gods still exist.

We can also say that Jack Kirby covered the subject and proved you wrong. "Gods are not dependent on mortals, mortals are dependent on the Gods."

Ummm I'm guessing you haven't read many of the Discworld books. Many of the characters and sub-characters believe in the Gods. They have temples and everything. Not much point building a temple to something you believe in is there.

Oh and just to completly destroy you point here is a little something from the cult of wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_gods

Enjoy

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Unfortunately for Kirby's statement proving me wrong I think your arse is getting more of a chance at control than your brain.

Mortals exist. Undeniable. Mortals believe in Gods. Unfortunate but also true. Gods existing. Wells that is where the problem lies. They don't so Jack Kirby is just so much hot air.

Tautology. Lack of proof. Epic failure.

Gods. Lack of proof. Epic Fail.

At least this is well thought out discourse.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Gods. Lack of proof. Epic Fail.

It has been proven to me he exists...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It has been proven to me he exists...

The fact you hear voices in your head does not prove the exsistance of God or any other "all powerful being". It just means you need to stop licking the paintwork.

Originally posted by inimalist
At least this is well thought out discourse.

Its not my fault they have nothing more constructive to say.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Its not my fault they have nothing more constructive to say.

I was talking to you more than anything, but an interesting analysis of other's arguments none the less. I'd stick to your epiphanal rants about good and evil being relative

(lol, or maybe you just need more time in that padded cell)

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Its not my fault they have nothing more constructive to say.

Yes it is. When your arguments are built entirely on tautology there is no reason to justify your delusions by "discussing" them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
tautology I like that

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I like that

You'd think if he were as clever as he pretends he'd counter by pointing out that religious arguments rely on the same concept. He'd also notice that I'm using the word to mean circular logic, which isn't exactly accurate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You'd think if he were as clever as he pretends he'd counter by pointing out that religious arguments rely on the same concept. He'd also notice that I'm using the word to mean circular logic, which isn't exactly accurate.

his argument about god not existing if people don't believe in him is a tautology, presuming you start from "there is no god"

God wants people to suffer and then go to hell. That sounds pretty evil to me.

Satan wants to show you the truth about God and live your life according to you. That sounds pretty righteous to me.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
God wants people to suffer and then go to hell. That sounds pretty evil to me.

Satan wants to show you the truth about God and live your life according to you. That sounds pretty righteous to me.

That assumes you ascribe to those specific versions of God and Satan.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That assumes you ascribe to those specific versions of God and Satan.

Its all rubbish because neither side of the holy/unholy coin exists. Good and Evil are concepts of man, "measurements" against mans established moral and ethical code brought of about by concensus. Good and Evil are subjective concepts.

The whole idea of "Good" and "Evil" having a personification (i.e. God and Satan) is just a means to furthering Religios dogma and superstition (if your Good your get to hang out with God, if your bad you go hang out with Satan).

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Good and Evil are subjective concepts.

this is not related to God, nor have you proved the point.

There are things that are clearly objectively evil, as nobody can put forth a rational moral argument for them. We might argue that "rational" as it is used there is subjective, though nobody has yet to give me an instance where its ambiguity is a problem.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is not related to God, nor have you proved the point.

There are things that are clearly objectively evil, as nobody can put forth a rational moral argument for them. We might argue that "rational" as it is used there is subjective, though nobody has yet to give me an instance where its ambiguity is a problem.

Please give an example of an objective evil. Good and evil are relative, and depending on the point of view, it will change.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please give an example of an objective evil. Good and evil are relative, and depending on the point of view, it will change.

morally justify the murder of a single innocent person.

but, do so without appealing to pragmatics, without adding conditions to the equation, and without appealing to the moral consequences. The act of killing the innocent MUST be what is MORALLY justified.

Originally posted by inimalist
morally justify the murder of a single innocent person.

but, do so without appealing to pragmatics, without adding conditions to the equation, and without appealing to the moral consequences. The act of killing the innocent MUST be what is MORALLY justified.

The killing of an innocent person is wrong from the point of view of the individual and the society they live in, but we all die. In the bigger picture, this act makes very little difference. Therefore, from the point of view of the human race, the killing of an innocent person is neutral.

Morally justification has nothing to do with good and evil. There maybe two waring nations that both morally justify their stance on the war. If good and evil were absolutes, then this could never happen.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The killing of an innocent person is wrong from the point of view of the individual and the society they live in, but we all die. In the bigger picture, this act makes very little difference. Therefore, from the point of view of the human race, the killing of an innocent person is neutral.

Morally justification has nothing to do with good and evil. There maybe two waring nations that both morally justify their stance on the war. If good and evil were absolutes, then this could never happen.

so this is your long way of saying that there is no moral justification for the killing of an innocent?

From the "perspective" of the human race is moot imho. The action affects the individual, that is where the harm is.

Saying morals are not important is not the same as morally justifying something. Also, war is not what I was talking about. I certainly wouldn't argue that war is black and white, hence why it is important to stick with the scenario I gave. We both know how easy it would be to make killing a morally grey action, thus, it is important to stick to the extremes in order to make the point of some degree of absolutist morality.

I am not saying there is a strict moral code of living or anything, just that there are some things for which there is no moral justification

Originally posted by inimalist
so this is your long way of saying that there is no moral justification for the killing of an innocent?

From the "perspective" of the human race is moot imho. The action affects the individual, that is where the harm is.

Saying morals are not important is not the same as morally justifying something. Also, war is not what I was talking about. I certainly wouldn't argue that war is black and white, hence why it is important to stick with the scenario I gave. We both know how easy it would be to make killing a morally grey action, thus, it is important to stick to the extremes in order to make the point of some degree of absolutist morality.

I am not saying there is a strict moral code of living or anything, just that there are some things for which there is no moral justification

My only point was that good and evil are relative and not absolute. You can set up a scenario where good and evil seem to be absolute, but that is the nature of relativity. This is why I left your scenario behind. A clearly objectively evil is subject to the relativistic nature of good and evil, and therefore, may not always be clear.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My only point was that good and evil are relative and not absolute. You can set up a scenario where good and evil seem to be absolute, but that is the nature of relativity. This is why I left your scenario behind. A clearly objectively evil is subject to the relativistic nature of good and evil, and therefore, may not always be clear.

ok

but this still leaves us with the fact there is no morally justifiable reason to kill an innocent person, and that killing an innocent person does harm to that individual, thus making the act immoral.

Because reality is more complex does not mean anything. 1+1 had to be worked out before transitional calculus or whatever. Leaving the scenario behind, imho, is essentially admitting that I am right.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok

but this still leaves us with the fact there is no morally justifiable reason to kill an innocent person, and that killing an innocent person does harm to that individual, thus making the act immoral.

Because reality is more complex does not mean anything. 1+1 had to be worked out before transitional calculus or whatever. Leaving the scenario behind, imho, is essentially admitting that I am right.

Ok, I will try to relate a story I once heard. It is based on a true story, but I have lost all the details like the region where it took place and the name of the people.

There were these two groups of people who lived, isolated, in a landscape were the local resources were limited. These people lived on the verge of starvation, but found a way to survive. They limited their own population by killing each other. The rule was that a young man could not marry unless they kill a member of the other tribe (group). Most of the time the people who died were woman or children because it was harder to kill warriors. I think that woman and children count as innocent people, right?

In this scenario, if they did not kill each other, they would all die.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, I will try to relate a story I once heard. It is based on a true story, but I have lost all the details like the region where it took place and the name of the people.

There were these two groups of people who lived, isolated, in a landscape were the local resources were limited. These people lived on the verge of starvation, but found a way to survive. They limited their own population by killing each other. The rule was that a young man could not marry unless they kill a member of the other tribe (group). Most of the time the people who died were woman or children because it was harder to kill warriors. I think that woman and children count as innocent people, right?

In this scenario, if they did not kill each other, they would all die.

Interesting. I would call that more of a pragmatic reason though, as the act of violence isn't being morally justified, other than through the morality of supporting one's family, though I don't know how salient I find that argument.

Basically, I don't see the negative being justified. The act is still wrong, though apparently necessary.

Originally posted by inimalist
Interesting. I would call that more of a pragmatic reason though, as the act of violence isn't being morally justified, other than through the morality of supporting one's family, though I don't know how salient I find that argument.

Basically, I don't see the negative being justified. The act is still wrong, though apparently necessary.

You can't justify a negative; ok, I will give you that. However, all you have to do is find the positive side of the event, and now you can justify that.

Our basic disagreement is that I believe all things can follow the path of good or evil, but are not good or evil themselves. In other words, the act of killing is not good or evil. The good or evil is in the mind of the person who is effected by the event. For example, if a lion kills a gazelle, we would see it as neutral, while the lion would see it as good, but the other gazelles would see it as evil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't justify a negative; ok, I will give you that. However, all you have to do is find the positive side of the event, and now you can justify that.

I disagree. That logic can justify any form of oppression to a minority, given that the benefit is somehow weighted as larger than the cost. The oppression of blacks as slaves is easily then justified by the enormous benefit and growth to the economy and thus livelihoods of those who own or benefit from others owning slaves.

To me, it begins and ends with the individual. I cannot justify hurting you with how much benefit I will receive. If my own life were in danger (where I see the example you gave before as being a good one) then the equation changes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Our basic disagreement is that I believe all things can follow the path of good or evil, but are not good or evil themselves. In other words, the act of killing is not good or evil. The good or evil is in the mind of the person who is effected by the event. For example, if a lion kills a gazelle, we would see it as neutral, while the lion would see it as good, but the other gazelles would see it as evil.

cool, and if that is how you choose to define things, that is wicked.

I'm talking about judging morality by less abstract ideas. Identifiable harm can and is done to individuals. We, as people, are able to see and quantify this harm.

I don't see the point of using animals in the discussion. With some rare exceptions, I am very comfortable saying that the discussion of morals is one specifically about humans, or if not, about how humans should treat animals. The act of an animal killing another is clearly not a moral issue.

Originally posted by inimalist
I disagree. That logic can justify any form of oppression to a minority, given that the benefit is somehow weighted as larger than the cost. The oppression of blacks as slaves is easily then justified by the enormous benefit and growth to the economy and thus livelihoods of those who own or benefit from others owning slaves.

To me, it begins and ends with the individual. I cannot justify hurting you with how much benefit I will receive. If my own life were in danger (where I see the example you gave before as being a good one) then the equation changes.

I am keeping my own personal view out of it. Good and evil have been manipulated by powerful people for all of time. This maybe good or evil, it all depends on what side of the stick you are on. Generally, from a personal point of view, I agree with you, but I just wanted to bring up the bigger picture.

Originally posted by inimalist
cool, and if that is how you choose to define things, that is wicked.

I'm talking about judging morality by less abstract ideas. Identifiable harm can and is done to individuals. We, as people, are able to see and quantify this harm.

I don't see the point of using animals in the discussion. With some rare exceptions, I am very comfortable saying that the discussion of morals is one specifically about humans, or if not, about how humans should treat animals. The act of an animal killing another is clearly not a moral issue.

I don't see why you should limit it to just one animal (humans).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am keeping my own personal view out of it. Good and evil have been manipulated by powerful people for all of time. This maybe good or evil, it all depends on what side of the stick you are on. Generally, from a personal point of view, I agree with you, but I just wanted to bring up the bigger picture.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I guess I'm looking to use a much more pragmatic view of good or evil. Like, calling something "evil" to me does not mean that we shouldn't do it if it is necessary for other reasons (ww2), nor does it mean we need to launch a policy of destroying evil.

It is simply a measure of measurable harm coming to someone, and whether or not there is reason for it. That people in power call things whatever doesn't bother me too much. They call themselves honest as well, I can't imagine you saying that "honest" is for that reason relative or a human construct with no independent meaning. (I guess you could argue that "honest" as a symbol is... blah, confusing)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't see why you should limit it to just one animal (humans).

?

morals are a creation of man. thus it would be silly to expect animals to be able to conceive of them, let alone follow them.

Being human, we can probably only ever make judgments about how humans or human like creatures (sentience, language, abstract reasoning) should treat others.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree with what you are saying, I guess I'm looking to use a much more pragmatic view of good or evil. Like, calling something "evil" to me does not mean that we shouldn't do it if it is necessary for other reasons (ww2), nor does it mean we need to launch a policy of destroying evil.

It is simply a measure of measurable harm coming to someone, and whether or not there is reason for it. That people in power call things whatever doesn't bother me too much. They call themselves honest as well, I can't imagine you saying that "honest" is for that reason relative or a human construct with no independent meaning. (I guess you could argue that "honest" as a symbol is... blah, confusing)

The word "honest" coming from a politician usually is a reason to not believe them.

Originally posted by inimalist
?

morals are a creation of man. thus it would be silly to expect animals to be able to conceive of them, let alone follow them.

Being human, we can probably only ever make judgments about how humans or human like creatures (sentience, language, abstract reasoning) should treat others.

If you had said that morals where created by god, then we could have gone for a few more pages, but I agree with the essence of what you have said.

BTW good and evil are also creations of man.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BTW good and evil are also creations of man.

indeed. I don't know the language yet to convey properly how I feel about morals most of the time. Its some kind of relative absolutist view. LOL, maybe it is just internally inconsistent and that is the problem

Subjective Good & Evil 101 : The Crusades.

Crusaders: We're doing God's will by killing all the Arabs in the birthplace of our Lord. We're Good and they are evil.

Arabs: We're living here not bothering anyone. These Crusaders turn up and start killing us. We fight back to defend ourselves. We're Good and they are Evil.

MilitantDog: so, in your opinion, what is the moral justification for killing an innocent person?

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Subjective Good & Evil 101 : The Crusades.

Crusaders: We're doing God's will by killing all the Arabs in the birthplace of our Lord. We're Good and they are evil.

Arabs: We're living here not bothering anyone. These Crusaders turn up and start killing us. We fight back to defend ourselves. We're Good and they are Evil.

Wow...limited knowledge of the Crusades...

Anyway, even if good and evil is subjective in terms of how it is used- that does not mean that there is no ABSOLUTE moral truth...it could just be that we ignore it.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow...limited knowledge of the Crusades...

Anyway, even if good and evil is subjective in terms of how it is used- that does not mean that there is no ABSOLUTE moral truth...it could just be that we ignore it. It also doesn't mean that their is one and as far as I've seen there isn't an ABSOLUTE moral truth.

Originally posted by inimalist
MilitantDog: so, in your opinion, what is the moral justification for killing an innocent person?

Innocent by whos definition? Moral by whos definition? I said Good and Evil are subjective perceptions.

If you were raised in a society where it was the norm for old people on their 60th birthday to be pulled about by horses, you would not think it to be Evil. But if you were to enter that society from the outside you would find that act an Evil one.

Good and Evil were invented by man to classify an action. The same as Right and Wrong.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow...limited knowledge of the Crusades...

Anyway, even if good and evil is subjective in terms of how it is used- that does not mean that there is no ABSOLUTE moral truth...it could just be that we ignore it.

I simplyfied the situation to make a point that Good and Evil are subjective.

Israel and Hamas are another example. Both feel they are in the right and the other in the wrong. Both sides stand point is subjective from their position.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Innocent by whos definition? Moral by whos definition? I said Good and Evil are subjective perceptions.

ok, innocent as in, you walk out your front door and there is a stranger on the street. You have no prior knowledge of this individual, they are doing nothing suspicious, and you have no reason to wish them ill will.

you now kill this person. Without adding or taking away from this scenario, how do you justify, morally, the harm done to that individual?

Originally posted by MilitantDog
If you were raised in a society where it was the norm for old people on their 60th birthday to be pulled about by horses, you would not think it to be Evil. But if you were to enter that society from the outside you would find that act an Evil one.

I'm not talking about the 'perceptions' of good and evil in a cross cultural analysis. I'm talking about measurable harm done to individual people.

Also, like I said in discussion with Shaky, any of us can come up with scenarios that are not black or white. This is why I use such a simple one, to lay basic moral groundworks.

If you honestly think right and wrong are entirely relative and subjective, then there should be a relative and subjective moral justification for the killing of an innocent person as described above. True, we just might not be aware of it, but at least I'm not dismissing the principle off hand, and, by the way, with no evidence or even rationale.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Good and Evil were invented by man to classify an action. The same as Right and Wrong.

science was invented by man to classify the natural world. Does something being the invention of man make it relative and subjective? Would you then follow your logic to claim science is just as subjective as morality?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not talking about the 'perceptions' of good and evil in a cross cultural analysis. I'm talking about measurable harm done to individual people.

Also, like I said in discussion with Shaky, any of us can come up with scenarios that are not black or white. This is why I use such a simple one, to lay basic moral groundworks.

If you honestly think right and wrong are entirely relative and subjective, then there should be a relative and subjective moral justification for the killing of an innocent person as described above. True, we just might not be aware of it, but at least I'm not dismissing the principle off hand, and, by the way, with no evidence or even rationale.
Why do you put so much emphasis in the justification? The word itself has connotations of subjectivity: what's just? I could say that the reason I killed that innocent man was to satisfy my wish to do so. If I deem conceiving my every wish to be in line with my personal moral framework then it is a justification.

I think people are right when they say all morality is ultimately quite relative. Even if some god exists out there, I don't think it would necessarily prove whatever morality he promoted to be the only true or objective one.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Why do you put so much emphasis in the justification? The word itself has connotations of subjectivity: what's just? I could say that the reason I killed that innocent man was to satisfy my wish to do so. If I deem conceiving my every wish to be in line with my personal moral framework then it is a justification.

yes, indeed, people can, on their own, believe many things about many things.

Hence why there is the focus on the justification.

its like light. You can believe all you want about it, like, I could believe it travels at 10 mph.

Feel free to expand though. So you have now murdered someone for the personal gain. Why is that benefit offsetting, or even a moral consideration, and how does it not condone slavery then by an extension of that logic (harm to some for benefit of others)?

Originally posted by backdoorman
I think people are right when they say all morality is ultimately quite relative. Even if some god exists out there, I don't think it would necessarily prove whatever morality he promoted to be the only true or objective one.

which is actually the topic of my thread

EDIT: ie, can the material consequences of the tenants of a faith be used to judge the moral character of the deity of that faith?

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, indeed, people can, on their own, believe many things about many things.

Hence why there is the focus on the justification.

its like light. You can believe all you want about it, like, I could believe it travels at 10 mph.

Feel free to expand though. So you have now murdered someone for the personal gain. Why is that benefit offsetting, or even a moral consideration, and how does it not condone slavery then by an extension of that logic (harm to some for benefit of others)?
I would hardly say "harm to some for the benefit of others" could ever be completely eradicated in any society, but saying it does follow that slavery should be accepted, it still does not suggest any of the two (murder out of a personal whim or slavery) are objectively wrong. Sure slavery will likely suck for a lot of a people but that's about as far as one can go and it's a long way from that to moral absolutism.


Sounds rather more interesting than the current topic really.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I would hardly say "harm to some for the benefit of others" could ever be completely eradicated in any society, but saying it does follow that slavery should be accepted, it still does not suggest any of the two (murder out of a personal whim or slavery) are objectively wrong. Sure slavery will likely suck for a lot of a people but that's about as far as one can go and it's a long way from that to moral absolutism.

however, harm to another is morally wrong. That is my point. You can disagree, though I think you would have trouble doing so without just dismissing the idea of morality altogether (which, imho, is essentially what relativism does).

It can be justified in any number of ways, and by no means am I proposing a campaign against harming people, as it is even necessary at times. I'm just trying to frame morality in a concrete form that escapes the abstracting to grey and overly complex situations.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Sounds rather more interesting than the current topic really.

I thought so at least

Originally posted by inimalist
... You can disagree, though I think you would have trouble doing so without just dismissing the idea of morality altogether (which, imho, is essentially what relativism does)....

Relativism does not dismiss morality. What it does is take away the ability of powerful people to manipulate the masses. If we all think that morality is absolute, then we have to get this absolute morality from someone. While if we realize that morality is relative, then we can make the best choice for our selves. This does not mean we will all go out and kill each other. This means that we will not be tricked into going over and killing someone else just because someone wants power.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Relativism does not dismiss morality. What it does is take away the ability of powerful people to manipulate the masses. If we all think that morality is absolute, then we have to get this absolute morality from someone. While if we realize that morality is relative, then we can make the best choice for our selves. This does not mean we will all go out and kill each other. This means that we will not be tricked into going over and killing someone else just because someone wants power.

morality is about the way people should treat eachother

that people in power abuse things is irrelevant. Authoritarian governments abuse Buddhism for their personal motivations, however it does not take much to show that Buddhism still exists independent of the motives of the powerful.

Also, that people who believe morality is relative don't act in that way (as in, they have very similar moral codes) sort of, at least to me, proves my point.

Originally posted by inimalist
morality is about the way people should treat eachother

that people in power abuse things is irrelevant. Authoritarian governments abuse Buddhism for their personal motivations, however it does not take much to show that Buddhism still exists independent of the motives of the powerful.

Also, that people who believe morality is relative don't act in that way (as in, they have very similar moral codes) sort of, at least to me, proves my point.

Just because something is relative and not absolute does not mean we can't agree on a system of morality.

What do you mean by "Also, that people who believe morality is relative don't act in that way"? Are you expecting someone who understands that morals are relative to be a Hitler type? If you believe that, then you are wrong. In Buddhism morality is relative, and IMHO some of the most moral people I know are Buddhists.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
It also doesn't mean that their is one and as far as I've seen there isn't an ABSOLUTE moral truth.

Indeed, thanks for repeating what I said...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just because something is relative and not absolute does not mean we can't agree on a system of morality.

What do you mean by "Also, that people who believe morality is relative don't act in that way"? Are you expecting someone who understands that morals are relative to be a Hitler type? If you believe that, then you are wrong. In Buddhism morality is relative, and IMHO some of the most moral people I know are Buddhists.

that is almost what I am thinking of though, a sort of absolutism through consensus.

and seriously, for the amount of people on this board alone who say things like "oh, if there weren't a law...." or "If I wouldn't get caught I....", were morality actually relative, my feeling is that there would a much larger incidence of these types of actions.

Really, if morality is relative, why doesn't everyone steal? sure, we all could have come to the exact same conclusions through our individually relative set of morals, or, there are clear reasons available even to the most irrational person as to why taking the property of another person is immoral.

Like, art is subjective and relative, and for this reason, there are pieces that push every imaginable border of expression, and almost assuredly something that each individual would find off colour. I don't see the distribution of morals through societies as the same.

For instance, while the definition of "personhood" or "ingroup" may change, there has never been a society that allowed for the murder of innocent "people" from the "ingroup".

I don't expect people who believe in moral relativism to be Hitler, I might expect a different distribution of moral ideas and much less overlap between individuals though.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is almost what I am thinking of though, a sort of absolutism through consensus.

and seriously, for the amount of people on this board alone who say things like "oh, if there weren't a law...." or "If I wouldn't get caught I....", were morality actually relative, my feeling is that there would a much larger incidence of these types of actions.

Really, if morality is relative, why doesn't everyone steal? sure, we all could have come to the exact same conclusions through our individually relative set of morals, or, there are clear reasons available even to the most irrational person as to why taking the property of another person is immoral.

Like, art is subjective and relative, and for this reason, there are pieces that push every imaginable border of expression, and almost assuredly something that each individual would find off colour. I don't see the distribution of morals through societies as the same.

For instance, while the definition of "personhood" or "ingroup" may change, there has never been a society that allowed for the murder of innocent "people" from the "ingroup".

I don't expect people who believe in moral relativism to be Hitler, I might expect a different distribution of moral ideas and much less overlap between individuals though.

What keeps people in check is the need to survive. Anarchy will always erupt into order even if that order is graves. Morality is a reflection of this need to survive, and not the other way around. The biggest problem that this world has been faced with is not the actions of the individual, but the actions of the group. When societies that have set morals are confronted with other societies with contrary morals, war and death is almost always the outcome. If these societies had the understanding of moralist relativism, when it comes to the group, they would have the flexibility to cope with conflict. Just look at what is happening today in the world.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What keeps people in check is the need to survive. Anarchy will always erupt into order even if that order is graves. Morality is a reflection of this need to survive, and not the other way around. The biggest problem that this world has been faced with is not the actions of the individual, but the actions of the group. When societies that have set morals are confronted with other societies with contrary morals, war and death is almost always the outcome. If these societies had the understanding of moralist relativism, when it comes to the group, they would have the flexibility to cope with conflict. Just look at what is happening today in the world.

I don't disagree that much...

maybe we need a way to distinguish between the over-encompassing moral beliefs (though not necessarily behaviour) of a culture and the moral beliefs about how people actually behave with each other on a personal level.

And, as to the point on Anarchy, there are some fairly salient examples of what would have been stable anarchist societies, should they not have been destroyed by non-anarchist societies.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree that much...

maybe we need a way to distinguish between the over-encompassing moral beliefs (though not necessarily behaviour) of a culture and the moral beliefs about how people actually behave with each other on a personal level.

I understand what you are trying to do. However, separating how we treat each other and how we treat other nations is part of the reason we are in the trouble we are in today.

Originally posted by inimalist
And, as to the point on Anarchy, there are some fairly salient examples of what would have been stable anarchist societies, should they not have been destroyed by non-anarchist societies.

Isn't "anarchist societies" an oxymoron?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Isn't "anarchist societies" an oxymoron?

No

Originally posted by inimalist
however, harm to another is morally wrong. That is my point. You can disagree, though I think you would have trouble doing so without just dismissing the idea of morality altogether (which, imho, is essentially what relativism does).

It can be justified in any number of ways, and by no means am I proposing a campaign against harming people, as it is even necessary at times. I'm just trying to frame morality in a concrete form that escapes the abstracting to grey and overly complex situations.



I thought so at least
I justified the murder of an innocent person, and I don't think I dismissed morality as a concept.
Why don't you explain why you think certain actions have an absolute moral value.

The general consensus or the attitude most of us may adopt towards certain things (e.g. a repulsion towards what we deem to be unjustifiable murder) or even biological factors that influence our feelings towards those acts do not necessarily imply an objective moral code.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Isn't "anarchist societies" an oxymoron?

We aren't all "Mad Max"

community relations are, at least in my own philosophy, the most central theme to social organization in Anarchy

I'll hit the rest later, hopefully

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Isn't "anarchist societies" an oxymoron?

Yes, but libertarians and objectists will fight to the death claiming it's not.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, innocent as in, you walk out your front door and there is a stranger on the street. You have no prior knowledge of this individual, they are doing nothing suspicious, and you have no reason to wish them ill will.

you now kill this person. Without adding or taking away from this scenario, how do you justify, morally, the harm done to that individual?



Sorry for not responding sooner (was off in the real world doing real things).

Your little scenario is flawed. Why have I killed this person? How have I killed this person? Which society and manner was I raised to specify which moral code I follow?

There are too many variables left out in your scenario to make any sort of valid point.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Why have I killed this person?

Obviously you don't have a reason. Giving a reason would involve "adding or taking away from scenario".

Originally posted by MilitantDog
How have I killed this person?

How could that possibly matter?

Also that would involve "adding or taking away from scenario".

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Which society and manner was I raised to specify which moral code I follow?

That would involve "adding or taking away from scenario".

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Sorry for not responding sooner (was off in the real world doing real things).

Your little scenario is flawed. Why have I killed this person? How have I killed this person? Which society and manner was I raised to specify which moral code I follow?

There are too many variables left out in your scenario to make any sort of valid point.

I am asking you 1 + 1

you are telling me that you can't answer because the X term and Z term have yet to be defined.

There is a very good reason I left those out

however, your rhetoric does indicate you are looking for an out to the situation, meaning that you probably cannot justify killing the individual.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand what you are trying to do. However, separating how we treat each other and how we treat other nations is part of the reason we are in the trouble we are in today.

fair enough, there is just a large communication gap here, and it is likely me..

I say "morality" and suddenly we are talking about war, the crusades, etc. And while these are surely good points, I think these situations are far too complex to be used when trying to talk about morality in itself. To liken it to psychology, it would be akin to trying to describe personality characteristics by talking about the Israeli/Gaza conflict?

Like, I agree with you when you are talking about national narratives and characters, they are constructs of man for political gains. I hardly consider this morality though, as it is mostly unrelated to people and their everyday behaviour and interactions. The average person deals with life in a situation by situation basis, not based on some abstract moral code, though there are obvious exceptions. It is the consequences of these situations, and especially measurable moral harm, that I guess I am proposing as the core of how people should look at the "morality" of their actions.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I justified the murder of an innocent person, and I don't think I dismissed morality as a concept.

indeed, you gave an explanation for why you did it. I don't feel you have justified the harm done to the individual though.

why would personal enjoyment displace the harm to that individual.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Why don't you explain why you think certain actions have an absolute moral value.

I don't. I feel material consequences to actions have moral implications. And, that should harm be caused through intention, that action carries negative "morality".

Now, something like scolding a child, or putting someone in prison, they have moral justifications, they also have pragmatic justifications, so they might be somewhat immoral, but are clearly ambiguous because of the other variables. We don't scold children or imprison people for the sheer joy of it, we do so for the good of the child, for the safety of humanity, etc. This is why I found Shaky's example to be salient, because the murder of innocents had major implications outside of the act itself, in a way that might justify the harm.

Originally posted by backdoorman
The general consensus or the attitude most of us may adopt towards certain things (e.g. a repulsion towards what we deem to be unjustifiable murder) or even biological factors that influence our feelings towards those acts do not necessarily imply an objective moral code.

no, but they are quite indicative.

also, given that I don't believe in abstract morals, or divine morals, or god, or anything like that, human consensus is sort of the most credible thing I feel we as humans have.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, you gave an explanation for why you did it. I don't feel you have justified the harm done to the individual though.

why would personal enjoyment displace the harm to that individual.
Say, because my moral framework is based on self indulgence and the satisfying of my personal wishes is for me the highest goal of my existence.


That's fine but seeing as the safety of humanity and the good of the child have no absolute ethical value, they are still not "objectively positive" moral actions.




Indicative of what? The swaying power organized society has? Mob mentality? Evolutionary factors that have influenced our social behavior?

Nihilism is boring but it really seems to be the obvious answer to this argument.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Say, because my moral framework is based on self indulgence and the satisfying of my personal wishes is for me the highest goal of my existence.

ok, but that does not address the harm. Please try to understand, I am NOT talking about abstract moral codes of proper behaviour, but of identifiable consequences to people and the material state of human affairs. It is an attempt to place morality in real things, and is antithetical to the idea of "codes" of behaviour.

This is largely because moral codes are, as shaky said, cultural propaganda. Not to mention that psychology has shown time and again that peoples' moral codes do not necessarily correlate to their actual behaviour.

like, I get what you are saying, but I don't feel you are addressing my point. You are hurting someone. Why is the pain they are experiencing ok. Not, why is it ok for you to do something, but why is it ok for you to afflict another. Personal pleasure does not satisfy this, because instead of addressing the harm, it simply says the harm is not a problem, hence why I feel you are simply dismissing the problem off hand.

Originally posted by backdoorman
That's fine but seeing as the safety of humanity and the good of the child have no absolute ethical value, they are still not "objectively positive" moral actions.

like I said, it isn't about the actions. I couldn't make a list of good and bad things to do. It is about material consequences to actions. Safety and the child have no moral value. The effects of action on these things can. The value is in the effects on people, not inherent to the action themselves, which I feel you think I am arguing.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Indicative of what? The swaying power organized society has? Mob mentality? Evolutionary factors that have influenced our social behavior?

many things. One being that people are able to identify things that are wrong. Remember, I am not proposing a mechanism, I'm not proposing a code, I'm not praising God or telling people what to do. I am asking for a moral reason why harming others for no reason is ok.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Nihilism is boring but it really seems to be the obvious answer to this argument.

nihilism is the off-hand dismissal of moral questions. This, to me, says that morals don't exist and fails to address the harm to an individual.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but that does not address the harm. Please try to understand, I am NOT talking about abstract moral codes of proper behaviour, but of identifiable consequences to people and the material state of human affairs. It is an attempt to place morality in real things, and is antithetical to the idea of "codes" of behaviour.

This is largely because moral codes are, as shaky said, cultural propaganda. Not to mention that psychology has shown time and again that peoples' moral codes do not necessarily correlate to their actual behaviour.

like, I get what you are saying, but I don't feel you are addressing my point. You are hurting someone. Why is the pain they are experiencing ok. Not, why is it ok for you to do something, but why is it ok for you to afflict another. Personal pleasure does not satisfy this, because instead of addressing the harm, it simply says the harm is not a problem, hence why I feel you are simply dismissing the problem off hand.
Just what about these identifiable consequences to people and the material state of human affairs has any objectivity? You keep pointing out what is wrong in my arguments but you really haven't at all elaborated on yours.



But why does someone dying as an effect of my randomly killing him have any absolute moral value?


Because their being injured or in pain or sad does not matter to me and it does not weigh negatively on my moral compass.


No. Nihilism says the harm done to people cannot be measured to absolute moral values.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Because their being injured or in pain or sad does not matter to me and it does not weigh negatively on my moral compass.

Not that I disagree with your point, but that's a terrible mixed metaphor.

How so?

Originally posted by backdoorman
How so?

Well first of all things don't have negative weight (and bad things weigh heavily). Secondly compasses give directions not weight.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well first of all things don't have negative weight (and bad things weigh heavily). Secondly compasses give directions not weight.
Good thing you pointed it out then.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Just what about these identifiable consequences to people and the material state of human affairs has any objectivity? You keep pointing out what is wrong in my arguments but you really haven't at all elaborated on yours.

But why does someone dying as an effect of my randomly killing him have any absolute moral value?

Because their being injured or in pain or sad does not matter to me and it does not weigh negatively on my moral compass.

No. Nihilism says the harm done to people cannot be measured to absolute moral values.

I don't think harm has any abstract value. You punch me, I feel pain. It doesn't matter whether you care about it or not, as that does nothing to justify the state you have put me in. The morality is, again, in the consequences, not in the justification, or any other sort of abstract code.

Because you don't believe in morality doesn't mean you can't negatively effect others. You not caring is hardly justification.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think harm has any abstract value. You punch me, I feel pain. It doesn't matter whether you care about it or not, as that does nothing to justify the state you have put me in. The morality is, again, in the consequences, not in the justification, or any other sort of abstract code.

Because you don't believe in morality doesn't mean you can't negatively effect others. You not caring is hardly justification.

But you have to start with the assumption that "causing harm" is the definition of immorality. So basically you're using circular logic: causing harm is immoral because immortality means causing harm.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But you have to start with the assumption that "causing harm" is the definition of immorality. So basically you're using circular logic: causing harm is immoral because immortality means causing harm.

indeed, at some point, one has to decide that "we can't know anything about anything" isn't a suitable conclusion, and certain assumptions might be made.

like, ok, I get it, I'm not proposing a divine code of behaviour. I mean objective as in, there is something to measure. I feel fairly safe in saying intentional harm is a good measure of immorality, as, the definition and common usage of immorality is, pretty much that.

I would also like to point out there is a difference between debating what might constitute objective evidence of immorality and just outright claiming that it cannot be done. If the argument is that intentional harm cannot be immoral because there is no such thing as immorality, you are making the later argument. I know it is impossible to prove a negative, but I really don't see any reason outside of post modern cynicism to say that hurting people isn't immoral.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think harm has any abstract value. You punch me, I feel pain. It doesn't matter whether you care about it or not, as that does nothing to justify the state you have put me in. The morality is, again, in the consequences, not in the justification, or any other sort of abstract code.

Because you don't believe in morality doesn't mean you can't negatively effect others. You not caring is hardly justification.
If I understand what you're saying, you are taking the feeling of pain, branding it not good and then building up your ideas of morality from there. However I still don't see the supposed absolute values of the consequences of our actions (i.e., pain in this case), you (or most people) feeling it and not liking it is all well but why does it have a place in the realm of objective truth?

Originally posted by backdoorman
If I understand what you're saying, you are taking the feeling of pain, branding it not good and then building up your ideas of morality from there. However I still don't see the supposed absolute values of the consequences of our actions (i.e., pain in this case), you (or most people) feeling it and not liking it is all well but why does it have a place in the realm of objective truth?

objective as in measurable, not a universal moral absolute religious truth.

The point is to avoid these metaphysical considerations by rooting morality in things that are determinable.

Originally posted by inimalist
objective as in measurable, not a universal moral absolute religious truth.

The point is to avoid these metaphysical considerations by rooting morality in things that are determinable.
Feels like we're going in circles. I think you are speaking in extremely vague terms, what do you mean by "determinable" and "measurable"? How can you measure or determine the consequences of someone killing another person for no reason and come to the conclusion that they are wrong?

Originally posted by backdoorman
Feels like we're going in circles. I think you are speaking in extremely vague terms, what do you mean by "determinable" and "measurable"? How can you measure or determine the consequences of someone killing another person for no reason and come to the conclusion that they are wrong?

it might be better to conceptualize it as if I am proposing that a measure of harm could be indicative of moral impropriety.

I get what you are saying, and I've been trying to say all along that I realize that, outside of human subjectivity, there is no way to make anything universal. I'm moderately well versed with both Nihilism and Post-Modernism, and gladly accept the ultimate limitations of human capacity for knowledge.

You make a good point, harm is very difficult to come up with a objective and repeatable measure for, as it by nature is subjective and defined by the person who an action is committed against. This is why I selected killing someone who was unwilling to die. Potentially the "definition" then has something to do with volition on the part of the person who an action is being done to. Not wishing a certain effect in your subjective experience, then having someone knowingly put you in that subjective state, potentially could be a starting point.

I agree, I don't have an elaborate or philosophically complex set of guidelines that I can give you that we could argue back and forth about. However, I refuse to accept that we, as human beings, cannot come together and claim some actions as being universally evil by the nature of the effects they have on people. I see it as a clear indication of a far too academic philosophy when the actions of Hitler or human slavery cannot instantly be called evil. To equivocate on those points is not a sign of intellectualism or of being well read, but of completely disregarding the fact that people suffer in the world from the ill intentions of others.

If you want to try and understand where I am coming from, it is the absolute rejection of relativism and "spiritualism" with regard to morality. I am interested in simultaneously removing morality from its position as an abstract code of behaviour and also finding basic elements of inter-personal interaction that can be weighed by their consequences to people.

let me try something:

1) morality is how people should interact with each other.

2) all people only ever can experience their own reality.

3) because of this, effects on a person's subjective reality are the only things in the universe which can be used to determine moral behaviour.

4) positive and negative experiences, while being relative and subjective, certainly exist. It is possible for ones actions to positively or negatively effect another's subjective reality.

5) by making some measure of benefit/harm, we can determine how much of an effect someone's actions have on another. I admit this will never be easy, hence why I chose such a simple scenario. One doesn't have to quantify the harm being done in the murder of an innocent to appreciate that harm is being done.

6) actions for which there is no moral justification (as in, benefits to the subjective experiences of those effected by the action(s)) are immoral.

again, I agree with you if all you want to do is point out the difficulty of defining words, and I understand if all you are doing is saying that harming others does not make you bad in the eyes of the universe.

I think I now get what you're saying, but the aggressive absolutist language you use is kind of misleading to what I believe to be your actual point. While it's probably a good idea (and it sort of has been happening since organized society came about) to have people get together and try to come up with a certain type of morality that will be universally applied based on the consequences our actions have, it will never be anything truly objective because the foundations for any moral code is always subjective because it puts ethical value on certain things, in your case the "goodness" of not having someone do harm to you against your will.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I think I now get what you're saying, but the aggressive absolutist language you use is kind of misleading to what I believe to be your actual point. While it's probably a good idea (and it sort of has been happening since organized society came about) to have people get together and try to come up with a certain type of morality that will be universally applied based on the consequences our actions have, it will never be anything truly objective because the foundations for any moral code is always subjective because it puts ethical value on certain things, in your case the "goodness" of not having someone do harm to you against your will.

no, I accept that

it sort of feels like the "Zeno's paradox" applied to morality though.

but no, I totally accept that I have no real ability to express my feelings about this in a coherent manner. good discussion though

Originally posted by inimalist
I am asking you 1 + 1

you are telling me that you can't answer because the X term and Z term have yet to be defined.

There is a very good reason I left those out

however, your rhetoric does indicate you are looking for an out to the situation, meaning that you probably cannot justify killing the individual.

I'm looking for an out of anything.

Look at what your asking me to do:

JUSTIFY the killing of an INNOCENT individual without knowing any background information. How can I justify anythign without know the relevant facts of the situation? Its like asking a homicide detective to solve a case but telling him that he is not allowed to see any evidence or interview any witnesses.

Apparently my statement that "Good and Evil are subjective terms" is too complex for you to grasp. Or its so simple that your trying to overly complicate it to make yourself look smarter.

"Good and Evil" are bench marks decided upon by the majority of the planets population. They are not Forces at work in the background.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
I'm looking for an out of anything.

Look at what your asking me to do:

JUSTIFY the killing of an INNOCENT individual without knowing any background information. How can I justify anythign without know the relevant facts of the situation? Its like asking a homicide detective to solve a case but telling him that he is not allowed to see any evidence or interview any witnesses.

Apparently my statement that "Good and Evil are subjective terms" is too complex for you to grasp. Or its so simple that your trying to overly complicate it to make yourself look smarter.

"Good and Evil" are bench marks decided upon by the majority of the planets population. They are not Forces at work in the background.

you haven't read anything I've written on the past 4 pages have you?