Originally posted by Phantom ZoneRealizing that may be the most fruitful conclusion one can come to, hence no waste. 💃
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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
~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.
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.
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.
~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 factsMoving 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.
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.