I have said yes to give a lecture about Religion: The Bible

[Sigurd]

Yes, I am giving a lecture on the Bible and I am afraid I will not be too kind.
I am looking for some positives to throw in to make it a more balanced view, and I know there are some good minds here with honest and positive views of this compilation of books.

This is more an overview and not a verse by verse lecture. A bit history thrown in and spiced with the importance of this book in some denominations.

[Greyblades]

While the bible has been used by individuals and countries throughout hisory to give precidence and moral backing to many an atrocity, we must remember that for every war there are countless individuals who have been bettered by following the guidlines set down in this old tome. We should keep in mind when discussing scripture that how misinterprited and warped it has been, it is ultimately providing and encouraging the model of a "good christian" and has ingrained in entire continents an appreciation and application for many of the values that we need for an accepting society.
Howzat?
Also:
The bible has generally provided many a foundation for the core of just law "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," Name one respectable court today that does not enforce similaredicts and I will name you a hole in the ground, christianity spread those commandmants and provided an inescapable justice system for it's believers.

[Kadagar_AV]

The bible has generally provided many a foundation for the core of just law "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," Name one respectable court today that does not enforce similaredicts and I will name you a hole in the ground, christianity spread those commandmants and provided an inescapable justice system for it's believers.

This is like saying that the Bible has some Copyright on things like "Do Not Kill".

Pretty much EVERY society and culture stand by those rules, it seems strange to somehow credit the bible for it, no?

[Greyblades]

He asked for some positives, just because everyone else does it does not deminish the good effects caused, no?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is like saying that the Bible has some Copyright on things like "Do Not Kill".

Pretty much EVERY society and culture stand by those rules, it seems strange to somehow credit the bible for it, no?

Yes.... but then there's not a lot to say about the moral teaching of the Bible. Indeed, there is not a lot to say about the moral teaching divorced from the construction of the "moral God".

Sigurd, can you give us some idea of the audience? Is this a local Church thing or what? Young? Old?

[Sigurd]

Yes.... but then there's not a lot to say about the moral teaching of the Bible. Indeed, there is not a lot to say about the moral teaching divorced from the construction of the "moral God".

Sigurd, can you give us some idea of the audience? Is this a local Church thing or what? Young? Old?

I am not entirely sure about the exact composition of the audience. It could be a mix crowd of Christians and "normal" Norwegian kids. I say kids, but they will be post secondary school. Around 18 - 20 maybe.
But the fact that they have asked me, indicates that they want a more neutral opinion on the subject. Someone not staunch atheist or theist.

I am going to do the history, so no advice needed on the positives following Luther's grievances. I will move through some of the myths regarding its origins and some of the claims. I am more interested in the follow up... The "despite all this negative, there is still some positives" and some recent examples would be excellent. As a band aid on the hurts I am gonna inflict on the believing part of the audience.

A ... its not all bad ... kind of way :beam:

[Greyblades]

Oh in that case, look at the the promotion of family values and a sense of community, ie look at the mormons episode of southpark and apply the ending speech by the mormon kid to christianity as a whole.
Also you could point out that the bible's new testemant has jesus preaching a mainly pacifistic love they neigbor message and as much as it is warped it ultimately says "play nice and love your fellow man"

[Sigurd]

See... this is what I am talking about... South Park.. I am too old for that :daisy: and it wouldn't have entered my mind to look there.
I might just have a looksie, and if I use some of it, the audience will notice that I am an old man not familiar with silly cartoons. :sneaky:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not entirely sure about the exact composition of the audience. It could be a mix crowd of Christians and "normal" Norwegian kids. I say kids, but they will be post secondary school. Around 18 - 20 maybe.
But the fact that they have asked me, indicates that they want a more neutral opinion on the subject. Someone not staunch atheist or theist.

I am going to do the history, so no advice needed on the positives following Luther's grievances. I will move through some of the myths regarding its origins and some of the claims. I am more interested in the follow up... The "despite all this negative, there is still some positives" and some recent examples would be excellent. As a band aid on the hurts I am gonna inflict on the believing part of the audience.

A ... its not all bad ... kind of way :beam:

So mostly pre-University level?

OK.

How long until you have to give this lecture?

I'm digging through my little library here but my material on Norse reception-history is necessarily quite limited by my field.

[Vladimir]

Yes, I am giving a lecture on the Bible and I am afraid I will not be too kind.
I am looking for some positives to throw in to make it a more balanced view, and I know there are some good minds here with honest and positive views of this compilation of books.

This is more an overview and not a verse by verse lecture. A bit history thrown in and spiced with the importance of this book in some denominations.

Don't be balanced, be honest and truthful. Don't weaken your position by worrying about how others may feel; however, be calm and disarming to make your audience more receptive.

I hope you do well. I'd likely be rolling my eyes in the background; negative lectures about the Bible don't impress me as I generally don't care for the agendas of those giving them. It's nothing against you but I'm tired of hearing that kind of negativity. If you want Truth, remember that it sheds light on large periods of history that we may not know about without it.

[Sigurd]

So mostly pre-University level?

OK.

How long until you have to give this lecture?

I'm digging through my little library here but my material on Norse reception-history is necessarily quite limited by my field.

I am doing this presentation twice, but the first time is tomorrow (2nd next Tuesday). I will however have room for improvements, better notes, experience etc. the second time.

[Sigurd]

Don't be balanced, be honest and truthful.

I can go toe to toe in any religious verse by verse discussion of the Bible and discuss intricate theology. I am also fully aware of what the bible is and what it claims. The different religious denominations' beliefs of what it claims and the many fallacies and misuses of the Bible. The many Christian in-fights on particular doctrine, of diverse interpretations, the version issues. The adding and taking from the canon, the authority issue, the originals issue etc..
But it is how you wrap all of this into a presentation. There is a great difference between the lecture header: "The Great Bible Fraud", and "The Bible, misused by men?" I could basically say the same things but with different approach, the one being hostile and the other informative and balanced.


I hope you do well. I'd likely be rolling my eyes in the background; negative lectures about the Bible don't impress me as I generally don't care for the agendas of those giving them. It's nothing against you but I'm tired of hearing that kind of negativity. If you want Truth, remember that it sheds light on large periods of history that we may not know about without it.
I am not going there... I am not going to look into what the Bible claims is history. Not going to address when Emp. Augustus proclaimed the census, Maria being heavy with child and relate it to whether this happen around Christmas or not.
And it is as the Mormon kid says in South Park (yep.. finally seen it), all though he speaks about the Book of Mormon and not the Bible; it doesn't really matter when - it is the message that counts. The good will be to men. The magic of Christmas where everyone follows the two great commandments (well the second part).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am doing this presentation twice, but the first time is tomorrow (2nd next Tuesday). I will however have room for improvements, better notes, experience etc. the second time.

OK, well I know you’re quite knowledgeable about this – so I shall try not to labour my points.

I would begin by saying that the “Bible” as we know it today in a single volume is a relatively recent invention of the later middle ages that first appeared when preachers started moving around and needing a mobile copy of the scriptures. I would also point out that the Greek and Latin words for the Bible (I can’t speak to the Norse) literally mean a collection of writings.

I would then just briefly say that until the 15th Century and the invention of the printing press all manuscripts had to be copied by human hand, and the various books of the Bible were originally copied independently. With the best will and most strenuous effort in the world we know the scribes made mistakes because we have their manuscripts.

The reason for saying all this is that it is true and not widely recognised and it will place everything you subsequently say in the context of human fallibility rather than as an attack on Christianity.

I would then briefly mention Saint Augustine and the Council of Carthage, and then Saint Jerome’s rigorous and scholarly translation into Latin. It is worth noting that Jerome and Augustine corresponded, starting in 395, and this produced a theological controversy – namely that Augustine was concerned that Jerome’s interpretation that St. Paul was guilty of falsehood in his presentation of Peter’s views on Jewish customs in Galatians 2.11-14. Augustine was concerned that if the general public were exposed to this sort of opinion they would doubt the validity of the whole of the Bible.

Unfortunately, the letter was accidentally left in Rome and word of it reached Jerome by second hand before the actual letter. This is no. 28 in Augustine’s letters.

I found it online: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102028.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102028.htm)

Moving briskly forward to the 11th Century, Christianity was spread through Norway by the King Cnut, who used missionaries from England – who repeated what they had accomplished among the Danes in England a few generation previously. The English missionaries would have brought with them a tradition of vernacular religious writing, which can help to explain why Christian poetry and prose with Biblical echoes appears relatively early in Norse literature.

The Evangelium Nicodemi appears quite early in poetic fragments in a Norse context – circa the 12th Century in West Norse in Iceland. Depending on how much time you have a gesture to the Gospels that didn’t make it into the Bible, and the fact that the medieval Church often encouraged their translation and dissemination, are worth mentioning.

It may be worth just noting that the first serious translation of the Bible since Jerome was made in Oxford in the 1370’s-1390’s. The Prologue to the Wycliffite Bible might be worth a quick look as it informed later Lutheran thinking on translation and exegesis.

I don’t know if it’s worth mentioning that there is still quite a close connection between the English and Scandinavian Churches, who are in full Communion – mostly worth mentioning for making a joke about the English being Nordics who got mugged by the French in 1066. Some Norse I know find that amusing.

From then on we’re into Germanic Lutheranism and the Nordic break with Rome, which is where my knowledge ends.

Hope that helps.

[ajaxfetish]

I think the message of tolerance and forgiveness preached by Jesus in the gospels is very positive; there should be a lot to draw from there. You might also consider presenting something on the bible as literature. It's certainly had a considerable influence on western literature as a whole, and contains numerous moving stories and memorable turns of phrase.

Ajax

[Vuk]

So basically you want to rip it apart and then say that it is not quite as evil as it could be. Wow, I can definitely see why you would categorize your views as neutral. I would give you suggestions if I thought that you were even a bit open-minded or fair, but honestly I think that would be like throwing pearls before swine.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So basically you want to rip it apart and then say that it is not quite as evil as it could be. Wow, I can definitely see why you would categorize your views as neutral. I would give you suggestions if I thought that you were even a bit open-minded or fair, but honestly I think that would be like throwing pearls before swine.

Funny, because I was thinking exactly the same thing about you.

I don't suppose you've ever seen a manuscript of the Bible, in any language, have you?

[Rhyfelwyr]

As has been said one of the first things to point out would be that the Bible is a collection of books with many different authors, since many people do not realise this.

I would try to explain how the Bible came to be commonly accepted (more or less) in the form that it is today, and obviously Judaism will be just as important as Christianity in that respect. Go into how the unification of Israel/Judah led to the old scrolls being rediscovered, then how they were compiled in captivity in Babylon etc.The Bible is about 80% Old Testament after all, getting across that perspective is pretty important since a lot of people don't appreciate that.

And of course for the New Testament you would go into Athanasius etc.

I would also try to explain to the audience how the Old and New Testaments relate to each other. Most importantly would be the idea for Christians that the Old Testament is generally understood in light of the New Testament. As opposed to being made obsolete or being outright contradictory (in their perspective).

[Strike For The South]

, but honestly I think that would be like throwing pearls before swine.


The last refuege of the man who has lost the arguement

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would try to explain how the Bible came to be commonly accepted (more or less) in the form that it is today, and obviously Judaism will be just as important as Christianity in that respect. Go into how the unification of Israel/Judah led to the old scrolls being rediscovered, then how they were compiled in captivity in Babylon etc.The Bible is about 80% Old Testament after all, getting across that perspective is pretty important since a lot of people don't appreciate that.I would not go into this - the argument is vexed, obscured and the simple fact that we do not agree demonstrates it is probably not a good topic for general discussion. There is no evidence for the "rediscovery" of "old scrolls", nor for their having been lost.What is known is that the Hebrew books was compiled around perhaps 600 BC - then continuously added to.
And of course for the New Testament you would go into Athanasius etc.Athanasius is not so interesting a character as Augustine, not as complex or controversial.
I would also try to explain to the audience how the Old and New Testaments relate to each other. Most importantly would be the idea for Christians that the Old Testament is generally understood in light of the New Testament. As opposed to being made obsolete or being outright contradictory (in their perspective).This is certainly worth mentioning, but one must always be careful when discussing the Old Testemant as one's audience may include Jews. By which I mean, they will have a different perspective and a different Canon in a different, and older, language.

[Greyblades]

The last refuege of the man who has lost the arguement

Hmm, if that's true, Vuk is probably the first person I've seen lose an argument before he even got his first reply.

[Sigurd]

One of the Bible myths I am addressing is the Nicean council. And therefore Athanasius will be mentioned (his influence in the making of the canon). I just have to be disciplined enough to not address the whole Nicean controversy (Arius vs.Athanasius vs. orthodox doctrine on the Godhead). I could easily spend half the time discussing Trinitarianism.

Thank you for the link PVC.. I might use it.

I might not have the time to prepare anything on the actual literature ajax, but I will definitely look into it.

Considering that we don't really have a Jewish community in Bergen, the likelyhood of having a person with Judean religious views could be 1 to entire audience. But yes I agree. It is the Bible I am dealing with, not the Tanakh and it should be understood under the Christian umbrella.

I will however be very honest in my approach on extra-canonical or similar stories to the bible. Some lecturers would use texts predating the Bible texts which have very similar content as evidence for fraud and simple copying.
I would suggest that if the Christian God is is the creator, then his gospel would have been taught from the beginning and hence the stories would be expected to be similar. They would all look to the Christian God for salvation, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Moses and to the Christian era. Surely the prophets of old would have been taught about the Saviour and the 12 that followed him. Surely there would be communities like Enoch's Zion who were blueprinted by others. The righteous Enoch who the wicked feared, because he could crush an army with his voice. You would expect remnants of the original religion in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Sumeria etc.
In just over 2000 years the Christian message and religion has been transformed into 35 000 variants. How long did it take after Christ's death before you found deviations? The clues can be found in the Bible itself.
The Lord had to revitalize the religion with Enoch after Adam, with Noah, with Abraham - Isaac - Jacob, with Moses and with Christ. Those who adhered to it, corrupted it within generations.
You can even look to the Norse religion. A God who hung himself on a three and had a spear pierce his side. Familiar? copy? who copied who?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that with Nicea it suffices to say this: that the Council was not directly concerned with which books could be considered canonical, but that they agreed doctrines which would later influence which books were accepted or rejected. However, it is necessary that the Church Fathers at Nicea had certain books in mind during their deliberations.

The first part of that is snappier, sorry.

On non-Canonical books: The "Canon" is actually composed of those books which are considered to have reliable authorial attributions, but we must not surpose that because of this all "non-Canonical" books were considered to be wholly without authority.

Now, I shall just quote myself:

The Gospel of Nicodemus is an expanded apocryphal account of Christ’s trial before Pilate and what became known as the Descensus Christi ad Inferos or “Christ’s Descent into Hell”, on Easter Saturday when he storms hell to rescue the Patriarchs and Prophets and takes them up to Heaven.

The Gospel was one of most popular pieces of New Testament Apocrypha in medieval Europe, as demonstrated by its translation into every major vernacular and the variety ways it was adapted or borrowed from for popular consumption. The Gospel’s subject matter and its attribution to the Pharisee Nichodemus of John’s Gospel go a long way to explaining its popularity.

From "Unremarked Heterodoxy in the Gospel of Nicodemus", (unpublished) delivered at the University of Exeter, 1st May 2012, by Philip John Wallinder BA MA.




Oh, yes, the copyright is held by the university.

It is also worth noting that while Enoch is not part of the Jewish canon he is quoted repeatedly in the New Testement.

[Kadagar_AV]

One of the Bible myths I am addressing is the Nicean council. And therefore Athanasius will be mentioned (his influence in the making of the canon). I just have to be disciplined enough to not address the whole Nicean controversy (Arius vs.Athanasius vs. orthodox doctrine on the Godhead). I could easily spend half the time discussing Trinitarianism.

Thank you for the link PVC.. I might use it.

I might not have the time to prepare anything on the actual literature ajax, but I will definitely look into it.

Considering that we don't really have a Jewish community in Bergen, the likelyhood of having a person with Judean religious views could be 1 to entire audience. But yes I agree. It is the Bible I am dealing with, not the Tanakh and it should be understood under the Christian umbrella.

I will however be very honest in my approach on extra-canonical or similar stories to the bible. Some lecturers would use texts predating the Bible texts which have very similar content as evidence for fraud and simple copying.
I would suggest that if the Christian God is is the creator, then his gospel would have been taught from the beginning and hence the stories would be expected to be similar. They would all look to the Christian God for salvation, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Moses and to the Christian era. Surely the prophets of old would have been taught about the Saviour and the 12 that followed him. Surely there would be communities like Enoch's Zion who were blueprinted by others. The righteous Enoch who the wicked feared, because he could crush an army with his voice. You would expect remnants of the original religion in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Sumeria etc.
In just over 2000 years the Christian message and religion has been transformed into 35 000 variants. How long did it take after Christ's death before you found deviations? The clues can be found in the Bible itself.
The Lord had to revitalize the religion with Enoch after Adam, with Noah, with Abraham - Isaac - Jacob, with Moses and with Christ. Those who adhered to it, corrupted it within generations.
You can even look to the Norse religion. A God who hung himself on a three and had a spear pierce his side. Familiar? copy? who copied who?

I once read a course on "the world religion". It is quite interesting how many shared traces can be found, that most likely predates any of the religions we have today.

Kind of obvious, as a species we date back far longer than written history, and religion wasn't a new invention when we started to write. So one might have copied the other, or, the original story dates way way way further back in time.

Again, obvious. As obvious as religious celebrations (from whatever religion) "coincidentally" match astrological patterns.

[PanzerJaeger]

If you have to search for good things to say, maybe there just aren't that many. More kids should know the absurdity of religion before they are indoctrinated, although by 18-20, you would more than likely be trying to break that indoctrination.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's like a Neo-Nazi giving a lesson on the Talmud. Who asked a guy who hates the bible to give a lecture on it? The best lecturers love what they are lecturing about, passionately. Why don't you just analyze it like any textual mythology? Your speech is bound to be an attack, but would you attack the Iliad and the Odyssey? The Kojiki? Why wouldn't you treat them like beautiful and time honored texts. Your perspective seethes of vitriol and is odd, seeing as the books is merely of traditional/historical value.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's like a Neo-Nazi giving a lesson on the Talmud. Who asked a guy who hates the bible to give a lecture on it? The best lecturers love what they are lecturing about, passionately.

No, the best lecturers have a vivid interest of what they are lecturing about.

People who LOVE the stuff they talk about tend to be less open to other peoples opinion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

When you are giving a lecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecture) you are not required to be open to other peoples opinions. He didn't say that he was leading a discussion, he said that he was giving a lecture. He seems to be interested in the Bible to tear it down. One professor that I had learned to read Akkadian and Hittite and tearing the culture down had nothing to do with why he did that. Or they could excavate ancient tombs to prove to themselves and others how stupid the ancient Egyptians were... But that would be kind of silly, wouldn't it?

Treat it like the important document that you believe it is, not the modern devil that you obsessively hate. One of my favorite teachers was an Atheist, Britain obsessed socialist who ate, slept, and breathed modern and early-modern British history. She taught it as though she were J.S. Mill on estrogen, listening to sex pistols. I appreciated her love for the subject and I learned that I loved her, hated the movement, but learned quite a bit about it.

[Whacker]

If you have to search for good things to say, maybe there just aren't that many. More kids should know the absurdity of religion before they are indoctrinated, although by 18-20, you would more than likely be trying to break that indoctrination.

Which is one of the many reasons why my daughter is not being raised christian like I was. I will not have her bound by the same petty fears drilled into her mind throughout her youth like were me. One doesn't need religion at all to raise a child to be a moral, good person. My wife and I don't believe that crap at all any more to begin with.

@ Siggy - One of the more interesting things I read some time ago was that the earliest versions of "organized" christianity as preached by Saint Paul of Tarsus were supposedly wildly different than what Hayzeus actually taught, AND what the surviving disciples interpreted and believed to be correct. In short, the disciples wanted christianity to be essentially a slightly different flavor of judaism with most all jewish requirements, rituals, observations, and ecclesiastical laws intact. I don't remember all the specifics, but one of the bigger sticking points was circumcision being a requirement. Most adult men tended to shy away from this, so Paul removed it from his "official" version of doctrine in order to make it more attractive. I'll try to find out where I read that. It might have been the big catholic encyclopedia online.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If you have to search for good things to say, maybe there just aren't that many. More kids should know the absurdity of religion before they are indoctrinated, although by 18-20, you would more than likely be trying to break that indoctrination.

What is with the language of "indoctrination" etc?


@ Siggy - One of the more interesting things I read some time ago was that the earliest versions of "organized" christianity as preached by Saint Paul of Tarsus were supposedly wildly different than what Hayzeus actually taught, AND what the surviving disciples interpreted and believed to be correct. In short, the disciples wanted christianity to be essentially a slightly different flavor of judaism with most all jewish requirements, rituals, observations, and ecclesiastical laws intact. I don't remember all the specifics, but one of the bigger sticking points was circumcision being a requirement. Most adult men tended to shy away from this, so Paul removed it from his "official" version of doctrine in order to make it more attractive. I'll try to find out where I read that. It might have been the big catholic encyclopedia online.

The issue with the "Judaizers" and the conflict it caused within the church is well documented in the New Testament itself.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have a Spiritual interest in the bible, but I also appreciate it for its historical value. I appreciate the Koran and various Religious texts and am fascinated by them. There was a time when my interest was to help destroy man's foolish adherence to these things, but then I grew up and became more in-tune with God and our ancestors.

Absent my moral universality, I default to moral nihilism. It is more important to defer to my curiosity than to adhere to the man-made illusion of morality, absent God. I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life. I think that they are just confused and complicated animals. You delude yourself to believe that there is right and wrong without some concept of deity as we poorly understand it. Just go out there and do what you will absent any "moral" boundaries, only the boundaries created by your mind to prevent negative consequence that you aren't open to dealing with at some point. Or fake humanist ethics to fit in and aggrandize yourself in their culture, as people have done within Religion for years.

I believe that this scenario is Hell on earth.

[Whacker]

I have a Spiritual interest in the bible, but I also appreciate it for its historical value. I appreciate the Koran and various Religious texts and am fascinated by them. There was a time when my interest was to help destroy man's foolish adherence to these things, but then I grew up and became more in-tune with God and our ancestors.

Absent my moral universality, I default to moral nihilism. It is more important to defer to my curiosity than to adhere to the man-made illusion of morality, absent God. I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life. I think that they are just confused and complicated animals. You delude yourself to believe that there is right and wrong without some concept of deity as we poorly understand it. Just go out there and do what you will absent any "moral" boundaries, only the boundaries created by your mind to prevent negative consequence that you aren't open to dealing with at some point. Or fake humanist ethics to fit in and aggrandize yourself in their culture, as people have done within Religion for years.

I believe that this scenario is Hell on earth.

Strike said it best. Your faith and belief comes from a dark place in your soul, and you are a very angry, uncompromising person. I hope someday you can conquer your demons.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What's angry about his post and what's bad about being uncompromising about morality?

[Whacker]

What's angry about his post and what's bad about being uncompromising about morality?

Really?

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life. I think that they are just confused and complicated animals. You delude yourself to believe that there is right and wrong without some concept of deity as we poorly understand it. Just go out there and do what you will absent any "moral" boundaries, only the boundaries created by your mind to prevent negative consequence that you aren't open to dealing with at some point. Or fake humanist ethics to fit in and aggrandize yourself in their culture, as people have done within Religion for years.

I believe that this scenario is Hell on earth.

On the contrary, morality born out of religion is immature and ultimately empty. If you are acting to please a god, you are only acting.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What's angry about his post and what's bad about being uncompromising about morality?

I didn't think that this specific post was an angry or uncompromising one, either. I was urging at least the same respect given to other texts of massive historical importance. I was then, in a nutshell, attempting to explain my basic understanding of deity and universality.

[Papewaio]

Historical importance? So a rewrite with a dozen editions and editors of Lord of the Rings, throw in a couple of thousand years and it is now a historical document?

Moral systems are emergent. People innately feel bad about inequality. They feel bad about their circumstances if they see someone else getting far more for far less effort.

God is as provable as the tooth fairy, unicorns and monsters under the bed. Just because you have never found them doesn't mean that you've disproved them. However how do we treat adults who believe in unicorns?

Sure geeks dress up in robes and go to sci fi conventions. That does not mean their hobby should get tax deductions nor should they be allowed to not assist the government in resolving crimes because their favourite fantasy says its okay.

Atheists do not have to justify not believing in unicorns or other myths. They don't have to justify not believing in Zeus, Hay-Zeus or Jesus Christ. Atheists also are not by default all the same or lacking in morals. They just don't believe in make believe.

Moral choices are done by individuals of all creeds. The bible does not have a monopoly on morality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@ Siggy - One of the more interesting things I read some time ago was that the earliest versions of "organized" christianity as preached by Saint Paul of Tarsus were supposedly wildly different than what Hayzeus actually taught, AND what the surviving disciples interpreted and believed to be correct. In short, the disciples wanted christianity to be essentially a slightly different flavor of judaism with most all jewish requirements, rituals, observations, and ecclesiastical laws intact. I don't remember all the specifics, but one of the bigger sticking points was circumcision being a requirement. Most adult men tended to shy away from this, so Paul removed it from his "official" version of doctrine in order to make it more attractive. I'll try to find out where I read that. It might have been the big catholic encyclopedia online.

Acts - plus Galatians.

See - this is exactly what I am always saying, bad education begets distrust and scepticism. This sort of thing should be taught prior to confirmation, in fact we have already touched on the controvosy in this thread when we discussed Saint Augustine's letter to Jerome.

I feel I should also point out that the man was never "Heyzeus" or anything like it, that is apparently a corruption of the modern pronunciation in Spanish resulting from the corruption of proper Latin pronunciation. If you were to de-Latinise his and spell it phonetically you would have Yeshua, which is a varient of Joshua - the Prophet for whom he was named.

That might be worth a look actually, Sigurd - names get corrupted through translation and the name of Christ is an interesting one.

Could we keep the theological bun fight out of this topic in defference to Sigurd until he has given his lecture?

[Whacker]

Acts - plus Galatians.

See - this is exactly what I am always saying, bad education begets distrust and scepticism. This sort of thing should be taught prior to confirmation, in fact we have already touched on the controvosy in this thread when we discussed Saint Augustine's letter to Jerome.

I feel I should also point out that the man was never "Heyzeus" or anything like it, that is apparently a corruption of the modern pronunciation in Spanish resulting from the corruption of proper Latin pronunciation. If you were to de-Latinise his and spell it phonetically you would have Yeshua, which is a varient of Joshua - the Prophet for whom he was named.

That might be worth a look actually, Sigurd - names get corrupted through translation and the name of Christ is an interesting one.

Could we keep the theological bun fight out of this topic in defference to Sigurd until he has given his lecture?

You missed the boat entirely on that one. I was being sarcastic and facetious about "Heyzeus".

As to your version of "facts", the bible is not a factual document. I've read quite a bit of it several times as it is interesting, but neither of those sections. All of my readings on religion and christianity come from other sources, both ecclesiastical and secular. In no way, shape, or form do I believe or accept the bible as a factual recounting of history. I hope Siggy is taking everything you say with a huge grain of salt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You missed the boat entirely on that one. I was being sarcastic and facetious about "Heyzeus".

As to your version of "facts", the bible is not a factual document. I've read quite a bit of it several times as it is interesting, but neither of those sections. All of my readings on religion and christianity come from other sources, both ecclesiastical and secular. In no way, shape, or form do I believe or accept the bible as a factual recounting of history. I hope Siggy is taking everything you say with a huge grain of salt.

Why do you always have to be so hostile?

What is it about my faith that so offends you?

And also, where did I say anything about "facts?"

Also, if you have not read Acts or Galatians, how can you just dismiss my reading of them, or Rhy's? Why is your second handing reading of a gloss you can't even remember superior to my reading of the actual text?

[Whacker]

Why do you always have to be so hostile?

What is it about my faith that so offends you?

Who called who the bigot first? I find your religious-fueled judgmental attitudes and opinions toward your fellow human beings deplorable. My morality says that all human beings are equal and should be treated with dignity and respect, irrespective of race, creed, culture, gender, physical or mental characteristics and abilities, sexual orientation, or any other "classification", and that those who judge or discriminate against others in any way shape or form whatsoever are immoral beings.


And also, where did I say anything about "facts?"

Also, if you have not read Acts or Galatians, how can you just dismiss my reading of them, or Rhy's? Why is your second handing reading of a gloss you can't even remember superior to my reading of the actual text?

I'm dismissing them and the bible as a "factual" document, which it is not, it is a theological compilation which purports to provide in some cases a factual recounting of history. You were presenting information to Siggy with those sections as a basis for being a "factual" re-telling of the original conflict between the first christian factions. Anything at all in the bible is suspect and subject to verification through other sources.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who called who the bigot first? I find your religious-fueled judgmental attitudes and opinions toward your fellow human beings deplorable. My morality says that all human beings are equal and should be treated with dignity and respect, irrespective of race, creed, culture, gender, physical or mental characteristics and abilities, sexual orientation, or any other "classification", and that those who judge or discriminate against others in any way shape or form whatsoever are immoral beings.

It was you, a few years ago, as I recall. Your general loathing for religion is noted and is not condusive to constructive or enlightened debate.


I'm dismissing them and the bible as a "factual" document, which it is not, it is a theological compilation which purports to provide in some cases a factual recounting of history. You were presenting information to Siggy with those sections as a basis for being a "factual" re-telling of the original conflict between the first christian factions. Anything at all in the bible is suspect and subject to verification through other sources.

Your criticism could equally be applied to any written document - all writing and all speaking is done with an agenda. The only difference with the Bible is that you do not like the agenda.

I have not at any point said that any part of the Bible is "fact", nor do I recall making such claims generally in at least the last several years - if I have done previous to that I can only apolagise for youthful excess and lack of forbearence. All I did was point out that the controvosy you presented as extra-Biblical in fact originated in Acts 10-11 and in Paul's letter to the Galatians, and is - therefore - Biblical.

What I was discussing with Sigurd was a letter written by Saint Augustine of Hippor to Jerome about the controvosy in Galatians. The existence of that letter is recorded in multiple sources and it is extant today, associated with both Jerome and Augustine.

If you want to argue with me further I suggest the other thread, or elsewhere. As I have already said, this is really not a place for a theological bun fight.

I have not been discussing theology here, or the historical validity of the various Biblical texts, apart from noting that the attribution of the Old Testement to "Old scrolls" as Rhy charactarised them is unsubstantiated.

[ajaxfetish]

Historical importance? So a rewrite with a dozen editions and editors of Lord of the Rings, throw in a couple of thousand years and it is now a historical document?

Absolutely. Especially since in the analogy, the original Tolkien version has been lost to time. What is it about this document that affected so many people that dozens of editions and dozens of editors have been involved in maintaining it. How has it affected human judgment through the ages in the lands where it held sway. How is it intertwined with the rest of their literary tradition. What does the language of the various editions have to tell us about the language spoken by the peoples who revered it. What aspects of the cultural mindset in which it was produced are preserved in its text. Etc.

Ajax

[spankythehippo]

Historical importance? So a rewrite with a dozen editions and editors of Lord of the Rings, throw in a couple of thousand years and it is now a historical document?

Moral systems are emergent. People innately feel bad about inequality. They feel bad about their circumstances if they see someone else getting far more for far less effort.

God is as provable as the tooth fairy, unicorns and monsters under the bed. Just because you have never found them doesn't mean that you've disproved them. However how do we treat adults who believe in unicorns?

Sure geeks dress up in robes and go to sci fi conventions. That does not mean their hobby should get tax deductions nor should they be allowed to not assist the government in resolving crimes because their favourite fantasy says its okay.

Atheists do not have to justify not believing in unicorns or other myths. They don't have to justify not believing in Zeus, Hay-Zeus or Jesus Christ. Atheists also are not by default all the same or lacking in morals. They just don't believe in make believe.

Moral choices are done by individuals of all creeds. The bible does not have a monopoly on morality.

The tooth fairy, unicorns and monsters are, correct me if I'm wrong, generally accepted as being figments of one's imagination. If they are as provable as the existence of god, why isn't god considered an imaginary thing? To me, god is an imaginary being. But others don't think the same, even though they don't believe in the tooth fairy etc.

There is another thing I don't understand. First, I'll tell a very short story. Occasionally, when I'm going through the Devonshire St tunnel at Central station, there is an old lady handing out pamphlets about Jesus. I politely refuse, although I could show her a plethora of satanic symbols located on my person (I am not a satanist. I'm an agnostic atheist). But why does she do it? Why does she hand out pamphlets? You don't get points for every person you convert. And even if there is a "reward" for converting others, does that take precedence over generosity? Because, frankly, she isn't doing anything good. I've heard many things about some religions from people who call themselves religious. I've heard that helping people to get into heaven (i.e. converting them) will guarantee the converter a place in heaven. But I've also heard that god loves everyone. If he/she/it truly loved everyone, why would he/she/it send a bad person to hell? And why would the Devil hurt a bad person? Is the Devil subservient to god? Isn't the Devil god's enemy? Why would the Devil help god by punishing the evil?

As a child, I used to have this picture in my head that all the gods that humans have worshipped are leaders of a exclusive club. And they are all scrambling for new recruits.


I have another question? What does Christmas/Easter mean nowadays? I will recount another story. In December last year, I saw a mother scold her child for wanting something. The kid wanted something for Christmas (I can't remember what it was) and begged his mother for it. The mother said no, so the the kid pulled out the Jesus card. "It's Christmas. I should get what I want."

Is that what Christmas is about? Getting presents? Or should it be the celebration of their prophet and saviour's birthday? Nah, it seems like it's all about the presents.


Ugh. I'm on an another incoherent rant about nothing. Better play some Diablo.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sure some of us would be happy to field your questions, as best we can, but I think you should start a new thread.

[spankythehippo]

I'm sure some of us would be happy to field your questions, as best we can, but I think you should start a new thread.

Really? Another "Spanky spouts out half-arsed ideas that get obliterated in the wind" thread?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Really? Another "Spanky spouts out half-arsed ideas that get obliterated in the wind" thread?

Better than "Sigurd's thread gets further derailed".

I, for one, am interested in how the lecture went.

Any rotten fruit? Angry muttering?

[Sigurd]

Better than "Sigurd's thread gets further derailed".

I, for one, am interested in how the lecture went.

Any rotten fruit? Angry muttering?
They swallowed it hook, line and sinker. :sneaky:

I don't have time to expand on this as I am just about to leave work. And it is our independence day tomorrow, which involves a lot of stuff to prepare later tonight. I might get back to y'all after.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They swallowed it hook, line and sinker. :sneaky:

I don't have time to expand on this as I am just about to leave work. And it is our independence day tomorrow, which involves a lot of stuff to prepare later tonight. I might get back to y'all after.

Ah. good.:bow:

[Kralizec]

I have a Spiritual interest in the bible, but I also appreciate it for its historical value. I appreciate the Koran and various Religious texts and am fascinated by them. There was a time when my interest was to help destroy man's foolish adherence to these things, but then I grew up and became more in-tune with God and our ancestors.

Absent my moral universality, I default to moral nihilism. It is more important to defer to my curiosity than to adhere to the man-made illusion of morality, absent God. I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life. I think that they are just confused and complicated animals. You delude yourself to believe that there is right and wrong without some concept of deity as we poorly understand it. Just go out there and do what you will absent any "moral" boundaries, only the boundaries created by your mind to prevent negative consequence that you aren't open to dealing with at some point. Or fake humanist ethics to fit in and aggrandize yourself in their culture, as people have done within Religion for years.

I believe that this scenario is Hell on earth.

AFAIK catholic docrine on natural law holds that man has the ability to discern good and evil through reason; something that is innate in mankind and not contingent on faith. So apart from the fact that you're kind of being a dick here, you're also not following your own religion.

[Strike For The South]

AFAIK catholic docrine on natural law holds that man has the ability to discern good and evil through reason; something that is innate in mankind and not contingent on faith. So apart from the fact that you're kind of being a dick here, you're also not following your own religion.

It does.

He can also not be absent of his Gods morality when it suits him

[Vladimir]

Absolutely. Especially since in the analogy, the original Tolkien version has been lost to time. What is it about this document that affected so many people that dozens of editions and dozens of editors have been involved in maintaining it. How has it affected human judgment through the ages in the lands where it held sway. How is it intertwined with the rest of their literary tradition. What does the language of the various editions have to tell us about the language spoken by the peoples who revered it. What aspects of the cultural mindset in which it was produced are preserved in its text. Etc.

Ajax

Late reply but I also agree. Tolkien's experiences in WW I greatly affected the story and elements of it can be seen in the books. The language he created was based on an existing language. There's also Ajax's points.

Everything contains elements of truth and can be studied as an historical document.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Late reply but I also agree. Tolkien's experiences in WW I greatly affected the story and elements of it can be seen in the books. The language he created was based on an existing language. There's also Ajax's points.

Everything contains elements of truth and can be studied as an historical document.

I believe Pape's point was satiritcal - that in 2,000 years nobody will realise LotR was a work of fiction.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

AFAIK catholic docrine on natural law holds that man has the ability to discern good and evil through reason; something that is innate in mankind and not contingent on faith. So apart from the fact that you're kind of being a dick here, you're also not following your own religion.

I don't understand this argument, are you criticizing him for not being compulsively doctrinaire? :dizzy2:

[Kralizec]

I don't understand this argument

Clearly.

Don't put words into my mouth.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sorry. I just didn't get your point. I feel like I don't get most of the anti-religion arguments here even though I'm atheist born and bred.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry. I just didn't get your point. I feel like I don't get most of the anti-religion arguments here even though I'm atheist born and bred.

It's not an anti religion argument - it's an anti-Tuff's interpretationa argument.

I.e. he claims to be a Roman Catholic but he doesn't believe the things Roman Catholics, or many other Christians, believe about people.

Tuff would say, "you can't be moral without God" and he means that if you don't believe in God you're not moral and no different to any other animal.

I say, "you can't have morality without God" but what I mean is that if there were not God then there would be no morality, but I do believe in a God which is where all morality flows from.

Even yous, Sasaki.

[Papewaio]

I believe Pape's point was satiritcal - that in 2,000 years nobody will realise LotR was a work of fiction.

Plenty of 'Jedi' followers running around. So just extrapolating how we love to embrace ideas of fact and fiction.

The Bible is a win-win for humans.
A). It is real and we have a loving God
B). It is a work of fiction showing our greatest aspirations in selecting these stories. Quite a compliment at some levels.

I admire humans, we are deeply flaweutilityut we strive for better lives for ourselves, families and societies.

[Kralizec]

Sorry. I just didn't get your point. I feel like I don't get most of the anti-religion arguments here even though I'm atheist born and bred.


He thinks that only religious people can truly have a moral consciousness; that for atheists there is actually no compelling reason to act morally at all but that they delude themselves with "fake humanist ethics". Not a nice thing to say about other people, obviously. And the Catholic Church, which he attends, disagrees with him on this point as well. I thought it was worth pointing that out, especially because the person in question routinely refers to his own religion in other debates.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If someone says they're a democrat but then they don't agree with the party line...I approve.

Tuff said something about needing to believe in some kind of "transcendent purpose in life" to be a moral person, which I pretty much agree with. The people I've met who believe in some kind of biological purpose to life have had vastly different ideas about morality from me.

I guess I don't get the antagonism.

[ajaxfetish]

If someone says they're a democrat but then they don't agree with the party line...I approve.

I think that depends entirely on the way in which they disagree with the party line. If they're a democrat, except they think women should not be allowed to vote and should be forcibly circumcised ... I disapprove.

Ajax

[Kadagar_AV]

Plenty of 'Jedi' followers running around. So just extrapolating how we love to embrace ideas of fact and fiction.

The Bible is a win-win for humans.
A). It is real and we have a loving God
B). It is a work of fiction showing our greatest aspirations in selecting these stories. Quite a compliment at some levels.

I admire humans, we are deeply flaweutilityut we strive for better lives for ourselves, families and societies.

It would be a true shame on the human race if our greatest aspirations would be to think it's ok to treat people like, you know, people are treated in the bible.

*shivers*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would be a true shame on the human race if our greatest aspirations would be to think it's ok to treat people like, you know, people are treated in the bible.

*shivers*

That depends - if your model is Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, that's a very different book to David in Kings.

[Whacker]

Tuff said something about needing to believe in some kind of "transcendent purpose in life" to be a moral person, which I pretty much agree with.


I guess I don't get the antagonism.

Why does life need to have some specific or higher purpose? Why do people (you?) feel the need to justify their existences or claim some higher purpose? Do you honestly believe that after you die there is some form of afterlife?

The antagonism comes from being told that one is an immoral person because they don't believe in the other person's respective religions or belief structures, or refuse to accept legislated morality.

My take has always been to level the playing field, then people can live how they choose within the boundaries of the law. I think most all of us can agree murder is bad and counterproductive to civilization's progress, so that's clear cut. Drugs? I could care less what others do with or put in their bodies, it's their decision. Obviously things like drunk or stoned driving affect others, so that's out. Extramarital sex? Again, personal choice. It's not for someone else to dictate. Abortion? Easy. Don't like it, don't do it. But don't tell others what they can do with their own bodies. The concept of marriage? The term comes from an old latin root, and ironically the pre-christian Roman empire allowed for homosexual marriages. So it's been hijacked by christianity. Don't like homosexual marriage? Fine, don't do it. Don't associate with gay people. Don't like polygamy? Same thing really. Working out the family law around polygamy or polyandry would be damn hard, but if that's what people willingly want to do, then so be it. Right to self determination, such as the right to die? Your own body. If you want some assistance having a clean, painless death, pending validation of one's sanity and mental firmness, then why not? Don't like it? Easy, don't DO it. Clearly people cannot go around murdering, stealing, being abusive, or other plainly counterproductive or aggressive actions that civilizations near unanimously reject. But what people do in their own homes or with their own bodies provided it does not impact others negatively is up to them. "Impact others negatively" means health and safety, not offend. There are tons of things that go on which I find offensive, and learning to deal with them as a member of society is something I had to learn. Seems quite a few others around here never reached that point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

pre-christian Roman empire allowed for homosexual marriages

Uh, not in Roman law it didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Gay_marriage
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Gay_marriage)
Juvanal says such marriages were not legal, just for show.

You want to be angry atheist?

Fine, but by God be an accurate one!

[Kadagar_AV]

That depends - if your model is Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, that's a very different book to David in Kings.

You know, way better than me, that there are parts of the Bible that would be despicable by the moral standards of today, no?

So to be a "good" christian you will have to cherry-pick to have morals that is competable (sp?) with todays standards of morality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You know, way better than me, that there are parts of the Bible that would be despicable by the moral standards of today, no?

So to be a "good" christian you will have to cherry-pick to have morals that is competable (sp?) with todays standards of morality.

Well, it depends on how you see the Bible.

If you see the Bible as a divinely inspired whole with an overarching structure which is meant to teach morality, and you're looking for God in every word you'll struggle.

But I don't see it like that - it's silly.

Even if the Bible was written on gold tablets bound with silver wire enscribed by Metatron himself, I'd still misinterpret it as soon as I read it, and even if I read it correctly I would not express it properly the first time I related it.

In that context the idea that the Bible is directly written by God is silly, maybe "God breathed" in the sense that he first spoke it, but even then it was only written by human hands.

In other words, the issue of authorship is not worth worrying about so much as the message.

As far as the message goes, if you read the books of the Bible the one thing you cannot fail to take away from it is that all God's chosen prophets fail him in some regard. Even his Angels, his children of light and not flesh, are not constant; his most beloved Angel becomes his most implaccable enemy.

Then - you have Christ, who is God and who preaches forgiveness.

[ICantSpellDawg]

He thinks that only religious people can truly have a moral consciousness; that for atheists there is actually no compelling reason to act morally at all but that they delude themselves with "fake humanist ethics". Not a nice thing to say about other people, obviously. And the Catholic Church, which he attends, disagrees with him on this point as well. I thought it was worth pointing that out, especially because the person in question routinely refers to his own religion in other debates.

The Catholic Church believes in Natural Law, God's law which is imbued in the hearts of everyone. You can have no organized Religion and still do the right thing because it is naturally in you to do so. This implies that the Church is right about that specific point, if they are not right, then their natural law is not imbued into man and my point stands. I'm making generic arguments, not talking about strict Catholic theology, I'm not a theologian.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's not an anti religion argument - it's an anti-Tuff's interpretationa argument.

I.e. he claims to be a Roman Catholic but he doesn't believe the things Roman Catholics, or many other Christians, believe about people.

Tuff would say, "you can't be moral without God" and he means that if you don't believe in God you're not moral and no different to any other animal.

I say, "you can't have morality without God" but what I mean is that if there were not God then there would be no morality, but I do believe in a God which is where all morality flows from.

Even yous, Sasaki.


I believe that too, but if it is not true, then what? My point is that I believe that many things are possible, some which contradict the others. Your point is that there is a God and his law is written into the hearts of men. I agree, but were that not to be true, which others argue (or don't realize that they are arguing), then there would need to be an alternative understanding of morality or our understanding of what we consider morality, right? The Church understands that people are able to reason and encourages them to do so. I've come to a point where I can believe things more strongly as I come to understand other things which may contradict my beliefs. I try not to take things on face value until I have vetted them in my own way.

BTW, I did put a caveat in the beginning of my post "absent my moral universality...", now that I've re-read it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe that too, but if it is not true, then what? My point is that I believe that many things are possible, some which contradict the others. Your point is that there is a God and his law is written into the hearts of men. I agree, but were that not to be true, which others argue (or don't realize that they are arguing), then there would need to be an alternative understanding of morality or our understanding of what we consider morality, right? The Church understands that people are able to reason and encourages them to do so. I've come to a point where I can believe things more strongly as I come to understand other things which may contradict my beliefs. I try not to take things on face value until I have vetted them in my own way.

BTW, I did put a caveat in the beginning of my post "absent my moral universality...", now that I've re-read it.

If it's not true, then there is no God, then there can be no "morality" as it is traditionally understood because there is not arbiter.

In which case, it doesn't matter that there is no God, unless it makes you sad.

I think that you should take more care in the way you express yourself, quite a lot more care in some cases.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If it's not true, then there is no God, then there can be no "morality" as it is traditionally understood because there is not arbiter.



You've just made my point for me.

I don't have to take care in the way I express myself except to keep to the rules of the board.

[HopAlongBunny]

Assign a follow-up exercise:

reconcile just about anything in the Old Testament with the parable of "The Good Samaritan"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't have to take care in the way I express myself except to keep to the rules of the board.

No, but you should because needlessly offending people is a bad thing.

In Roman terms I would say that you are guilty of Vanity because you believe you have the right to express your views however you so choose and it is up to others to correctly interpret your utterences, if they have the werewithal.

Although, I could also interpret your remark so that you are guilty of Pride because you believe the rules of common courtesy do not apply to you.

You are also potentailly guilty of heresy against the Roman doctrine of Natural Law in implying that the board's rules do not reflect God's Divine Law and are purely human constructs despite their being devised witha Good will by the moderators and Admins, some of whom have been Roman Catholics.

In Protestant terms - you are making a point of being a tool for the sake of it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Since the Old Testament is being bashed a lot here, I will just say this.

I love the Old Testament because of the whole narrative surrounding it. God chooses a lowly desert people to be his above any other people on earth. When they are enslaved by the superpower of their time, he sets them free and brings them to the promised land. Against all the odds they drive out the evil inhabitants to finally have their own homeland. And all the while God watches over them. He punishes Israel when they sin, he even delivers them into captivity... but he never abandons them and there is always the promise of Zion.

I think the whole narrative of God's relationship with Israel is symbolic of the one he has with every individual, and that is one of the big themes, possibly the big theme of the Old Testament.

Then again I am a pretty dysfunctional individual (to put it mildly), so I guess that is why the Old Testament seems so real to me, especially concerning my relationship with God.

Modern mainstream Christianity just seems too nice and easy. I don't get what it is about, I just dont think they have the same experience I have had.

[Whacker]

Since the Old Testament is being bashed a lot here, I will just say this.

I love the Old Testament because of the whole narrative surrounding it. God chooses a lowly desert people to be his above any other people on earth. When they are enslaved by the superpower of their time, he sets them free and brings them to the promised land. Against all the odds they drive out the evil inhabitants to finally have their own homeland. And all the while God watches over them. He punishes Israel when they sin, he even delivers them into captivity... but he never abandons them and there is always the promise of Zion.

I think the whole narrative of God's relationship with Israel is symbolic of the one he has with every individual, and that is one of the big themes, possibly the big theme of the Old Testament.

Then again I am a pretty dysfunctional individual (to put it mildly), so I guess that is why the Old Testament seems so real to me, especially concerning my relationship with God.

Modern mainstream Christianity just seems too nice and easy. I don't get what it is about, I just dont think they have the same experience I have had.

For the record, I also love the old testament. Fire and brimstone, and there's a certain rawness and purity that even having been translated, translated again, and again and again, it still speaks to us through the ages. There are certainly some shreds of historical accuracy here and there, but for the most part it's a collective people's memory with a huge amount of bias and inaccuracy, along with a heap of pirated lore. I do think that for a bunch of half-savage nomadic goat herders, it's pretty entertaining.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, but you should because needlessly offending people is a bad thing.

In Roman terms I would say that you are guilty of Vanity because you believe you have the right to express your views however you so choose and it is up to others to correctly interpret your utterences, if they have the werewithal.

Although, I could also interpret your remark so that you are guilty of Pride because you believe the rules of common courtesy do not apply to you.

You are also potentailly guilty of heresy against the Roman doctrine of Natural Law in implying that the board's rules do not reflect God's Divine Law and are purely human constructs despite their being devised witha Good will by the moderators and Admins, some of whom have been Roman Catholics.

In Protestant terms - you are making a point of being a tool for the sake of it.


Thou shalt not be discourteous? I'm not really understanding the point or origin of your criticisms in this particular thread. The church is nowhere near as dogmatic as you have constructed it to be. It houses sinners and sinners think and do what they'd like and correct the things that they believe harm them or their relationship with God and his Church. Thinking/discussing philosophy and being kind of a jerk have never been impediments to being a Catholic in my experience. 6 of the 9 supreme court justices are Catholics, and they are not discussing canon on a daily basis, and they surely are not always civil.

We recognize allegory in the Bible, we can recognize fallibility in most the church teaching if it is proven to us, but it has to be proven, it can't just be convenient to modern sensibilities, it must fly in the face of reason, tradition and natural law in a big way. I make an effort to recognize ex-cathedra teachings as a matter of faith and not to question them, but new ones are rarely made.

I reserve the right to be a frustrating jerk.

[Papewaio]

Meh you have your beliefs, are genuine and will debate fairly.

If that is being a jerk, I'm happy to try and live up to that standard... One day I might even get here.

[Vladimir]

I believe Pape's point was satiritcal - that in 2,000 years nobody will realise LotR was a work of fiction.

Don't care. Just wanted to wax historical about LoTR. ~;p

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thou shalt not be discourteous? I'm not really understanding the point or origin of your criticisms in this particular thread. The church is nowhere near as dogmatic as you have constructed it to be. It houses sinners and sinners think and do what they'd like and correct the things that they believe harm them or their relationship with God and his Church. Thinking/discussing philosophy and being kind of a jerk have never been impediments to being a Catholic in my experience. 6 of the 9 supreme court justices are Catholics, and they are not discussing canon on a daily basis, and they surely are not always civil.

We recognize allegory in the Bible, we can recognize fallibility in most the church teaching if it is proven to us, but it has to be proven, it can't just be convenient to modern sensibilities, it must fly in the face of reason, tradition and natural law in a big way. I make an effort to recognize ex-cathedra teachings as a matter of faith and not to question them, but new ones are rarely made.

I reserve the right to be a frustrating jerk.

I believe that it behoves us to make pains to be understood - you just scattershot ideas and thoughts without any concern for other's feelings or sensebilities.

Despite harming your argument, it is also needlessly rude.

My last word on the matter - take it or leave it.

[Kralizec]

The Catholic Church believes in Natural Law, God's law which is imbued in the hearts of everyone. You can have no organized Religion and still do the right thing because it is naturally in you to do so. This implies that the Church is right about that specific point, if they are not right, then their natural law is not imbued into man and my point stands. I'm making generic arguments, not talking about strict Catholic theology, I'm not a theologian.

The bolded part I agree with. I think that humans have an inherent conscience, regardless of wether they're religious - but I think that it's a result of our evolution as a social species. Apparently your position is that you only assume people have a conscience because your religion tells you that God gave it to them, but otherwise it can't exist. And it contradicts your post where you said "I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life"

[ICantSpellDawg]

Conscience absent a superlative right and wrong is just evolutionary culture. It is meaningless for me personally to obey the imperatives given to me by biology when I don't have to and there is no judgement standard. We are not slaves to our biology and history, we choose to betray these things when the situation benefits us. Without judgement (temporal or metaphysical), I am not worried about committing fraud, killing unjustly, etc. I will simply do it if I can benefit from it. I don't care, as a thinking human being, if society doesn't want me to do it because I don't care about society. There is no real reason, absent punishment/consequence to not do terrible things if you feel like doing them by this secular standard, but there is a reason not to do these things if you believe that there is an inescapable punishment waiting for you if you destroy these basic laws.

My point was that the Catholic Church believes that there is a truth and God whether you believe in it or not. A "way" that we all know, whether you choose to follow it or not. You seem to be saying that people can still do the "right" thing, absent truth and a judgement standard, but I disagree that there would be a "right" thing to do. A biological imperitive thing to do, but who really cares about that, we bypass it all day long and evolve new biological imperatives. I like to think of my point from "a stopped clock is right twice a day" perspective. (except, of course military clocks, which are obviously less ethical than others and are only right once a day)

It was built to tell time and is right sometimes even when it no longer functions correctly.

[Kralizec]

You've never been an atheist (I assume so at least) so wether you'd go on an selfish ego-trip, unjustly enriching yourself while trampling on others...we don't know. I do find it interesting that you claim that you, personally, only act morally because God told you to, even though I don't believe it.

Your idea of consistently being able to ignore your own conscience is absurd. You can't become a sociopath by choice.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You've never been an atheist (I assume so at least)

I've been an strong agnostic for most of my life, except for the past 5 or 6 years. At various points in time I've dabbled in faith.



Your idea of consistently being able to ignore your own conscience is absurd. You can't become a sociopath by choice.

Why not? I think that sociopaths are just people who intrinsically get what I am talking about. A sociopath is not necessarily someone who seeks to harm others actively or kill them, those are just the ones that we hear about in the news and fear.

They simply disregard society and it's mores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Epidemiology) (for the most part). They would have varied compulsions, just like the rest of us. Some moral people are driven to kill, steal, give to charity, eat, etc but respect society and guard society's view of them or their interests. Being a natural or congenital sociopath just makes it easier to do what I am talking about here, but the human mind could simply come to these conclusions. You could still appear normal and fit into society at large.

Also, your understanding of "conscience" would need to be rather rigid or dogmatically constructed to believe that it mattered much, more like a philosophical appendix (http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/picture-of-the-appendix) than a reason to do or not to do things.

If you value conscience, value religion. I suspect that both are human evolutionary products for the preservation of natual, God given law. One is biological, the other sociological, but both are technologies that do very similar things. My belief that Religion is "man-made" and developed should not be construed as a belief that man created the idea of "God" or that these things were not a gift from God. I don't believe that this opinion is far off of the Catholic church's recognition that tradition and Sacraments are a very important part of our faith, but I could be wildly wrong. I don't disbelieve in the tenants of my faith or the assertions, but much of the ritual is there to help strengthen our moral resolve. It's not just for God, it's for us as well. The ritual has a spiritual presence - our understanding and interpretation of "the way" with the Benediction of God. It's a give and take. I believe that biological and sociological evolution are as much a part of God's creation as your soul, so this shouldn't be too radical a thought, but all it is is a thought.

[ICantSpellDawg]

double post

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You've never been an atheist (I assume so at least) so wether you'd go on an selfish ego-trip, unjustly enriching yourself while trampling on others...we don't know. I do find it interesting that you claim that you, personally, only act morally because God told you to, even though I don't believe it.

Your idea of consistently being able to ignore your own conscience is absurd. You can't become a sociopath by choice.

Ah, but are you a proper Atheist.

ICSD appears to be describing moral apathy, absent threat of sanction he does not feel compelled to act in a way as proscribed by "morality".

You, on the other hand, follow the dictates of your concience - which you justify as an evolutionary advantage. The interesting thing about this is that ICSD is following a utilitarian philosophical model whilst you are responding to the moral issue on an intuitive level and then applying a utilitarian justification.

Or, to put it another way, you sould like a man of faith and he sounds like an atheist.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see why you necessarily need some sort of logical origin or arbiter for morals to come from in order to act morally.

I don't like justifying intuition as an evolution thing.

We have intuition and it's a nice thing to have. We use it and it seems to work. Sasaki if I recall once said that intuition and logic are both tools not ends in themselves. Thus I think that intuition doesn't need to be logically justified because it is a different tool than logic. If people's intuition clashes, we can rely on logic from that point to see which makes more sense. I think this is how most people operate anyway without thinking about it and it seems to work for the most part.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't see why you necessarily need some sort of logical origin or arbiter for morals to come from in order to act morally.

OK - this is actually quite interesting (I think) so I want to try and explain.

I should start by saying that "The Arbiter" is one of Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" for the existence of God.

the argument runs like this:

Moral systems assume there is a difference between right and wrong, and that this difference is absolute, black and white.

In order for a moral truth to be real it must be universally applicable, i.e. killing is always wrong, in all cases, at all times.

In order for there to be a black and white morality, with a line that has "good" on one side and "evil" on the other there must be someone to determine, with infallability, what goes on what side of the line.

As God is the only perfect arbiter He is a necessity for a moral system.

If you aren't talking about absolute right and wrong then personnal preference has intruded into the system and then you are merely talking about "preferable".

To put it bluntly - if you want to believe in right and wrong as actual things and not matters of taste then you have to believe in some infallible Higher Power, what we commonly call "God".

[Kadagar_AV]

OK - this is actually quite interesting (I think) so I want to try and explain.

I should start by saying that "The Arbiter" is one of Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" for the existence of God.

the argument runs like this:

Moral systems assume there is a difference between right and wrong, and that this difference is absolute, black and white.

In order for a moral truth to be real it must be universally applicable, i.e. killing is always wrong, in all cases, at all times.

In order for there to be a black and white morality, with a line that has "good" on one side and "evil" on the other there must be someone to determine, with infallability, what goes on what side of the line.

As God is the only perfect arbiter He is a necessity for a moral system.

If you aren't talking about absolute right and wrong then personnal preference has intruded into the system and then you are merely talking about "preferable".

To put it bluntly - if you want to believe in right and wrong as actual things and not matters of taste then you have to believe in some infallible Higher Power, what we commonly call "God".

To put it bluntly back at ya, maybe YOU have to believe in some higher power to believe in right or wrong as actual things. And by the way, how can "right and wrong" be "things"?

To rape an infant to death is for me wrong, it is a clear "black and white" case where no one can ever convince me that there were reasons excusing the action. I have reached that conclusion from my intuitive gut feeling, as well as from a logical stand point. "God" has nothing to do with that what so ever.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In order for there to be a black and white morality, with a line that has "good" on one side and "evil" on the other there must be someone to determine, with infallability, what goes on what side of the line.

This is where the argument breaks apart. Why does there need to be infallibility? Just because there is a good and evil doesn't mean that it has to be constructed with infallibility.



As God is the only perfect arbiter He is a necessity for a moral system.
Only if you think that good and evil needs infallibility, which it doesn't.



To put it bluntly - if you want to believe in right and wrong as actual things and not matters of taste then you have to believe in some infallible Higher Power, what we commonly call "God".
No, i will continue to believe in right and wrong without god, because we can collectively find our way towards what is right and wrong without him and people have been doing just that for many years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To put it bluntly back at ya, maybe YOU have to believe in some higher power to believe in right or wrong as actual things. And by the way, how can "right and wrong" be "things"?

I believe in right and wrong - hence I believe in God. Philosophically speaking, I consider the moral imperative evidence of the Divine.


To rape an infant to death is for me wrong, it is a clear "black and white" case where no one can ever convince me that there were reasons excusing the action. I have reached that conclusion from my intuitive gut feeling, as well as from a logical stand point. "God" has nothing to do with that what so ever.

I reached that conclusionintuitively and no logical argument would convince me otherwise. You contradicted yourself, you said it was logical, but you'd never be convinced my an argument.

Something stronger than your rational mind drives you to that conclusion - then you go back and provide a rational justification.


This is where the argument breaks apart. Why does there need to be infallibility? Just because there is a good and evil doesn't mean that it has to be constructed with infallibility.

Only if you think that good and evil needs infallibility, which it doesn't.

No, i will continue to believe in right and wrong without god, because we can collectively find our way towards what is right and wrong without him and people have been doing just that for many years.

You are confusing morality with "utilitarianism". Morality just "is", utilitarianism is the thing you try to work out where we try to agree together what we believe is right.

That's not the same as absolute morality.

In answer to your question, it must be infallible because it must be true in all instances - ergo you require the Arbiter.

A moral statement looks like this: killing is wrong.

A Utilitarian statement looks like this: Killing is wrong unless it will save someone else's life.

They are not the same.

in the first case the moral principle in operation is that killing is wrong, but in the second case killing is only wrong because of another principle, greatest benefit. In the first case the statement is the core principle, in the latter case the statement reflects an interpretation of the principle. The fundamental difference is that in the former case "killing is wrong" is considered a moral primative, always true and written on the soul of the universe, in the latter case killing is only wrong because it violates the "most benefit" principle.

So, although the two systems (mostly) produce the same results they function differently on a mechanical level and they say different things about the universe. In a traditional moral system there is "right" and there is "wrong", two opposiing forces. In a utilitarian system there is only a balance judgment between the benefit and value of the actors involved. My problem with utilitarianism is that instead of defining laws for us to live by it asigns every action, and actor, a value in a ggreat judgemtn-equation where the sum must always be zero (balance) but never is. In a utilitarian system different people have different values at different times and in different situations, and I can never accept that.

For me, all people must have the same value at all times.

[Kadagar_AV]

I believe in right and wrong - hence I believe in God. Philosophically speaking, I consider the moral imperative evidence of the Divine.

Of course you consider it evidence. As you lack a scientific base you have to grasp at straws like this.

It could easily be explained with cultural memes, or even racial memes.

As easy as: "If everyone did it, the society would not work, so we can't do it". The bigger the negative impact on society, the bigger the aversion for the action.






I reached that conclusionintuitively and no logical argument would convince me otherwise. You contradicted yourself, you said it was logical, but you'd never be convinced my an argument.

Something stronger than your rational mind drives you to that conclusion - then you go back and provide a rational justification.

Fair point. Let me re-phrase: I can not see a possible defense for the action. But if someone had a logical defense, I would of course support it. But really, can you think of one?

So my rational mind is plenty enough, no need for God to whisper in my ear. And trust me, God and I are not on speaking terms after that Italian Catholic girl boarding school visited Austria anyway.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are confusing morality with "utilitarianism". Morality just "is", utilitarianism is the thing you try to work out where we try to agree together what we believe is right.

I am not a utilitarian. And I didn't say we collectively agree on what we believe is right, I said we agree on what we find is right. Hence, I am still arguing about absolute morality.



In answer to your question, it must be infallible because it must be true in all instances - ergo you require the Arbiter.
Just because it is true in all instances doesn't mean it is infallible. Human's are flawed creatures and by trying to adhere to infallible standards, our natural flaws will cause distortions of the original essence of the moral laws. It seems to me that if God in all his wisdom created a flawed species, he would have created a flawed but more intuitive system of morality that would suit humans better in their goal of trying to behave according to God's wishes.



A moral statement looks like this: killing is wrong.

A Utilitarian statement looks like this: Killing is wrong unless it will save someone else's life.

They are not the same.
They kind of are. You act as if a moral code cannot provide addendum to certain laws that still hold true in all cases. If God said Murder is wrong unless it will save someone's life, then in his infallibility, such statement is true all the time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course you consider it evidence. As you lack a scientific base you have to grasp at straws like this.

Philosophically speaking, not scientifically speaking.

I believe in an absolute morality, it's just the way I see the world - and that requires God.

This is not a rationally held belief, it is however a rationally explained one. If my current rationale were disproved I would not continue to cling to it, but I would go looking for another one rather than change my position. If I could not find one I would conclude I was too stupid. This is the essense of faith - while it may be rationally defended it cannot be rationally held.


It could easily be explained with cultural memes, or even racial memes.

As easy as: "If everyone did it, the society would not work, so we can't do it". The bigger the negative impact on society, the bigger the aversion for the action.

That could be true - but I don't believe it because it doesn't provide for absolutes, it's just a fancy way to explain utilitarianism.

Memes are also fun because the concept is, well, a meme, and that makes it (by Dawkins' own definition) unreliable as a philosophical concept. Which is great, because it's the ultimate example of being inside the Goldfish bowl of the universe, not outside looking in.

That's the point about God, in this instance, he's outside looking in so he sees and understands everything.


Fair point. Let me re-phrase: I can not see a possible defense for the action. But if someone had a logical defense, I would of course support it. But really, can you think of one?

So my rational mind is plenty enough, no need for God to whisper in my ear. And trust me, God and I are not on speaking terms after that Italian Catholic girl boarding school visited Austria anyway.

OK, so you don't believe in absolutes - you just have very strong preferences. They you don't need God for your moral system to work.

However, you do get "athiests" who talk about "good and evil" and they don't have a philosophical leg to stand on.

[Papewaio]

Curious. Couldn't good and evil with all of the universes shades of grey/gray be better summed up in a grey utilarian system rather then a black and white moral one?

Most moral codes deal with reality poorly. It is rather easy to formulate situations where the ten commandments are the wrong thing to do in a situation.

Thou shall not steal. Not a very moral code if it means letting a family member stave to death so that someone can make a bigger profit margin.

I'm sure others can write up better inverse situations where the ten commandments are in fact the wrong option. Thou wall not kill has already been done to death ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not a utilitarian. And I didn't say we collectively agree on what we believe is right, I said we agree on what we find is right. Hence, I am still arguing about absolute morality.

Then prepare for a rough ride.


Just because it is true in all instances doesn't mean it is infallible. Human's are flawed creatures and by trying to adhere to infallible standards, our natural flaws will cause distortions of the original essence of the moral laws. It seems to me that if God in all his wisdom created a flawed species, he would have created a flawed but more intuitive system of morality that would suit humans better in their goal of trying to behave according to God's wishes.

Our natural flaws are not relevent to the existence of morality, merely our ability to find it. If a moral principle is always true, it is always true and applicable and therefore perfect.

Your utterence is typical of Christian attempts to grasp the concept of Original Sin as it relates to morality - this is likely a reflection of your moral frame of reference, which supports my point. You cannot take bits of Christianity's moral system and hollow out the centre without reprecutions.


They kind of are. You act as if a moral code cannot provide addendum to certain laws that still hold true in all cases. If God said Murder is wrong unless it will save someone's life, then in his infallibility, such statement is true all the time.

Is or is not, not "kind of". You prove my point, they appear practically the same but philosphically they are not.

The second case is not a perfect moral principle because it causes infinite regress - if you kill to save someone's life then it is right to kill you to save the person you are going to kill, this continues ad infinitum until everybody in the world is dead or someone makes the "bad" choice and doesn't kill. Worse, because the moral imperative requires you to kill (remember that is the right choice) it causes you to violate the general "do not kill" principle, meaning that both choices can be simultaneously right and wrong. Remember, a moral system has only "right" and "wrong" so if it is right to kill in defence of someone's life it is "wrong" not to.

This causes moral paralysis.

On the other hand, if it is always wrong to kill then you either have one bad decision (the original act) two (the guy who kills the original actor) or none (someone stops the original actor from killing anybody). At each point in the chain there is a clear right and wrong answer, and at each point in the chain this answer is the same.

You will argue that this causes problems in the real world, it has limited utility, but as part of a philosophical system it works and if nobody ever violates it will work in the real world too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Curious. Couldn't good and evil with all of the universes shades of grey/gray be better summed up in a grey utilarian system rather then a black and white moral one?

Most moral codes deal with reality poorly. It is rather easy to formulate situations where the ten commandments are the wrong thing to do in a situation.

Thou shall not steal. Not a very moral code if it means letting a family member stave to death so that someone can make a bigger profit margin.

I'm sure others can write up better inverse situations where the ten commandments are in fact the wrong option. Thou wall not kill has already been done to death ~;)

In a moral system there is no grey - there is right and a hell of a lot of wrong.

This is, incidently, why being a Christian is not actually "easy" - that's the world I live in.

Thou shalt not steal - it is wrong to steal what belongs to someone else.

It is also wrong to allow another person to starve.

Morally speaking, the wrong is done by the food magnet if the person dies, not the family member.

The problem with the inverse argument is that it perpetuates the "wrong", it cascades through all the actors, while if a single person starves to death and another person does not steal the wrong stops with the magnate.

You are right that such a system has percieved practical problems in a purely physical world, but morality is a metaphysical and spiritual concept which does not make physical determinations.

[Kadagar_AV]

Philosophically speaking, not scientifically speaking.

Strictly philosophically speaking, you could prove pretty much anything. Let us have at least one foot in reality here, shall we?


I believe in an absolute morality, it's just the way I see the world - and that requires God.

Well, I don't. So no God needed.


This is not a rationally held belief, it is however a rationally explained one. If my current rationale were disproved I would not continue to cling to it, but I would go looking for another one rather than change my position. If I could not find one I would conclude I was too stupid. This is the essense of faith - while it may be rationally defended it cannot be rationally held.

I think you made my point for me.




That could be true - but I don't believe it because it doesn't provide for absolutes, it's just a fancy way to explain utilitarianism.

You don't believe it because it doesn't provide for absolutes, and you require absolutes because you have a faith that requires absolutes... Circle reasoning much lately, are we?


Memes are also fun because the concept is, well, a meme, and that makes it (by Dawkins' own definition) unreliable as a philosophical concept. Which is great, because it's the ultimate example of being inside the Goldfish bowl of the universe, not outside looking in.

I see "meme" as a nice word invention that put a name to something we all know exists and can observe directly, and thus believe in. Anyone who had a parent, or parent figure, will have a natural understanding for what a meme is.


That's the point about God, in this instance, he's outside looking in so he sees and understands everything.

No, God is inside your head. You are just malcontent in your little glass bowl and fervently wish something bigger would bother to have a peek.




OK, so you don't believe in absolutes - you just have very strong preferences. They you don't need God for your moral system to work.

Correct :)


However, you do get "athiests" who talk about "good and evil" and they don't have a philosophical leg to stand on.

Actually, no. As an atheist I don't believe in good and evil, as no one can define it or prove its existence. Take Bruto as an example, I don't think he woke up thinking "hmm, I want to be evil today". A more modern example, Breivik. We do not brush him off as evil, we send him to psychiatrists checking if his mind is fully functional, then we have a weeks long process trying to figure out why he deemed it okay to do what he did. I think that makes more sense than brushing him and his actions off as "evil", you don't?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually, no. As an atheist I don't believe in good and evil, as no one can define it or prove its existence. Take Bruto as an example, I don't think he woke up thinking "hmm, I want to be evil today". A more modern example, Breivik. We do not brush him off as evil, we send him to psychiatrists checking if his mind is fully functional, then we have a weeks long process trying to figure out why he deemed it okay to do what he did. I think that makes more sense than brushing him and his actions off as "evil", you don't?

No need to analyze it. If there is no right and no wrong, then I would prefer to do what he did to, lets say, playing football every Saturday or watching re-runs of "Friends" because: It tremendously affected the lives of thousands or more, it took courage and planning and was interesting, it had international significance, it won him free food and lodging for life, among other things. Some of the most peaceful people I've met would find reading about Breivik's exploits as more interesting than reading about a soccer game or gardening (I love gardening, but reading about it? cmon). He deemed it ok because there was no reason not to. It's all just fun and games, everybody dies eventually, nothing matters, why not. Most of us here are wargamers. Absent right and wrong, what Breivik did was probably a downright barrel of fun, don't pretend it wasn't when you spend all day mass killing digital sprites that look like people.

I disagree with this understanding of the world, life, soul, morality; but it will become a more popular understanding as people shed themselves of the "shackles of morality/faith/religion". Gravity pulls you toward your baser instincts, absent a reason to elevate yourself you sink. We, as a society, still benefit from "atheists" who were raised Christian and still carry the husk of that morality, but their children will carry less, and there children less still. It's gravity in action. It takes effort to keep from sinking and without effort, there is a downward spiral.

I'm not being negative, It would be negative if there were no truth, but there is and God's laws tell us that these things are evil and that it is good to struggle against them, even when it's hard to. I cling to the faith of my parents because they are the best people I've ever met and it would be a crying shame to let that die out with them. I know that what they do (most of the time) is the most altruistic thing possible and is very often extremely difficult. Their friends are the best people they've ever met and their friends kids know it, too. This is where our faith community comes from and it is more important for me to do what is right than it is for me to fit in. This is the tradition of the Bible to me. The story of the fight between the 2 world views I've described and their timeless tug-of-war struggle for our friends, the fence-sitters.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Our natural flaws are not relevent to the existence of morality, merely our ability to find it. If a moral principle is always true, it is always true and applicable and therefore perfect.
No. That is wrong. You are just pulling that out as a synonym when really that is just a non-sequitor. There is a universal right and wrong. It's infallible. Ok. That in no way means it's applicable to flawed beings. What you are saying is just taken from an abuse of the word infallible and instead of just claiming that it is infallible in it's assignment of values you now have left reality to claim that these universal values are values that can be upheld at all given times. Obviously such values are not able to be upheld at all given times, even the most devout and studied Christian will "sin" or make moral errors at some point, which means that these values are not always applicable which means your premise falls apart.

Again human fallibility makes any infallible moral system, fallible. If the moral system cannot be upheld consistently, then it is not a perfect moral system.




The second case is not a perfect moral principle because it causes infinite regress - if you kill to save someone's life then it is right to kill you to save the person you are going to kill, this continues ad infinitum until everybody in the world is dead or someone makes the "bad" choice and doesn't kill.
This is such a distorted caricature you have painted. A case of the essence or the spirit of the law being ignored by rigid adherence to the letter of the law. The laws are to communicate values, not to be values in themselves, even in absolute morality system. By killing me, the murderer then kills someone else and you claim that any reasonable man who is trying to follow the moral law will believe that that was the point of the moral law. This is silly and if your defense of your particular construction of absolute morality is based off these distortions of reality and by making sure definitions are set on your terms, then this will go nowhere because you have successfully locked yourself in a box.



You will argue that this causes problems in the real world, it has limited utility, but as part of a philosophical system it works and if nobody ever violates it will work in the real world too.
And this is where you contradict yourself. If nobody violates...., which is presupposing that humans are able to be flawless, which they are not, which is known to the infallible creature that designed this infallible morality. Which means this infallible create made an error in making a system that requires humans to be something which he knows cannot be. So he is not infallible at all.

[Kadagar_AV]

No need to analyze it. If there is no right and no wrong, then I would prefer to do what he did to, lets say, playing football every Saturday or watching re-runs of friends because: It tremendously affected the lives of thousands or more, it took courage and planning and was interesting, it had international significance, it won him free food and lodging for life, among other things. Some of the most peaceful people I've met would find reading about Breivik's exploits as more interesting than reading about a soccer game or gardening. He deemed it ok because there was no reason not to. It's all just fun and games, everybody dies eventually, nothing matters, why not.

I disagree with this understanding of the world, life, soul, morality; but it will become more popular understanding as people shed themselves of the "shackles of morality/faith/religion". Gravity pulls you toward your baser instincts, absent a reason to elevate yourself you sink. We still benefit from "atheists" who were raised Christian and still carry the husk of that morality, but their children will carry less, and there children less still. It's gravity in action. It takes effort to keep from sinking and without effort, there is a downward spiral.

I'm not being negative, It would be negative if there were no truth, but there is and God's laws tell us that these things are evil and that it is good to struggle against them, even when it's hard to.

Buddhists, Christians and Atheists think it is generally wrong to kill.

From that base of facts, how can you not draw the conclusion that this seem to be a human meme, not a religious one? You got the order of understanding wrong I am afraid. We invented religions to help spread human memes, not that the memes did originate in religion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Buddhists, Christians and Atheists think it is generally wrong to kill.

From that base of facts, how can you not draw the conclusion that this seem to be a human meme, not a religious one? You got the order of understanding wrong I am afraid. We invented religions to help spread human memes, not that the memes did originate in religion.

I read and understand what you're saying. I think that you are confusing "wrong" with "impractical" as Phillip had mentioned. I am saying that we are under no obligation to agree with the majority.

BTW - sorry, but I've edited the heck out of that post since you've quoted it.

[Kadagar_AV]

I read and understand what you're saying. I think that you are confusing "wrong" with "impractical" as Phillip had mentioned. I am saying that we are under no obligation to agree with the majority.

BTW - sorry, but I've edited the heck out of that post since you've quoted it.

No, I meant "wrong".

Without looking to fantasies for approval/disapproval we have family, and society around us to worry about. My mum would not be very proud of me if I went off and killed people. Neither would my fiance. Neither would society at large.

I don't kill the people I don't like because it is impractical. The reason why I don't kill them is because I would feel shame in the eyes of the people whose opinion of me matters.

Shame is a biological function, just like any other, and it can be explained with the general evolutionary theory.

Thor, Buddha or Jesus has nothing to do with it.

Even if I had a 99% chance of getting away with murdering the other guy going for the job I want, that 1% chance of getting caught, and the repercussions from it, is enough to offset me from doing it.

Some people are different, they weight the odds differently. We call them psychopaths and science has even started to discover what part of their brain went wrong.

Again, no need to involve unicorns, extra-terrestrial beings or Gods.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, I meant "wrong".

Without looking to fantasies for approval/disapproval we have family, and society around us to worry about. My mum would not be very proud of me if I went off and killed people. Neither would my fiance. Neither would society at large.

I don't kill the people I don't like because it is impractical. The reason why I don't kill them is because I would feel shame in the eyes of the people whose opinion of me matters.

Shame is a biological function, just like any other, and it can be explained with the general evolutionary theory.

Thor, Buddha or Jesus has nothing to do with it.

Even if I had a 99% chance of getting away with murdering the other guy going for the job I want, that 1% chance of getting caught, and the repercussions from it, is enough to offset me from doing it.

Some people are different, they weight the odds differently. We call them psychopaths and science has even started to discover what part of their brain went wrong.

Again, no need to involve unicorns, extra-terrestrial beings or Gods.

Ok. You have your opinions on why people do not/do things and I have mine. You don't kill people because you are risk averse and because your mom/fiancee probably wouldn't like it. I don't call that morality, I call that bashful sociopathy, but I digress. I don't kill people because God or, in your opinion, somebody pretending to be God told us not to thousands of years ago. Personally, I'm not worried what my parents think about my actions at this point in my life and I no longer use their shame as a reason to avoid anything. I use their actions as something inspiring to me and I seek to be like them even when they're gone, but Im not worried about them being ashamed of me even when I do things that are clearly shameful to them.

BTW, you have contradicted yourself,

I think that you are confusing "wrong" with "impractical" as Phillip had mentioned.I've put the example in bold. No big deal, but there was a reason that I corrected your usage of the word "wrong" in your earlier post. Because, by your own admission, you were confusing the word wrong with the word impractical.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh, and as a PS: You still have not explained: That if atheists, buddhists and christians all follow the same principle, then how can it be a divine principle? And even if so, which divinity??

It is not like people murder each other left and right just because they never heard of the bible, is it?

[Kadagar_AV]

I use their actions as something inspiring to me and I seek to be like them even when they're gone, but Im not worried about them being ashamed of me.

The first thing is called a meme. The second thing you said contradicts the first thing you said.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, and as a PS: You still have not explained: That if atheists, buddhists and christians all follow the same principle, then how can it be a divine principle? And even if so, which divinity??

It is not like people murder each other left and right just because they never heard of the bible, is it?

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

The first thing is called a meme. The second thing you said contradicts the first thing you said.

I want to be like them because I believe it is the way God wants all of us to to be and my parents hit the nail on the head, not because I'm worried about shaming my parents. If I failed to live up to the standard, I wouldn't be afraid that my parents were shamed, but that I had betrayed God's will.

[Montmorency]

I wouldn't be afraid that my parents were shamed, but that I had betrayed God's will.

Why?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Because I believe that God created the universe and has a plan for us all. You may think that you have the world all figured out, but then women give birth to babies, dogs are just walking, stinking eating/pooping machines. Nothing in life makes sense by our rigid "logical" standards anyway, so why should I understand the overall purpose of everything? God says do this, I do this. God says do that, I do that. I try to use reason to the best of my ability, the rest I just "go with my gut..." as completely inoffensive name said it.

I've just given up the idea that I'm some perfect logically reasoning machine or that I'll ever be. Many people are brighter than I and are even more lost in the woods.

[Kadagar_AV]

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

Oh, so out of all the religions over the last tens of thousands of years, Catholicism is of course the one who got it right. Who could have guessed that you as a Catholic would have come to that conclusion? Amazing how things all work out in the end, isn't it?

[Montmorency]

Your response is not constructed in a way that makes sense to me, syntactically. But anyway, I was specifically asking about:


God says do this, I do this. God says do that, I do that.

Let's say your God exists. Why obey?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, so out of all the religions over the last tens of thousands of years, Catholicism is of course the one who got it right. Who could have guessed that you as a Catholic would have come to that conclusion? Amazing how things all work out in the end, isn't it?

Yes, amazing, isn't it. Fortunately, I didn't need to go far.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Your response is not constructed in a way that makes sense to me, syntactically. But anyway, I was specifically asking about:



Let's say your God exists. Why obey?

Why not? Because he says so. It's written in the Bible.

How is my argument any different substantively than the other secular arguments presented out here? "Right is just right, wrong is wrong, my gut says so and I listen to my digestive system" or "because the women in my life will make my life hell if I don't obey".

My overall point is that organized Religion addresses real questions that real people have had for a very long time and still have. It is collection of books that documents these questions at some points very well and was indispensable for large tracts of modern human history. It is worthy of at the very least the same level of studious dissection and reverence as the classics. It forms the under-girding of most of the literature, art, music, politics of the past 2,000 years. And some would prefer that you do a talk about how stupid it is. I think that is foolish.

[Montmorency]

Sure. But then again: why?

[Kadagar_AV]

Because I believe that God created the universe and has a plan for us all. You may think that you have the world all figured out, but then women give birth to babies, dogs are just walking, stinking eating/pooping machines. Nothing in life makes sense by our rigid "logical" standards anyway, so why should I understand the overall purpose of everything? God says do this, I do this. God says do that, I do that. I try to use reason to the best of my ability.

Again, do you use reason or do you hear gods voice?

If you hear God, I am worried about you man.
If you don't, well, I would still be worried about you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Again, do you use reason or do you hear gods voice?



I try to do both!

[Kadagar_AV]

I've just given up the idea that I'm some perfect logically reasoning machine or that I'll ever be. Many people are brighter than I and are even more lost in the woods.

I missed this first go around, GAH, stop editing.

Anyway, I agree with your view of other people being smarter than me, and that I should listen to them.

However, contrary to you I look to the best minds of today, who in return stand on the shoulders of the best minds who went before them.

You seem to take advice from people lost in a desert some 2000 years ago.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I missed this first go around, GAH, stop editing.

Anyway, I agree with your view of other people being smarter than me, and that I should listen to them.

However, contrary to you I look to the best minds of today, who in return stand on the shoulders of the best minds who went before them.

You seem to take advice from people lost in a desert some 2000 years ago.

I take advice from everyone and keep what I find to be valuable. Some great ideas i get from incredibly intelligent people, some I get from terribly lost people. A homeless alcoholic once came into my insurance office and told me about dunkin donuts new tuna fish bagel sandwich. I immediately became nauseous at the thought of it. I later went to Dunkin Donuts and ordered one for novelty's sake. I must have ordered 30 since, those things are delicious and must be the best thing a bum eats all day. I see value in the cumulative experience of mankind. I write off the stuff that doesn't resonate. Faith resonates with me as does the wisdom of the ancients and not so ancient. I value the Bible.

[Kadagar_AV]

I... I am lost for words.

I really have no idea how to debate with you.

Nutritious advice from a homeless alcoholic and moral advice from an age where slavery was common practice.

I guess you have it all set then.


Rhy, Philips... Would you guys mind if I elect this guy Captain of team Christianity on these boards?

[Tuuvi]

No. That is wrong. You are just pulling that out as a synonym when really that is just a non-sequitor. There is a universal right and wrong. It's infallible. Ok. That in no way means it's applicable to flawed beings. What you are saying is just taken from an abuse of the word infallible and instead of just claiming that it is infallible in it's assignment of values you now have left reality to claim that these universal values are values that can be upheld at all given times. Obviously such values are not able to be upheld at all given times, even the most devout and studied Christian will "sin" or make moral errors at some point, which means that these values are not always applicable which means your premise falls apart.

Again human fallibility makes any infallible moral system, fallible. If the moral system cannot be upheld consistently, then it is not a perfect moral system.

The reasons you stated here are why Christians believe in a savior god who atoned for the sins of the world.


This is relevant to the discussion: Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development)

[Tuuvi]

I... I am lost for words.

I really have no idea how to debate with you.

Nutritious advice from a homeless alcoholic and moral advice from an age where slavery was common practice.

I guess you have it all set then.


Rhy, Philips... Would you guys mind if I elect this guy Captain of team Christianity on these boards?

You think that just because the ancients practiced slavery that their moral system as a whole is completely invalid? There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere...

[Kadagar_AV]

You think that just because the ancients practiced slavery that their moral system as a whole is completely invalid? There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere...

Nah, that was just on the top of my head... Their view of women does not exactly make me give a standing applause either.

[Tuuvi]

Nah, that was just on the top of my head... Their view of women does not exactly make me give a standing applause either.

Still, I don't think you can dismiss an entire culture's morality system just because it has some bits in it you don't like, that doesn't make sense.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still, I don't think you can dismiss an entire culture's morality system just because it has some bits in it you don't like, that doesn't make sense.

You seem to be downplaying the part where it is ok to fundamentally own another human being or treat 50% of the human population (women) as inferior.

I wouldn't consider those as "bits".

[Kadagar_AV]

Still, I don't think you can dismiss an entire culture's morality system just because it has some bits in it you don't like, that doesn't make sense.

Don't get me wrong, I think they were rock solid some 2000 years ago.

What scares me is that the only modern super power is on the same track as of today!!


EDIT: What ACIN said. I implied it, but I might as well shout it out loud.

[Kadagar_AV]

I want to be like them because I believe it is the way God wants all of us to to be and my parents hit the nail on the head, not because I'm worried about shaming my parents. If I failed to live up to the standard, I wouldn't be afraid that my parents were shamed, but that I had betrayed God's will.

See, this. THIS is what scares me about religious people.

You do not believe in cultural memes, but in the Bible. Your learnt about the bible from... Where? You accidentally stumbled upon it one day? Or did your parents give you a cultural meme in the form of the bible to lean back on?

You seem to seriously believe that YOUR parents hit the nail on the head, because they offered you the Bible, because the Bible is right, Because your parents hit the nail of the head on that one................................................................................................

Don't you have any ability what so ever to take a step back and go like - "Oh wait":

* In Sweden a thousand years ago you would have believed in Thor and Odin.
* In Egypt some 3000 years ago the Pharaohs would have been Gods (Not to mention Ra!).
* In ancient Greece you would have sacrificed to Zeus.
* In ancient Rome you would have had Bacchus orgies.
* In Germany 1930 you would be in the Jugend Corps.
* In Soviet 1950 you would be communist.

I claim that what keeps me back is shaming my parents.

You claim that what is keeping you back is betraying "God's will".

Here is a mind opener for you, your parents were the ones teaching you about God and the Bible. No? They introduced you to the first priest, who has a -longer than- 2000 year history and evolution of turning self thinking individuals into not-so-self-thinking-Bible-Followers.

You are more a tool of your parents than I am. I can at least honestly say that they had a big impact, you can't even do that, you just see it all as a lucky coincidence that both you, your parents and your priest adhere to the same belief.

My parents taught me to think for myself, to pick a religion if I found one that I believed in. You think you are blessed for having found the right way in life.

I am very sorry to say, but it is hard for me to budge on this. I honestly think that you could have been shaped in any mold.

Pretty please, take a step back. Have a look at what you said about not being afraid to shame your parents, but GOD. Know what? Your parents put GOD in your head.

For me, shaming my parents is the same as it is for you to shame God, because that is what they taught you.

The difference between you and me, is that my parents didn't set me on to a track on a set belief, but on a track to find a truth I can believe in - whatever that is.

You were set on a track to be a good Christian boy. And what disturbs me is that you fell into it head first, actually thinking your mum and dad got it right, and the overwhelming majority of the world got it wrong.

[Hax]

I was wondering about the "biological (or evolutionary) argument"; could it be so that spiritual belief is also embedded in the nature of humans to reinforce concepts of morality?

[ICantSpellDawg]

See, this. THIS is what scares me about religious people.

You do not believe in cultural memes, but in the Bible. Your learnt about the bible from... Where? You accidentally stumbled upon it one day? Or did your parents give you a cultural meme in the form of the bible to lean back on?

You seem to seriously believe that YOUR parents hit the nail on the head, because they offered you the Bible, because the Bible is right, Because your parents hit the nail of the head on that one................................................................................................

Don't you have any ability what so ever to take a step back and go like - "Oh wait":

* In Sweden a thousand years ago you would have believed in Thor and Odin.
* In Egypt some 3000 years ago the Pharaohs would have been Gods (Not to mention Ra!).
* In ancient Greece you would have sacrificed to Zeus.
* In ancient Rome you would have had Bacchus orgies.
* In Germany 1930 you would be in the Jugend Corps.
* In Soviet 1950 you would be communist.

I claim that what keeps me back is shaming my parents.

You claim that what is keeping you back is betraying "God's will".

Here is a mind opener for you, your parents were the ones teaching you about God and the Bible. No? They introduced you to the first priest, who has a -longer than- 2000 year history and evolution of turning self thinking individuals into not-so-self-thinking-Bible-Followers.

You are more a tool of your parents than I am. I can at least honestly say that they had a big impact, you can't even do that, you just see it all as a lucky coincidence that both you, your parents and your priest adhere to the same belief.

My parents taught me to think for myself, to pick a religion if I found one that I believed in. You think you are blessed for having found the right way in life.

I am very sorry to say, but it is hard for me to budge on this. I honestly think that you could have been shaped in any mold.

Pretty please, take a step back. Have a look at what you said about not being afraid to shame your parents, but GOD. Know what? Your parents put GOD in your head.

For me, shaming my parents is the same as it is for you to shame God, because that is what they taught you.

The difference between you and me, is that my parents didn't set me on to a track on a set belief, but on a track to find a truth I can believe in - whatever that is.

You were set on a track to be a good Christian boy. And what disturbs me is that you fell into it head first, actually thinking your mum and dad got it right, and the overwhelming majority of the world got it wrong.


Many on this board seem to be saying that God is just, inherently, in you. You don't call it God, but you appeal to your conscience as capable of knowing a truth that judges right from wrong - beyond the utilitarian argument. I call it God, you call it... je ne sais qua. I read the Bible and other sources to understand some of the fundamentals of culture and morality, others lambaste it. I know what you are saying to me, my religious culture was given to me by my parents like the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and I'm just brainwashed into it. I think you're just as brainwashed by the mainstream culture you've inherited. Your morals seem baseless to me just as mine must seem baseless to you. You get yours from popular culture on TV, your mommy and daddy, teachers. I do too.

I'm not sure that the world got it "wrong". As you and others here have said in a roundabout way, most people know "God", they just can't say the name out loud for fear of being called "faithful" instead of "completely rational"

[Sigurd]

The morale debate is rather boring.
Using any number of religious philosophies and then point at their absurd differences does in no way defeat the argument of universal truths nor the inexistence of a deity.

The Christian faith has answered this inherent ability to discern right from wrong as: Everyone is born with a portion of the light of Christ (God). Man was made in the image and likeness of God and is thus sons and daughters of God. Thereby inheriting certain godlike qualities like morale – the inherent understanding or maybe more correctly, the recognition of what is right and wrong. They explain this recognition as the light of Christ.

This light of Christ is also applied when “recognizing” the existence of deity. That humans inherently believe (no atheists in a fox hole etc.)

Again do we see that any religious discussion will boil down to the question of whether there is a God or not. (Anyone up for calling it something? Godwin is taken).
The law could state: “As any online discussion on any given religious topic grows longer, the probability of discussing the existence of God approaches 1".

[ICantSpellDawg]

The morale debate is rather boring.
Using any number of religious philosophies and then point at their absurd differences does in no way defeat the argument of universal truths nor the inexistence of a deity.

The Christian faith has answered this inherent ability to discern right from wrong as: Everyone is born with a portion of the light of Christ (God). Man was made in the image and likeness of God and is thus sons and daughters of God. Thereby inheriting certain godlike qualities like morale – the inherent understanding or maybe more correctly, the recognition of what is right and wrong. They explain this recognition as the light of Christ.

This light of Christ is also applied when “recognizing” the existence of deity. That humans inherently believe (no atheists in a fox hole etc.)

Again do we see that any religious discussion will boil down to the question of whether there is a God or not. (Anyone up for calling it something? Godwin is taken).
The law could state: “As any online discussion on any given religious topic grows longer, the probability of discussing the existence of God approaches 1".

Ha! But we love doing it, or at least I do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Strictly philosophically speaking, you could prove pretty much anything. Let us have at least one foot in reality here, shall we?

Well - I have found limited comfort in the living world. I try to live compassionately, in as much concordance to my beliefs as possible, but I'm afraid physical pleasures don't really do it for me.


Well, I don't. So no God needed.

Yes, I know, but you don't need God for your moral system. It's not you I'm irritated with.


I think you made my point for me.

That depends on the point :tongue:


You don't believe it because it doesn't provide for absolutes, and you require absolutes because you have a faith that requires absolutes... Circle reasoning much lately, are we?

Circuler reasoning can mean either a lack of foundation or a perfect argument.

For what's it's worth - the absolute came first, the faith later. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm arguing that my moral system, and my faith, are parts with my character.

I have my faith in large part because of my character.


I see "meme" as a nice word invention that put a name to something we all know exists and can observe directly, and thus believe in. Anyone who had a parent, or parent figure, will have a natural understanding for what a meme is.

It's just a fancy word for "idea" though.


No, God is inside your head. You are just malcontent in your little glass bowl and fervently wish something bigger would bother to have a peek.

I'm not malcontent though - I'm quite content. God might be inside my head, but he might not.

We shall both know once we are dead - for what it's worth if I am brought into heaven I shall ask what God intends to do with the atheists who believed according to their natural concience.


Correct :)

Right, that's fine.


Actually, no. As an atheist I don't believe in good and evil, as no one can define it or prove its existence. Take Bruto as an example, I don't think he woke up thinking "hmm, I want to be evil today". A more modern example, Breivik. We do not brush him off as evil, we send him to psychiatrists checking if his mind is fully functional, then we have a weeks long process trying to figure out why he deemed it okay to do what he did. I think that makes more sense than brushing him and his actions off as "evil", you don't?

I can call his actions evil and him mad. A truly evil man would understand what he was doing was evil and still do it, Breivik believes he is justified.

Regardless of what you believe, there are atheists who talk of "good and "evil" as real things.


No. That is wrong. You are just pulling that out as a synonym when really that is just a non-sequitor. There is a universal right and wrong. It's infallible. Ok. That in no way means it's applicable to flawed beings. What you are saying is just taken from an abuse of the word infallible and instead of just claiming that it is infallible in it's assignment of values you now have left reality to claim that these universal values are values that can be upheld at all given times. Obviously such values are not able to be upheld at all given times, even the most devout and studied Christian will "sin" or make moral errors at some point, which means that these values are not always applicable which means your premise falls apart.

You are confusing the system and it's application. A theoretically "perfect" principle can be "perfectly" applied and always be applicable. That does not mean that it is upheld or applied. It is possible to judge flawed beings using a flawless system (what God is said to do) and it is possbile for flawed being to use a flawless principle (the dichtimony between right and wrong) in an imperfect way without the principle being violated.

Christians sin constantly, if you think otherwise you have fundamentally misunderstood the religion. This is why the religion places such a high value on repentence and forgiveness - nor do Christians claim to be morally better than other people.


Again human fallibility makes any infallible moral system, fallible. If the moral system cannot be upheld consistently, then it is not a perfect moral system.

And again you confuse the system and it's application. The system is the concept, the Platonic "perfect form" - it's not the same thing as the concrete reality. Indeed, that is the whole point - there is a disconect between the way the world should be, and the way it is.


This is such a distorted caricature you have painted. A case of the essence or the spirit of the law being ignored by rigid adherence to the letter of the law. The laws are to communicate values, not to be values in themselves, even in absolute morality system. By killing me, the murderer then kills someone else and you claim that any reasonable man who is trying to follow the moral law will believe that that was the point of the moral law. This is silly and if your defense of your particular construction of absolute morality is based off these distortions of reality and by making sure definitions are set on your terms, then this will go nowhere because you have successfully locked yourself in a box.

You do not understand the point.

If the moral LAW is "thou shalt not kill, except to stop killing" it is an ass. My "charicature" is made purely for the purpose of demonstrating that your posited moral law does not work on a moral plane.

Again, you confuse principle and application. The point is that if the law is applied in all cases it does not work.


And this is where you contradict yourself. If nobody violates...., which is presupposing that humans are able to be flawless, which they are not, which is known to the infallible creature that designed this infallible morality. Which means this infallible create made an error in making a system that requires humans to be something which he knows cannot be. So he is not infallible at all.

Humans are utterly incapable of flawless thoughts or actions, that is our nature.

However, if you want to believe in good and evil you need to believe there is such a thing as good and evil in the universe - that requires a perfect morality because there is no space between good and evil, there are just the two sides.

So - you take your money and make your choice.

Want to be a relativist or utilitarian? No God for you. Want to believe in an absolutel difference between good and evil? God comes as part of the package.

[Ironside]

The morale debate is rather boring.
Using any number of religious philosophies and then point at their absurd differences does in no way defeat the argument of universal truths nor the inexistence of a deity.

The Christian faith has answered this inherent ability to discern right from wrong as: Everyone is born with a portion of the light of Christ (God). Man was made in the image and likeness of God and is thus sons and daughters of God. Thereby inheriting certain godlike qualities like morale – the inherent understanding or maybe more correctly, the recognition of what is right and wrong. They explain this recognition as the light of Christ.


Well, here's a more complex one. If the recognition of right and wrong comes from God and being made from his image, can God himself evolve with time? Early God and those holy people are often quite morally wrong, or humanity has already becomes far more virtious than God himself imho.

[Kralizec]

Wow, this thread has grown a lot since I last read it.


I've been an strong agnostic for most of my life, except for the past 5 or 6 years. At various points in time I've dabbled in faith.


Why not? I think that sociopaths are just people who intrinsically get what I am talking about. A sociopath is not necessarily someone who seeks to harm others actively or kill them, those are just the ones that we hear about in the news and fear.

They simply disregard society and it's mores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Epidemiology) (for the most part). They would have varied compulsions, just like the rest of us. Some moral people are driven to kill, steal, give to charity, eat, etc but respect society and guard society's view of them or their interests. Being a natural or congenital sociopath just makes it easier to do what I am talking about here, but the human mind could simply come to these conclusions. You could still appear normal and fit into society at large.

Also, your understanding of "conscience" would need to be rather rigid or dogmatically constructed to believe that it mattered much, more like a philosophical appendix (http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/picture-of-the-appendix) than a reason to do or not to do things.

If you value conscience, value religion. I suspect that both are human evolutionary products for the preservation of natual, God given law. One is biological, the other sociological, but both are technologies that do very similar things. My belief that Religion is "man-made" and developed should not be construed as a belief that man created the idea of "God" or that these things were not a gift from God. I don't believe that this opinion is far off of the Catholic church's recognition that tradition and Sacraments are a very important part of our faith, but I could be wildly wrong. I don't disbelieve in the tenants of my faith or the assertions, but much of the ritual is there to help strengthen our moral resolve. It's not just for God, it's for us as well. The ritual has a spiritual presence - our understanding and interpretation of "the way" with the Benediction of God. It's a give and take. I believe that biological and sociological evolution are as much a part of God's creation as your soul, so this shouldn't be too radical a thought, but all it is is a thought.

If you bothered to read that wiki entirely instead of selectively picking parts of it for the sake of your argument, you noticed that a person with ADP already demonstrates a lack of empathy before the age of 15. Usually it's long before that age, certainly before most people bother to seriously ponder ethics and morality. Show me a single case of where a person who demonstrably was sane and possessed empathy voluntarily decided to condition himself against his consience, and you'll have an anecdote. If you manage to find a study that shows that this happens with a meaningful amount of people you might have an argument.

And yeah, some people manage to selectively override their conscience when they're in a situation where doing so would benefit them. That's not quite the same of ignoring your conscience alltogether, and besides, this happens regardless of a persons religious beliefs. You might think that this is more likely to occur with atheists, but I doubt you'll find anything to back that up, and I could just as easily argue that Catholics are more likely to transgress because they convince themselves that they can repent at some point in the future and confess to their local cleric.


Ah, but are you a proper Atheist.

ICSD appears to be describing moral apathy, absent threat of sanction he does not feel compelled to act in a way as proscribed by "morality".

You, on the other hand, follow the dictates of your concience - which you justify as an evolutionary advantage. The interesting thing about this is that ICSD is following a utilitarian philosophical model whilst you are responding to the moral issue on an intuitive level and then applying a utilitarian justification.

Or, to put it another way, you sould like a man of faith and he sounds like an atheist.

I'll admit that I have something of an utilitarian streak; I don't agree with the entire philosophy as such however.

I don't see how my argument sounds like faith. I never resorted to anything supernational and my position is perfectly plausible from an evolutionary perspective. Tuff is just channeling a negative caricature of atheists that's popular among religious people.

[Noncommunist]

Well, here's a more complex one. If the recognition of right and wrong comes from God and being made from his image, can God himself evolve with time? Early God and those holy people are often quite morally wrong, or humanity has already becomes far more virtious than God himself imho.

Or we're just becoming more morally decadent and only think ourselves to be progressing due to our moral blindness.

[Skullheadhq]

Athanasius is not so interesting a character as Augustine, not as complex or controversial.

I don't think so. The emperors tried to kill him, banished him five times and sent a large amount of soldiers to hunt him down in the desert. He was to name the list of NT books we have today.


and moral advice from an age where slavery was common practice.

So everything Plato, Socrates and Aristotle said, on morals or otherwise, is automatically null and void because of the time they lived in or because they supported slavery?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So everything Plato, Socrates and Aristotle said, on morals or otherwise, is automatically null and void because of the time they lived in or because they supported slavery?

It puts everything they said under great scrutiny and suspect.

Personally, I am more offended by Aristotle's Physics than anything else.

[Skullheadhq]

It puts everything they said under great scrutiny and suspect.

Well, that's just childish.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, that's just childish.

Yeah, well so's ur mum.

[Skullheadhq]

Yeah, well so's ur mum.

No, you.

[Greyblades]

Yo momma's so dumb she's voting BNP 'cause she thinks it's the "Be Nice Party"

[Skullheadhq]

Yo momma's so dumb she's voting BNP.

I won´t comment on your mom, because hindus might be offended if I equate her to their holy animal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This kind of conversation brings me back to my high school days, when a student decided to smear a can of tuna paste underneath a teacher's desk on a day where it was 102 degrees F outside and the air conditioner was off due to budget cuts.

[Ironside]

Or we're just becoming more morally decadent and only think ourselves to be progressing due to our moral blindness.

Well, by some bizarre reason, I'm not finding some Bible stuff to be done by paragons of virtue:

Like punishing a people because what you mind controlled their leader to do.
Punishing your son's decendants into to eternal slavery.
Offering your daughters as company for visitors, and by the same time being so awesome that those daughters rape you.
Not to mention how his wife died, looking back on her home being destroyed.
Bashing your army for not being cruel enough.
Testing people's faith by demanding that they sacrifice their son (but not needing to do it, how nice).
Some minor city and world destruction here and there.
I'm quite sure I missed a thing or two as well.

I think I take more of this moral decadence than keeping those "virtues" you know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, by some bizarre reason, I'm not finding some Bible stuff to be done by paragons of virtue:

Like punishing a people because what you mind controlled their leader to do.
Punishing your son's decendants into to eternal slavery.
Offering your daughters as company for visitors, and by the same time being so awesome that those daughters rape you.
Not to mention how his wife died, looking back on her home being destroyed.
Bashing your army for not being cruel enough.
Testing people's faith by demanding that they sacrifice their son (but not needing to do it, how nice).
Some minor city and world destruction here and there.
I'm quite sure I missed a thing or two as well.

I think I take more of this moral decadence than keeping those "virtues" you know.

Are all those things to be taken a positive examples, though?

I also find the claims about modern morals somewhat supect.

We still have slavery, we just outsource it to Africa and China - and pay the slaves.

Women? Still treated like crap, in a few ways worse than 100 years ago. For example see posters of Scarlett Johansson for Iron Man 2.

[Kadagar_AV]

This (http://screencrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Iron-Man-2-International-Poster-Scarlett-Johansson-as-Black-Widow-14-4-10-kc.jpg), or?

I don't see what's wrong with it.

[Ironside]

Are all those things to be taken a positive examples, though?

Pretty much, certainly never as a negative. It's either done by God or one of the really holy people (or at least the most holy of the bunch, in the case of Lot and Noah).

"Do as I say and not as I do, because the stuff I do is quite evil", isn't exactly encouraging.


I also find the claims about modern morals somewhat supect.

We still have slavery, we just outsource it to Africa and China - and pay the slaves.

Women? Still treated like crap, in a few ways worse than 100 years ago. For example see posters of Scarlett Johansson for Iron Man 2.

Never said perfect. Beating old God on average though.
"Salary slaves" got more rights than the old ones, even those who might fit for the title.

The display of females as sex objects are a complicated matter, since it was hidden, but extremely prevalent in Victorian times for example. Add that you also have the needed female sexual liberty (since it's needed to break the old madonna and whore system and is also an acknowledgement of female independence). Besides, a woman can be sexy without being an object, and by her own choise nowadays. Quite an improvement.

Old school, part of the enemy? She would be excuted since she's not a virgin (thanks for that Moses). Had she been that? Only a sex slave. Could be beaten and rape by her husband without it counting as a crime, etc, etc.

[ajaxfetish]

This (http://screencrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Iron-Man-2-International-Poster-Scarlett-Johansson-as-Black-Widow-14-4-10-kc.jpg), or?

I don't see what's wrong with it.

Yeah, I'm curious too. I looked through google images, and saw a few variations, but none of them seemed offensive or degrading to women. Is there a less obvious version out there that's problematic?

Ajax

[Kadagar_AV]

This is one of my favourite pics on the intrawebz (http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/546931_10150630125977129_1534080151_n.jpg)

Might mean different thing to different people. But my take on it, is that women should stop blaming men. They do a pretty good job of bringing it all on themselves.

I have no idea about Islamic culture, but in the western culture, girls primarily dress up for the sake of other girls. They are way harsher on each other than men will ever be. We are generally quite satisfied if we can buy them a drink and talk with them some, no matter what clothes they have.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, I'm curious too. I looked through google images, and saw a few variations, but none of them seemed offensive or degrading to women. Is there a less obvious version out there that's problematic?

Ajax

She had epic digital enhancement - and lads mags went a bit fruity when she "had a breast reduction" too - aka when she lost weight and stopped padding her bra.

Ironside: I think you're misreading the text, I don't have my Bible with me and I'm on a shoddy connection so I can't explain it presently.

[Kralizec]

She had epic digital enhancement - and lads mags went a bit fruity when she "had a breast reduction" too - aka when she lost weight and stopped padding her bra.

Ironside: I think you're misreading the text, I don't have my Bible with me and I'm on a shoddy connection so I can't explain it presently.

Still not getting it. I only get that portraying women in skimpy clothing, especially with exaggerated features, offends your sensibilites somehow. Is offending your sensibilities just as bad as treating women as second-class citizens or even property?

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't know... she is naturally quite slim and busty... I could picture a combat dress/armour having extra padding on the more sensible parts of a females body, just like us guys would have a susp if we were to battle, you know, people with super powers.

However, with that said, I am in no, absolutely NO way in favour of digital enhancing of bodies, female as well as male ones. We have the bodies we have, no need for photoshop.

But then, I see digital adjustments as less intruding on a female than, say, rape.

[Papewaio]

She had epic digital enhancement - and lads mags went a bit fruity when she "had a breast reduction" too - aka when she lost weight and stopped padding her bra.

Avengers - epic digital enhancement - chest size increase - Mark Ruffalo is the winner.

So how is it sexist again if both sexes are getting treated the same?

The Hulk was topless. Surely for equality the black widow character should have been too. Naked breasts are only sex objects in the mind of the beholder.

Most movie and movie posters enhance the stars looks. It isn't just limited to women, and not every case is a breast enlargement... Lindsay Lohan for Herbie had a digital breast reduction.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Still not getting it. I only get that portraying women in skimpy clothing, especially with exaggerated features, offends your sensibilites somehow. Is offending your sensibilities just as bad as treating women as second-class citizens or even property?

Hmmm.

Well, I am a moral absolutist - so personal distaste is supposed to be triggered by moral outrage.

That doesn't make me wrong.

Scarlett Johansson is presented as a sex object, key word being object, enhancing her bust is part of that.


I don't know... she is naturally quite slim and busty... I could picture a combat dress/armour having extra padding on the more sensible parts of a females body, just like us guys would have a susp if we were to battle, you know, people with super powers.

However, with that said, I am in no, absolutely NO way in favour of digital enhancing of bodies, female as well as male ones. We have the bodies we have, no need for photoshop.

But then, I see digital adjustments as less intruding on a female than, say, rape.

No, it's not rape, rape is bad.

Rape makes my smiting arm extremely twitchy.

The point is that Miss Johansson is known, and lets be honest, sold on her bust, her lips and her hair.

Her bust is somewhat reduced these days from 2008, so she is not excessively enhanced to compensate.

Her value is basically in the poundage of her breast, like a prize cow.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are confusing the system and it's application. A theoretically "perfect" principle can be "perfectly" applied and always be applicable. That does not mean that it is upheld or applied. It is possible to judge flawed beings using a flawless system (what God is said to do) and it is possbile for flawed being to use a flawless principle (the dichtimony between right and wrong) in an imperfect way without the principle being violated.

I think you are muddling everything up in order to push your definitions again. We started with an infallible set of values which means they are not wrong. Then you moved onto applicability. Now you are unifying the two under the guise that infallible=perfect and perfect=applicable. Transitive property doesn't work well with meanings of words.

My contention still remains that how can God create a moral system that he wishes us to obey by making it difficult, if not impossible for us flawed beings to follow. There seems to be something off with a system that obviously cannot be followed properly. The only defense I have heard from you is more pushing of a definitions game.



Christians sin constantly, if you think otherwise you have fundamentally misunderstood the religion. This is why the religion places such a high value on repentence and forgiveness - nor do Christians claim to be morally better than other people.

I think you misunderstand the bigger point. The entire situation we find ourselves seems illogical and flawed to begin with. We have an infallible creator, creating a flawed species, only to test them with the task of being moral, then he sets his rules of morality which are impossible to follow and then concedes so by placing an emphasis on repentance and forgiveness, which makes no sense because it negates the point of the test in the first place. "I fully recognize that you will never pass the test, because I designed the test so that you will fail, but your task is to prove me wrong, your infallible god."





And again you confuse the system and it's application. The system is the concept, the Platonic "perfect form" - it's not the same thing as the concrete reality. Indeed, that is the whole point - there is a disconect between the way the world should be, and the way it is.
Because the system is flawed from the beginning. The two worlds would be the same if people could follow the rules at all times. If it took into consideration human flaws.




You do not understand the point.

If the moral LAW is "thou shalt not kill, except to stop killing" it is an ass. My "charicature" is made purely for the purpose of demonstrating that your posited moral law does not work on a moral plane.

Again, you confuse principle and application. The point is that if the law is applied in all cases it does not work.

The application is taken from the principle. You live in a world where someone would honestly follow the moral law as written without thinking of what it's purpose is, that's not how it works.




Humans are utterly incapable of flawless thoughts or actions, that is our nature.
That's what I have been saying since day 1.



However, if you want to believe in good and evil you need to believe there is such a thing as good and evil in the universe - that requires a perfect morality because there is no space between good and evil, there are just the two sides.

Reality tells....no, shouts at you to say otherwise. Thus, we have arrived at why I left religion altogether. Our definition of realism (at least in western culture) is an increase of gray, and muted tones of black and white. Superhero movies/comics are the best examples of this.



So - you take your money and make your choice.

Want to be a relativist or utilitarian? No God for you. Want to believe in an absolutel difference between good and evil? God comes as part of the package.

I think the idea that there are absolute differences of good and evil and the idea that you can find manifestations of both co-inhabiting a situation or thing are not mutually exclusive. This allows for the possibility of no God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you are muddling everything up in order to push your definitions again. We started with an infallible set of values which means they are not wrong. Then you moved onto applicability. Now you are unifying the two under the guise that infallible=perfect and perfect=applicable. Transitive property doesn't work well with meanings of words.

You don't understand.

I said a flawless principle is always applicable - i.e. killing a human being is always bad, there is always a better way.

You are talking about actually applying them in the real world.

This is not what I am talking about - morality is not "real" in the commonly understood sense as it is today. That is to say, most people think of the "real" as being something they can touch or see or smeel - this "real" world is not where morality is traditionally understood to be.


My contention still remains that how can God create a moral system that he wishes us to obey by making it difficult, if not impossible for us flawed beings to follow. There seems to be something off with a system that obviously cannot be followed properly. The only defense I have heard from you is more pushing of a definitions game.

I do not know the answer to that question - my wisdom does not extend towards such questions because I have not been troubled by them for some years.

You have two options:

1. There is such a thing as Good and Evil - this requires the Arbiter. You can call me stupid if you like, but calling all the Platonic, Aquinine and Augustinian philosphers stupid and ignorant is a stretch you can't make.

2. There is no such thing as Good and Evil, there is only human preference - No Arbiter, but no claim to moral authority either.


I think you misunderstand the bigger point. The entire situation we find ourselves seems illogical and flawed to begin with. We have an infallible creator, creating a flawed species, only to test them with the task of being moral, then he sets his rules of morality which are impossible to follow and then concedes so by placing an emphasis on repentance and forgiveness, which makes no sense because it negates the point of the test in the first place. "I fully recognize that you will never pass the test, because I designed the test so that you will fail, but your task is to prove me wrong, your infallible god."

That God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either.

Go look up who said that.

I never said it was a test, I never said it was a pass/fail.

I merely said there is moral law.


Because the system is flawed from the beginning. The two worlds would be the same if people could follow the rules at all times. If it took into consideration human flaws.

You are a relativist then - not a moralist.

The system is not flawed - the physical world is.

Your complaint that the actors do not obey moral law is meaningless because you can't prove they are meant to. Further, no system can "take into account" human flaws - see "Communism: Application" or similarly "Capitalist Philosophy: Application" for demonstrations of this. Both Karl Marx and Adam Smith tried to account for, basically, the same human flaws in their moral/social systems and both failed to produce anything remotely relevent or useful. Worse - they were wrong in their cardinal claims.


The application is taken from the principle. You live in a world where someone would honestly follow the moral law as written without thinking of what it's purpose is, that's not how it works.

What, me perosnally?

No, I live in this often unpleasent mortal realm, or at least my physical presence does. Where my mind/spirit goes on its little jaunts, I could not tell you.


what I have been saying since day 1.

So have I - so have all Christian theologians, philosophers , and apolagists for two milenia.

The observation by itself means nothing.


Reality tells....no, shouts at you to say otherwise. Thus, we have arrived at why I left religion altogether. Our definition of realism (at least in western culture) is an increase of gray, and muted tones of black and white. Superhero movies/comics are the best examples of this.

That's just the prism through which you view the world - it isn't a universal truth.

As I said, the Western concept of "real" is a purely physical thing.

God is considered "real" by those who believe in him, but he has no direct relation to the physical world, he s not part of it.


I think the idea that there are absolute differences of good and evil and the idea that you can find manifestations of both co-inhabiting a situation or thing are not mutually exclusive. This allows for the possibility of no God.

Well of course they can be co-present in a single being, they are qualities as well as moral poles. Boethius said that man could be considered"good" because he had been designed by God to have the quality of "goodness" in him, in the same way that a table can be made to be white (painted), but he then went on to say that this does not make man good in the way that God is good.

Really, you're arguing at me, not with me, because you do not understand my beliefs you just attack a strawman that looks almost nothing like them.

Lets review:

You believe there is no absolute good in the physical world

You believe only in the physical world

You do not believe a "perfect" moral system has any meaning in a flawed world.

You do not believe there is a "gap" between who people should act according to morality, and how they actuall act.

QED

You don't believe in "morality"

And you're an atheist.

Proving my point - God and Morality or Atheism and Relativism.

[spankythehippo]

Lets review:

You believe there is no absolute good in the physical world

You believe only in the physical world

You do not believe a "perfect" moral system has any meaning in a flawed world.

You do not believe there is a "gap" between who people should act according to morality, and how they actuall act.

QED

You don't believe in "morality"

And you're an atheist.

Proving my point - God and Morality or Atheism and Relativism.

I just read this part. Atheists aren't immoral. They just have their own set of morals that may or may not be influenced by an organised religion. I'm an agnostic atheist, and I find rape distasteful. It just so happens that worshippers of god have similar morals. That does not mean non-believers are immoral. I must admit, I do have morals which do conflict with many religious teachings. But I am also relativistic. Only because morals are a manifestation of opinion.

"I don't like rape. Therefore, rape is immoral". Okay, it may be immoral to someone who says that. But what about a rapist? Would they find rape immoral? True, rape is deemed immoral by the majority of people, but there are some people who consider it acceptable. People tend to taboo things that they don't like. And when people don't like certain things, it is referred to as an opinion.

OK, another example (since I doubt there are many rape-lovers on this forum). I ****ing love swearing. But many people don't. Hence, the censorship in the media. I consider swear words to be just ... you know... words. If there is malicious intent, then by all means, be offended. But regardless of the context, swearing is immoral in this society. I don't find swearing immoral. Does that make me a bad person?

In regards to your "perfect moral system", it has no meaning in a world where people will not upkeep that system. Therefore, there is a flaw in the world. The world can be full of angelic Samaritans, but the "immoral" ones will bring them down. How? Because they have no morals, so they don't care what happens to the Samaritans. Hence, the flaw.


In short, morals are all opinionated. And all religion does is give people a set of morals. Kind of like being handed the default weapons in a video game. I'd rather find my own weapons, because the ones you find in the map are infinitely better than the default ones. Again, a matter of opinion. What ever suits your playing style in this game we call reality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I just read this part. Atheists aren't immoral.

I didn't say Atheists were immoral, I said they didn't believe in morality, just as they do not believe in God.

Just like the existence of God, that belief has no bearing on the existence of morals or whether the person is moral.

What you just described is not "morality" in the traditional sense - it is called "Utilitarianism", the ethical system whereby you accept as "right" the decision which is preffered by the majority of people. Your argument that my "perfect moral system" does not work demonstrates this - because you have misunderstood its purpose.

So - most people think rape is bad, so we say it's bad.

You have assumed that the purpose of the system is to benefit mankind and this is why is does not work because your "Samaritans" will be "dragged down", i.e. they will either be brought down to a lower level or they will suffer for their morality.

I don't believe it works like that at all - I believe in such as thing as Right and Wrong.

I also believe in God - you don't, so it's no surprise you don't share my metaphysics or my ethics.

Traditional Morality is not about making people happy, it is only about knowing the difference between Right and Wrong - and positing a "perfect" morality does not mean I claim to have access to it.

ACIN, however, is trying to argue that he believes in Right and Wrong, but not God. So far he has not done so, quite the opposite.

[Greyblades]

...Dear god have you guys been spending the last few days arguing over whether the definition of the word moral is exclusive to theists? Or was the initial interpritation correct and PVC thinks athiests cant tell right from wrong.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

...Dear god have you guys been spending the last few days arguing over whether the definition of the word moral is exclusive to theists? Or was the initial interpritation correct and PVC thinks athiests cant tell right from wrong.

What did I write Greyblades?

Also, I took a break to go to Winchester - I only got back Friday.

Yeah, I actually have a life - shocking I know.

[spankythehippo]

I didn't say Atheists were immoral, I said they didn't believe in morality, just as they do not believe in God.

Just like the existence of God, that belief has no bearing on the existence of morals or whether the person is moral.

What you just described is not "morality" in the traditional sense - it is called "Utilitarianism", the ethical system whereby you accept as "right" the decision which is preffered by the majority of people. Your argument that my "perfect moral system" does not work demonstrates this - because you have misunderstood its purpose.

So - most people think rape is bad, so we say it's bad.

You have assumed that the purpose of the system is to benefit mankind and this is why is does not work because your "Samaritans" will be "dragged down", i.e. they will either be brought down to a lower level or they will suffer for their morality.

I don't believe it works like that at all - I believe in such as thing as Right and Wrong.

I also believe in God - you don't, so it's no surprise you don't share my metaphysics or my ethics.

Traditional Morality is not about making people happy, it is only about knowing the difference between Right and Wrong - and positing a "perfect" morality does not mean I claim to have access to it.

ACIN, however, is trying to argue that he believes in Right and Wrong, but not God. So far he has not done so, quite the opposite.

So what makes you assume that all atheists cannot differentiate between right and wrong? As I said, what's right or wrong is formed from opinion. I find cruelty to animals the worst "wrong" there is. I don't care about dying kids with cancer. Animal cruelty is what I'm really against. So am I wrong in believing that?

Religious people are told what is right or wrong. Atheists make their own decisions, either based on their own experiences or by what is socially acceptable i.e. what has been indoctrinated into "civilised" society by religion.

I still don't understand why you say atheists don't believe in morality. It seems like your argument is focusing on morality = god.

I quote this "Your argument that my "perfect moral system" does not work demonstrates this - because you have misunderstood its purpose." I may have misunderstood its purpose. As will many more people. Because people will interpret what you say in different ways. Isn't that the reason why there is so much debate in antiquity?


Also, what defines right and wrong? No person should dictate what's right and wrong, because it will only cause more people to question their own values. Then they either discard their values and adopt the preacher's ones, or they rebel (maybe that word is a little too strong) and disregard the preacher.

I'll quote a woman who spoke to a religious preaching guy.

"Who made you the moral signpost for society?"

[Greyblades]

What did I write Greyblades?If I knew that I wouldnt have written my last post. Morality is the term used for a person's sense of right and wrong, Utilitarianism is the term for when that a person bases his morality from experience of cause and effect, striving to get the best outcome for them. As far as I can tell from attempts to decode standard retoric and accusations of the backroom you guys are acting like they are mutualy exclusive.
Also there was something about athiests not believing in morality which is just confusing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So what makes you assume that all atheists cannot differentiate between right and wrong? As I said, what's right or wrong is formed from opinion. I find cruelty to animals the worst "wrong" there is. I don't care about dying kids with cancer. Animal cruelty is what I'm really against. So am I wrong in believing that?

I did not say "cannot differentiate" I said "do not believe in", which is entirely different, and I have been at pains to make that point.

Repeatedly. I grow somewhat tired of doing so. Just because you do not believe in something does not mean it does not exist and it does not affect you - people used to believe that all diseases were Divine Acts, but they were still being killed by microbes.


Religious people are told what is right or wrong. Atheists make their own decisions, either based on their own experiences or by what is socially acceptable i.e. what has been indoctrinated into "civilised" society by religion.

Atheists are no more or less independently minded than religious people - the difference is that Atheists are offered a less firm framework to hang their personnal choices on, so they tend to be more variable.


I still don't understand why you say atheists don't believe in morality. It seems like your argument is focusing on morality = god.

You clearly don't - because you believe morality can be variable between individuals.

You cannot simply take a word and change it's meaning, then treat the word the same as it was before - it is called the "falacy of naming". Calling personal preference "morality" does not make it so.

Morality divides everything into two groups "Good" and "Evil" - in order for morality to be "true" or "real" this division is always the same - so rape is always wrong regardless of what the rapist thinks. This division cannot possbily be the result of human consensus because we do not have absolute consensus. Therefore, in order for morality to be universal and true you require the Arbiter. You could describe this Arbiter however you want poetically but it must have some qualities:

It must be infallable

It must be able to decide for the whole universe

It must be eternal, so that it's decisions are always valid.

It must have been there from the beginning, because morality is supposed to be part of the fabric of the universe.

This description is generally applied to "God" - if you call it something else "Arbiter" or "Natural Law" you are just deploying the naming dallacy to avoid the word "God", the concept is still the same.


I quote this "Your argument that my "perfect moral system" does not work demonstrates this - because you have misunderstood its purpose." I may have misunderstood its purpose. As will many more people. Because people will interpret what you say in different ways. Isn't that the reason why there is so much debate in antiquity?

Yes - but the reason you are misinterpreting it in this way is because of your lack of context, and you are still barking up the wrong tree in trying to make this point.


Also, what defines right and wrong? No person should dictate what's right and wrong, because it will only cause more people to question their own values. Then they either discard their values and adopt the preacher's ones, or they rebel (maybe that word is a little too strong) and disregard the preacher.

This just proves you don't believe in "Right and Wrong", just your personal preference. If "Right" is an actual thing it should be taught, just like learning to walk or write, or any manner of basic or more civilised skills. It is only wrong to impose something that you believe is an opinion and not a fact. So you obviously only believe in "Right and "Wrong" as opinions.

That means I can just ignore your opinions on Right and Wrong though, right? They're meaningless.

It's also worth pointing out that "preacher" is not a purely religious function - many Atheist intellectuals today unabashedly preach the evils of Religion, including A.C. Greyling, Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitches and none of them ever pulled their punches.


I'll quote a woman who spoke to a religious preaching guy.

"Who made you the moral signpost for society?"

I don't see your point.

That's like me saying, "By what right do you question the word of the Lord!".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If I knew that I wouldnt have written my last post. Morality is the term used for a person's sense of right and wrong, Utilitarianism is the term for when that a person bases his morality from experience of cause and effect, striving to get the best outcome for them. As far as I can tell from attempts to decode standard retoric and accusations of the backroom you guys are acting like they are mutualy exclusive.

They are.

Utilitarianism as a method is not the same as utilitarianism as a principle.

The latter would logically lead you to, for example, sacrifice a single child to appease an invader where Moral Law would demand you resist the invader because he asks for the sacrifice.

Traditional Morality does not involved arithmatic - just binary choices.

The Traditional understanding of "Morality" is not "a person's sense of right and wrong" it is "the difference between right and wrong" what is right is moral, what is wrong is immoral.

Utilitarianism is subjective, morality is objective.

[Greyblades]

In which case I know not anyone who would count as Utilitarian, athiest or no.

[spankythehippo]

They are.

Utilitarianism as a method is not the same as utilitarianism as a principle.

The latter would logically lead you to, for example, sacrifice a single child to appease an invader where Moral Law would demand you resist the invader because he asks for the sacrifice.

Traditional Morality does not involved arithmatic - just binary choices.

The Traditional understanding of "Morality" is not "a person's sense of right and wrong" it is "the difference between right and wrong" what is right is moral, what is wrong is immoral.

Utilitarianism is subjective, morality is objective.

I'm going to answer my post's response with this post. If that makes sense. Because this post is shorter.

How is morality objective? Both utilitarianism and morality is subjective. Morals are ones personal beliefs on right and wrong, or good and evil.

Morality, as you say, is the division of everything into "Good" and "Evil". What defines good and evil? I've seen people who claim that ethnic cleansing is the right thing to do. Is it really?

This whole morality issue is all about society's perspective. "What would the rest of the world think?". Morality should be based on one's own thoughts upon the matter. That is the core reason why I turned into an atheist. I was being told what to believe. I was being told what is right and wrong. In most cases, I still hold those morals. Like, don't kill (that "moral" is under question in my mind). I just chose not to follow an organised religion.

If society needs to be told what is right and wrong, something is seriously wrong.

Anyway, what is this discussion about? The interpretation of morals? Is this what this is really about? In that case, I respect your morals, but I have my own. If someone chooses to adopt my morals, good for them. If not, I couldn't care less.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm going to answer my post's response with this post. If that makes sense. Because this post is shorter.

How is morality objective? Both utilitarianism and morality is subjective. Morals are ones personal beliefs on right and wrong, or good and evil.

Morality, as you say, is the division of everything into "Good" and "Evil". What defines good and evil? I've seen people who claim that ethnic cleansing is the right thing to do. Is it really?

This whole morality issue is all about society's perspective. "What would the rest of the world think?". Morality should be based on one's own thoughts upon the matter. That is the core reason why I turned into an atheist. I was being told what to believe. I was being told what is right and wrong. In most cases, I still hold those morals. Like, don't kill (that "moral" is under question in my mind). I just chose not to follow an organised religion.

If society needs to be told what is right and wrong, something is seriously wrong.

Anyway, what is this discussion about? The interpretation of morals? Is this what this is really about? In that case, I respect your morals, but I have my own. If someone chooses to adopt my morals, good for them. If not, I couldn't care less.

You are pushing a relativistic worldview which sees no difference between "morality" as a concept and people's interpretation of it.

That's fine - you continue to prove my point however, that an Atheist does not believe in abstract objective morality because he is an atheist - or rather if he did believe he could not then claim to be an Atheist.

Think about it like this:

You have a tree, an actual tree, and then you have ten landscapes painted of the tree by ten artists. Each landscape represents the tree, is reconisably representing that tree, but each is different according to the artist's interpretation and skill.

Despite this, there is still an actual tree.

Now, you have your persepctive of the world and I have mine, and we both live in the same actual world. The point which I originally made - which you have apparently taken issue with without appreciating is this: There are people who believe an Objective morality and there are people who do not. In order for "morality" to mean anything is has to be universal because it makes universal claims "this is wrong" or "that is right" or "the Nazi's were evil". My contetion was that to believe in objective Morality's existence one must then accept the existence of the Arbiter - which is a Deistic concept, and a belief.

Ergo, yone cannot claim moral authority and claim to be an Atheist - all one can talk about is one's preferences or the preferences of the majority of the people.

Where this gets interesting is when you get two people, one a moral objectivist and one a relativist or utilitarian. The relativist will give up first, which means he will lose the argument and the war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In which case I know not anyone who would count as Utilitarian, athiest or no.

Spanky does
- he's only interested in majority preference.

[spankythehippo]

You are pushing a relativistic worldview which sees no difference between "morality" as a concept and people's interpretation of it.

That's fine - you continue to prove my point however, that an Atheist does not believe in abstract objective morality because he is an atheist - or rather if he did believe he could not then claim to be an Atheist.

Think about it like this:

You have a tree, an actual tree, and then you have ten landscapes painted of the tree by ten artists. Each landscape represents the tree, is reconisably representing that tree, but each is different according to the artist's interpretation and skill.

Despite this, there is still an actual tree.

Now, you have your persepctive of the world and I have mine, and we both live in the same actual world. The point which I originally made - which you have apparently taken issue with without appreciating is this: There are people who believe an Objective morality and there are people who do not. In order for "morality" to mean anything is has to be universal because it makes universal claims "this is wrong" or "that is right" or "the Nazi's were evil". My contetion was that to believe in objective Morality's existence one must then accept the existence of the Arbiter - which is a Deistic concept, and a belief.

Ergo, yone cannot claim moral authority and claim to be an Atheist - all one can talk about is one's preferences or the preferences of the majority of the people.

Where this gets interesting is when you get two people, one a moral objectivist and one a relativist or utilitarian. The relativist will give up first, which means he will lose the argument and the war.

I know what my morals are. I don't need anyone else to critique my morals. That being said, I have slightly given up on this argument. Only because I know I will be wasting my breath. I know when to smile and nod.


Spanky does
- he's only interested in majority preference.

I have no interest in majority preference. What I'm saying is that morals are influenced by society's expectation of right and wrong. I couldn't give a flying rat's arse crystals about what the general public think.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know what my morals are. I don't need anyone else to critique my morals. That being said, I have slightly given up on this argument. Only because I know I will be wasting my breath. I know when to smile and nod.


What if your moral opinions are wrong though? Do you need someone to critique them then? Why should no one critique your morals? Merely because it offends you?

To go back to my simile - if your painting of the tree is rubbish, shouldn't someone tell you?


I have no interest in majority preference. What I'm saying is that morals are influenced by society's expectation of right and wrong. I couldn't give a flying rat's arse crystals about what the general public think.

The general public constitute "society", not the intellectual or social elite alone. Society's views are a negotiation between the majority for consensus.

[spankythehippo]

What if your moral opinions are wrong though? Do you need someone to critique them then? Why should no one critique your morals? Merely because it offends you?

To go back to my simile - if your painting of the tree is rubbish, shouldn't someone tell you?



The general public constitute "society", not the intellectual or social elite alone. Society's views are a negotiation between the majority for consensus.
If my moral opinions seem wrong to others, I will gladly hear them out. That does not mean I will change my views.

Going back to your simile. If the painting is rubbish and someone tells me, let them. I've been told my music tastes are rubbish, and yet I still listen to it.

If society's views are a negotiation between the majority for consensus, then why do I hear nuggets of wisdom (I use the term "wisdom" loosely) from the lesser educated? Intellectuals have no say in morals anymore. The society's elite, however, do. They hold all the power. They say anything, and the public follow. Without question. Like sheep. I'd rather be the goat (a little Bible reference for you).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If my moral opinions seem wrong to others, I will gladly hear them out. That does not mean I will change my views.

Going back to your simile. If the painting is rubbish and someone tells me, let them. I've been told my music tastes are rubbish, and yet I still listen to it.

So the fact that you are apathetic about your own virtue makes the question irrelevent?

What if it's just that you don't care, but it does matter?

There are the sorts of questions your philosophy has no answer for.


If society's views are a negotiation between the majority for consensus, then why do I hear nuggets of wisdom (I use the term "wisdom" loosely) from the lesser educated? Intellectuals have no say in morals anymore. The society's elite, however, do. They hold all the power. They say anything, and the public follow. Without question. Like sheep. I'd rather be the goat (a little Bible reference for you).

This is just cynicism and a lack of faith in society - it isn't an argument.

Society at large does change absent direction from the "elite" both women's sufferage and the current drive for homosexula marriage rights began as grassroots movements among the general public then picked up by the intellectual and cultural elite.

[Major Robert Dump]

I wish I had the energy to read all this fine debate.

You should lecture on Childrens Bibles, they are abridged and have pictures. Also, in some adult versions you can see Eve's tits, which is pretty awesome when you are home alone at grandmas in the 6th grade.

I like Tom Selleck Jesus, always reaching out towards the camera man, longingly saying come hither. I have seen a couple of dark short haired Jesuses and long beard Jesuses, but TBH he probably did have a trimmed beard and a hairy chest because that is what chics dig since the beginning of time, and shoulder-lenght hair is just long enough to run ones fingers through but not too long so it doesn't get caught in the go-kart engine.

I heard Mel Gibson did a remake of the Bible and it was pretty good, I just saw the end where the Indians were running around chasing that little dude and then the Spanish showed up.

[Ironside]

Ironside: I think you're misreading the text, I don't have my Bible with me and I'm on a shoddy connection so I can't explain it presently.

Better connection nowadays? The Pharao, Noah, Lot, Abraham and Moses went into a bar... Then again Moses might be excused, I would probably do the same if my boss throws around this kind of stuff and means it.
"(Phinehas) has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honour among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wish I had the energy to read all this fine debate.

You should lecture on Childrens Bibles, they are abridged and have pictures. Also, in some adult versions you can see Eve's tits, which is pretty awesome when you are home alone at grandmas in the 6th grade.

I like Tom Selleck Jesus, always reaching out towards the camera man, longingly saying come hither. I have seen a couple of dark short haired Jesuses and long beard Jesuses, but TBH he probably did have a trimmed beard and a hairy chest because that is what chics dig since the beginning of time, and shoulder-lenght hair is just long enough to run ones fingers through but not too long so it doesn't get caught in the go-kart engine.

I heard Mel Gibson did a remake of the Bible and it was pretty good, I just saw the end where the Indians were running around chasing that little dude and then the Spanish showed up.

What's with the trolling, MRD?

You seem to be doing a lot of it these last few days.


Better connection nowadays? The Pharao, Noah, Lot, Abraham and Moses went into a bar... Then again Moses might be excused, I would probably do the same if my boss throws around this kind of stuff and means it.
"(Phinehas) has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honour among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal."

Yes - but I don;t have a lot of time.

Consider, though.

Why should what is written in the Bible be true, and what does it mean if it is not?

There is a lot which can be said about the stories in the Old Testement - but the stories are just that. They do not necessarily reflect the Will of God.

[Major Robert Dump]

MRD is not trolling. MRD was recently accused of maturing and takes great issue with said accusation. MRD also goes into "troll" mode when MRD finds an open mic show large enough to enable him to troll large numbers of people in person, and needs to practice material.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

MRD is not trolling. MRD was recently accused of maturing and takes great issue with said accusation. MRD also goes into "troll" mode when MRD finds an open mic show large enough to enable him to troll large numbers of people in person, and needs to practice material.


So you're deliberately trolling so we'll think less of you?

OK - I'll play.

-1,000 internets to MRD.

Happier?

[Major Robert Dump]

Not until you report me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not until you report me.

Yeah? Well that's all you're getting. Ingrate.

[Ironside]

Yes - but I don;t have a lot of time.

Consider, though.

Why should what is written in the Bible be true, and what does it mean if it is not?

There is a lot which can be said about the stories in the Old Testement - but the stories are just that. They do not necessarily reflect the Will of God.

Well my original question was how to keep God as a constant (as it's done), when the early part of the holy book is consistantly decribing him as a de facto evil god in God's own words and actions. Godfearing indeed. Then later on ,we got "turn the other cheek" Jesus. It's inconsistant.

[a completely inoffensive name]

**** it. I'm gonna follow Kant's categorical imperative. Don't need no god there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well my original question was how to keep God as a constant (as it's done), when the early part of the holy book is consistantly decribing him as a de facto evil god in God's own words and actions. Godfearing indeed. Then later on ,we got "turn the other cheek" Jesus. It's inconsistant.

Well - the answer is essentially the same. The Bible is a collection of books written by people about God, not by God. So what you are describing is an inconsistancy in man's perception of the Divine, not the Divine itself.

Just because Aristotle thought you needed force in oder for motion to continue doesn't mean that was true until Newton said you didn't. It just means Aristotle was wrong. If you then want to ask how we can trust anything in the Bible, I refer you to the controvosy between augustine and Jerome I referenced earlier in the thread with the answer that we basically can't.

If you ask my why, having said this, I still believe in God I'm afraid I can't give you an answer beyond saying "I have faith", which I doubt will be satisfactory.