Do you want God to exist? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

kurto

12-04-2006, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i disagree.

a hardcore atheist will admit that they would prefer that no human being ever construct any definition of god and place faith in it.

hardcore atheists will vote no for sure.

this universe could have been constructed by a god that intended that the inhabitants not be able to prove or disprove the god existed. this is one possible definition that cannot be proven or disproven. a hardcore atheist is much more interested accessible knowledge.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheists.

Your question basically allows you to make up a God. Who wouldn't want t God of their creation?

I'm an atheist. I instantly voted yes.

My God would be very visible and active. She would appear constantly change her form to whatever is most attractive and sensual to her worshippers current tastes and desires.

She creates mankind so that we live as long as we wish and we stay young and healthy so long as we choose.

To pay proper respect to her requires a lot of devout sexuality. (no need for details here... but we'd all feel great about worshipping... take my word on it!)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Please explain to me why an atheist wouldn't want a God of their choosing. I'm truly curious.

RayBornert

12-04-2006, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i disagree.

a hardcore atheist will admit that they would prefer that no human being ever construct any definition of god and place faith in it.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Wanting there to ultimately be a god, whose existence is actually provable, is not in opposition to disapproving of humans constructing a god, whose existence completely unprovable by definition. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

believe me i understand what you're saying. you're not the first person that has wanted proof for a given definition and you certainly won't be the last.

i dont fault anybody for wanting to proof for a given definition before they will move toward it.

however, i tend to measure definitions of god based on whether or not proof or disproof is ascertainable. if we ever had a patent office for god defintions then i'd want the office to reject any definition that was provably true or provably false and accept on record any definition that resisted proof of any kind.

ray

Dan.

12-04-2006, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist. I instantly voted yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same.

Prodigy54321

12-04-2006, 08:19 PM

I'm went with yes..and not just for defintions of god where I would be happy for all eternity and what not..

the basic reason for my desire for there to be a god has to do with an infinite afterlife...I would want to be "alive" forever, even if it wasn't in heaven or the like...I would actually be fine if a god existed where I wouldn't be going to heaven, but rather, didn't or wouldn't pass the test, and therefore must live in the current imperfect world..

the extent to which I would be fine with this god existing isn't clear to me...but I imagine that at some point, such as being tortured for all eternity, I would rather just cease to exist.

valenzuela

12-04-2006, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist. I instantly voted yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prodigy54321

12-04-2006, 08:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i disagree.

a hardcore atheist will admit that they would prefer that no human being ever construct any definition of god and place faith in it.

hardcore atheists will vote no for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

your question didn't say that we would have to put "faith" in it...

my specific definition of god could actually exist, but as far as I know, it is extrememly unlikely (almost impossible IMO), so I still wouldn't put faith in it...

I think people have a huge problem with separating their wants from what there is sufficient evidence for..and here we get a god.

SBR

12-04-2006, 08:28 PM

Atheist voted no.

madnak

12-04-2006, 08:41 PM

I very deeply want there to be a God, even in a relatively "normal" (though certainly not Abrahamic) sense.

luckyme

12-04-2006, 08:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
- Answering no means that it is not possible for you to construct a favorable definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Constructing a meaningful god from scratch that doesn't contain absurdities is not easy, perhaps not possible. Let's face it, it hasn't been accomplished in 10,000 years.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-04-2006, 08:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i disagree.

a hardcore atheist will admit that they would prefer that no human being ever construct any definition of god and place faith in it.

hardcore atheists will vote no for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

your question didn't say that we would have to put "faith" in it...

my specific definition of god could actually exist, but as far as I know, it is extrememly unlikely (almost impossible IMO), so I still wouldn't put faith in it...

I think people have a huge problem with separating their wants from what there is sufficient evidence for..and here we get a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's correct. i put no constraints on the definition. it can be whatever you want it to be including something that requires no faith or belief should it actually reveal itself.

it's probably true that the average person is automatically induced into a context of "faith" when the word god is used.

so this then invites the distinction of identifying at least 2 types of definitions:

faith based definitions
non-faith based definitions

ray

RayBornert

12-04-2006, 09:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i disagree.

a hardcore atheist will admit that they would prefer that no human being ever construct any definition of god and place faith in it.

hardcore atheists will vote no for sure.

this universe could have been constructed by a god that intended that the inhabitants not be able to prove or disprove the god existed. this is one possible definition that cannot be proven or disproven. a hardcore atheist is much more interested accessible knowledge.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheists.

Your question basically allows you to make up a God. Who wouldn't want t God of their creation?

I'm an atheist. I instantly voted yes.

My God would be very visible and active. She would appear constantly change her form to whatever is most attractive and sensual to her worshippers current tastes and desires.

She creates mankind so that we live as long as we wish and we stay young and healthy so long as we choose.

To pay proper respect to her requires a lot of devout sexuality. (no need for details here... but we'd all feel great about worshipping... take my word on it!)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Please explain to me why an atheist wouldn't want a God of their choosing. I'm truly curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think i understand atheists very well.

the hardcore atheists i've encountered would filter all definitions based on the faith criteria; if there was no faith based element then they'd reject it as a valid definition of god for scientific reasons.

if, for instance, you claimed that the white turnip you just bought at the store was god and you began to worship it in your living room as evidence of your sincere belief, the atheists i know would be willing to admit that you defined your god and began to worship it; but they'd refuse to admit that turnip was god and there's no way on earth you'd get them to worship it, unless they intended to do an actual blasphemy lab test to prove that other faith based definitions might not be true when lightning doesn't zap them the moment they bend their knee (and yes i've talked with people that have done lab tests like this to prove their point)

ray

RayBornert

12-04-2006, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Atheist voted no.

[/ QUOTE ]

sbr,

do you typically accept as a matter of default context that definitions of god necessitate a "faith" element (i.e. that they resist experimental proof)?

and if yes then did you answer based on this context?

ray

madnak

12-04-2006, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the hardcore atheists i've encountered would filter all definitions based on the faith criteria; if there was no faith based element then they'd reject it as a valid definition of god for scientific reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think by "hardcore atheists" you're talking about the so-called "strong atheists," not those who take atheism seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
there's no way on earth you'd get them to worship it

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a different thing. I can want God to exist without even wanting to worship God. And though I do want to worship a God personally, and I might also "want God to exist" if God is defined as a turnip, I certainly don't want to worship a turnip.

chezlaw

12-04-2006, 11:01 PM

Easy Yes. Only important part of definition is benevolent.

If not benevolent then no.

chez

RayBornert

12-04-2006, 11:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Easy Yes. Only important part of definition is benevolent.

If not benevolent then no.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

an interesting point, regarding the "benevolent" aspect, is that it is most meaningful in a highly subjective way.

a great example might be the u.s. civil war where you had people of faith on both sides praying to a christian god for favor and victory.

history records that during the war, lincoln was once asked to participate in prayer to ask god to be on their side. lincoln declined; but he said he'd participate if they prayed to be on gods side.

lincoln understood that both sides were praying to their idea of a "benevolent" god.

ray

samsonite2100

12-04-2006, 11:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Easy Yes. Only important part of definition is benevolent.

If not benevolent then no.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world. I would vote no, b/c any sentient God-force would have to be a either an active psychopath or a passive ass hole.

Ben Young

12-05-2006, 12:07 AM

buddhist, voted no

chezlaw

12-05-2006, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Easy Yes. Only important part of definition is benevolent.

If not benevolent then no.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world. I would vote no, b/c any sentient God-force would have to be a either an active psychopath or a passive ass hole.

[/ QUOTE ]
Something like every sentient being coming to be pleased that both god and they exist. There are other possibilities but in general any other god would be an abomination.

The argument from evil places too much weight on this life. A benevolent god requires that this life is a minute part of something else.

(another possibility could be us chosing to eneter this life from some other place but with no memory of the other place while we are here)

chez

CaseS87

12-05-2006, 12:33 AM

RayBornert

12-05-2006, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Easy Yes. Only important part of definition is benevolent.

If not benevolent then no.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world. I would vote no, b/c any sentient God-force would have to be a either an active psychopath or a passive ass hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is nothing more than a problem of scale.

one possible solution is to

consider a civilization of sufficient grandeur, from whence you came and shall return, and the woes of this life, by comparison, are less than a scratch on the knee.

this universe could be last years video game in the context of those "heaven" like conditions.

many "matrix" like explanations exist as well.

another explanation is that one day somebody asked god what it would be like to live in a place where god was not - we all heard this and agreed the question was worthy and here we are; the crucifixion was god apologizing to us for answering the question in the first place.

i.e. a giant object lesson, as in
"ignorance is bliss"
"be careful what you wish for"

ray

hmkpoker

12-05-2006, 01:17 AM

I would love for the Christian god to exist, and to have some reason to believe that he does.

madnak

12-05-2006, 01:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Easy Yes. Only important part of definition is benevolent.

If not benevolent then no.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world. I would vote no, b/c any sentient God-force would have to be a either an active psychopath or a passive ass hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

They've got it right. The problem isn't that it's impossible for a benevolent God to exist, only infinitely unlikely. But if we can just declare whatever God we like...

Some wacky religions could even be considered consistent with a benevolent God (and some wacky interpretations of less wacky religions). Of course, since religion in the west is represented by the savagery of the Abrahamic faiths, it's hard to imagine any religion being truly compassionate. And even the eastern religions, etc, that claim passion don't quite live up to the task in most cases. But even if it's unlikely that elusive "something" exists, it sure would be nice.

Skidoo

12-05-2006, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the world exists at all. Whether things are the way you think they should be is beside the point.

chezlaw

12-05-2006, 01:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the world exists at all. Whether things are the way you think they should be is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]Its besides some points but not the benevolent point.

chez

HeavilyArmed

12-05-2006, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Do you want God to exist?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Only to the point where he gets to kick you around a little.

Skidoo

12-05-2006, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the world exists at all. Whether things are the way you think they should be is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]Its besides some points but not the benevolent point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the alternative is nonexistence, I'd say most people are doing quite well.

chezlaw

12-05-2006, 01:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the world exists at all. Whether things are the way you think they should be is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]Its besides some points but not the benevolent point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the alternative is nonexistence, I'd say most people are doing quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]
If non-existance is worse than god is very very very very evil.

chez

Sephus

12-05-2006, 01:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the world exists at all. Whether things are the way you think they should be is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]Its besides some points but not the benevolent point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the alternative is nonexistence, I'd say most people are doing quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]
If non-existance is worse than god is very very very very evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

not a good time for that particular typo.

chezlaw

12-05-2006, 01:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the world exists at all. Whether things are the way you think they should be is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]Its besides some points but not the benevolent point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the alternative is nonexistence, I'd say most people are doing quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]
If non-existance is worse than god is very very very very evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

not a good time for that particular typo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cant type and watch the best reason for believeing in god and empire.

chez

jogsxyz

12-05-2006, 02:46 AM

God does not exist. Still America should continue celebrating Christmas. There would be a recession if we stopped.

soon2bepro

12-05-2006, 03:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i disagree.

a hardcore atheist will admit that they would prefer that no human being ever construct any definition of god and place faith in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that "any definition" could include saying "God" is a cup filled with cold coke?

RayBornert

12-05-2006, 09:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i disagree.

a hardcore atheist will admit that they would prefer that no human being ever construct any definition of god and place faith in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that "any definition" could include saying "God" is a cup filled with cold coke?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. or a great white turnip. i don't presume to have the authority to tell others how they may or may not define their god.

my preference is that others would reserve the word god for faith based definitions; but the OP places no such constraint on the reader.

ray

soon2bepro

12-05-2006, 09:31 AM

MM kay, I was thinking, by the same token, if you put a definition of something you don't want, the answer is no.

But one of your items said it can be "anything we like" :P

However, the poll is still meaningless. If you want to find out how people feel about God, you should probably ask them about popular Gods, so you know the definition.

RayBornert

12-05-2006, 09:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
MM kay, I was thinking, by the same token, if you put a definition of something you don't want, the answer is no.

But one of your items said it can be "anything we like" :Pç

However, the poll is still meaningless. If you want to find out how people feel about God, you should probably ask them about popular Gods, so you know the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

the poll is hardly meaningless.

the poll suggests that everyone has a divine right to construct their own definition and place faith in that definition - including the right not to do so.

the poll is quite meaningful on several levels, when you consider that there are definitions of god that would indict the poll as heretical and blasphemous.

the poll, as written, is an entirely distinct and separate question apart from the popularity of any one definition.

ray

Alex-db

12-05-2006, 10:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the poll suggests that everyone has a divine right to construct their own definition and place faith in that definition - including the right not to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean that the poll suggests that everyone has the right or ability to fantasise. And that conclusion, while true, isn't much of a revalation.

Whether they have the intellect to judge which of their perceptions and fantasies are correct, or are the most reasonably likely view of reality, is a different question.

madnak

12-05-2006, 10:12 AM

Do you think that the results of the poll indicate anything useful? Or was it just a thought exercise to stimulate the imagination?

RayBornert

12-05-2006, 10:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the poll suggests that everyone has a divine right to construct their own definition and place faith in that definition - including the right not to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean that the poll suggests that everyone has the right or ability to fantasise. And that conclusion, while true, isn't much of a revalation.

Whether they have the intellect to judge which of their perceptions and fantasies are correct, or are the most reasonably likely view of reality, is a different question.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd rather the particular distinction focus on the words "want" and "belief" as being significantly different.

"belief" muddles the issue and can at times suggest evidence or proof in the mind of the believer (even though the belief cannot be experimentally tested).

"want" simply suggests a basic need or desire independent of belief or evidence or proof.

i very specifically used the word "divine" in order to suggest that the individual has the supreme power and authority to answer this question for themselves as opposed to a surrounding culture that would very willingly usurp that sacred right and impose an answer upon it's members if allowed to to so. history supports this observation.

ray

RayBornert

12-05-2006, 10:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that the results of the poll indicate anything useful? Or was it just a thought exercise to stimulate the imagination?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. it introduces the very succinct idea of:

"godism"

which is different than "theism"

if you answered yes then you are a godist.

if you answered no then you are not a godist.

the poll question itself is the scientific lab test to measure whether or not an individual is or is not a "godist"

the godism test is independent from any test that would measure any given definition of god.

ray

RayBornert

12-05-2006, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I voted no, I don't want some angry dude in the sky, testing people wantonly (ie. Job and Abraham) or flooding the world if he's not pleased with people (ie. Noah).

[/ QUOTE ]

so is there no alternate defintion to which you'd agree to?

ray

Alex-db

12-05-2006, 11:03 AM

I had a revelation a while back that seems relevant to your discusion of beliefs and wants.

I realised that if you switch the words 'believe' and 'belief' with the word 'hope' in things that theists say or write then they become valid.

I figured that theists probably misunderstood the difference between believing and hoping. And that a long period of hoping, confused with believing, probably eventually leads to the subject genuinly believing they believe.

You seemed to imply that atheists hope god does not exist. That conclusion is wrong, for example, a particular atheist could hope and wish that the Christian god exists, just as he could hope and wish that if that isn't the case then at least the flying spaghetti monster exists. But he can still correctly intellectually conclude that they are so unlikely as to make both ideas rather silly.

If you ask atheists whether they can use any stretch of their imagination to invent a Deity who would improve their enjoyment of life, then who wouldn't be able to answer yes? I would suggest that labelling everyone with imagination as a 'goddist' isn't very useful, and may be an offensive term to use when labelling people who have intellectually evolved passed the idea of gods.

bocablkr

12-05-2006, 11:18 AM

Hardcore atheist - easy NO.

luckyme

12-05-2006, 12:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the godism test is independent from any test that would measure any given definition of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

B's definition was "a tree in my back yard that has complete memory of everything that has occured on earth in the last 10,000 years. That's all."

A's definition was " a force that can cure all ills and give out $100 week to the poor, just arrived yesterday".

M through W have very unusual concepts as well, Z is a muslim , X is a mormon.
What possible use is categorizing both those wishes as 'godism'. IOW, if I tell you "C is a godist" is there something useful you know about C?

luckyme

kurto

12-05-2006, 12:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i think i understand atheists very well.

the hardcore atheists i've encountered would filter all definitions based on the faith criteria; if there was no faith based element then they'd reject it as a valid definition of god for scientific reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your OP says nothing about Faith. If the atheists created their own ideal God, it would not require Faith. The God would be present and measurable.

RayBornert

12-05-2006, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the godism test is independent from any test that would measure any given definition of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

B's definition was "a tree in my back yard that has complete memory of everything that has occured on earth in the last 10,000 years. That's all."

A's definition was " a force that can cure all ills and give out $100 week to the poor, just arrived yesterday".

M through W have very unusual concepts as well, Z is a muslim , X is a mormon.
What possible use is categorizing both those wishes as 'godism'. IOW, if I tell you "C is a godist" is there something useful you know about C?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

the poll question as worded is not to be indicted for failing to deliver additional information that we might find interesting or useful.

the poll question is a simple cusp that most people can readily answer; and it serves the godism lab test quite well.

i do not doubt in the least that there is probably a significant amount of diversity amongst those that answered yes.

ray

RayBornert

12-05-2006, 01:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think i understand atheists very well.

the hardcore atheists i've encountered would filter all definitions based on the faith criteria; if there was no faith based element then they'd reject it as a valid definition of god for scientific reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your OP says nothing about Faith. If the atheists created their own ideal God, it would not require Faith. The God would be present and measurable.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. agreed. the godism test allows any definition including but not limited to:

"science is god"
"the laws of physics are god"
"math and logic are god"

etc.

these are perfectly valid definitions and shouldn't be indicted just because they attempt to avoid faith based propositions.

ray

madnak

12-05-2006, 01:10 PM

The English paper I'm writing is God?

No wait, that would make me an anti-godist.

samsonite2100

12-05-2006, 01:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Easy Yes. Only important part of definition is benevolent.

If not benevolent then no.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how you think "God" however you define it, could be be benevolent given the state of the world. I would vote no, b/c any sentient God-force would have to be a either an active psychopath or a passive ass hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

They've got it right. The problem isn't that it's impossible for a benevolent God to exist, only infinitely unlikely. But if we can just declare whatever God we like...

Some wacky religions could even be considered consistent with a benevolent God (and some wacky interpretations of less wacky religions). Of course, since religion in the west is represented by the savagery of the Abrahamic faiths, it's hard to imagine any religion being truly compassionate. And even the eastern religions, etc, that claim passion don't quite live up to the task in most cases. But even if it's unlikely that elusive "something" exists, it sure would be nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, yeah, I guess I thought of one. If the amount of suffering endured by someone in their however short life was somehow directly proportionate to how good their life will be in their next life, and so forth. I.e. "God" has a certain amount of happiness and suffering that he has to spread around evenly over an infinity of reincarnations, and that it all balances out in the end, then yeah, that's a God I could get behind, or at least not mind the existence of.

Although thinking about it, the fact that he would have to parcel out set amounts of fortune and misfortune seems at odds with the definition of omnipotence. So He'd have to be non-omnipotent as well.

Basically, the only benevolent definitions of God I can imagine all involve a lack of power on his part. So, yeah, I'd be okay with God being some kind of cosmic accountant, although I can't say I'd really wish for it.

RayBornert

12-06-2006, 12:57 AM

most of the "benevolent" scenarios all boil down to a type of "it's all worth it in the end" explanation.

an example in this life might be climbing mount everest. it's hard as hell to do it. harder still if you're not going to use oxygen boosters. so why suffer the hardship? people have died badly.

this life could be that same thing but on a different scale.

ray.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 01:05 AM

guys,

assuming this poll is even close to being indicative of society in general, how would somebody like dawkins explain the propensity of godism in the context of evolution?

to rephrase: how would evolution explain the apparent human tendancy toward godism?

ray

MidGe

12-13-2006, 01:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
to rephrase: how would evolution explain the apparent human tendancy toward godism?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems you misunderstand evolution. Evolution gets into many dead-ends, this is most likely one of them, as may be the entire human race! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

madnak

12-13-2006, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
guys,

assuming this poll is even close to being indicative of society in general, how would somebody like dawkins explain the propensity of godism in the context of evolution?

to rephrase: how would evolution explain the apparent human tendancy toward godism?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people want a being that takes care of them, is nice to them, and protects them to exist? I'm guessing it has something to do with a desire to not starve or get eaten by tigers.

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
guys,

assuming this poll is even close to being indicative of society in general, how would somebody like dawkins explain the propensity of godism in the context of evolution?

to rephrase: how would evolution explain the apparent human tendancy toward godism?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Dawkins might come to the same conclusion that most of us have, which is that you suck at creating threads to demonstrate your points, since this is essentially asking "How can evolution explain entities who want things which make their lives super easy happy fun time."

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 11:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
to rephrase: how would evolution explain the apparent human tendancy toward godism?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems you misunderstand evolution. Evolution gets into many dead-ends, this is most likely one of them, as may be the entire human race! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't misunderstand it one bit.
yes. this current path could be a dead end.
it that your best answer?

ray

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
guys,

assuming this poll is even close to being indicative of society in general, how would somebody like dawkins explain the propensity of godism in the context of evolution?

to rephrase: how would evolution explain the apparent human tendancy toward godism?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people want a being that takes care of them, is nice to them, and protects them to exist? I'm guessing it has something to do with a desire to not starve or get eaten by tigers.

[/ QUOTE ]

the scientific evidence suggests that humans have the power to elevate their quality of life via immediately accessible faith - some do this better than others.

atheists typically couch this as a truth versus comfort type of an issue which is accurate within the context they support.

my first hand observations suggest that many godists desire their conciousness to continue beyond this life; and since there is zero scientific information available to describe the means by which to accomplish that, some people embrace godism with hope of an afterlife.

if atheists are correct and this life is all there is then by logic and reason alone that should be enough to put me at peace; but it does not. the facts are that i want quality of life right now; and, i want my conciousness to continue beyond this life.

so, what can atheism do for me right now? other than to tell me i cannot have what i want right now. if atheists are correct and my conciousness ends at death then who gives a rats ass what happens to the rest of humanity? give me a single damn reason to care about you if i am going to be erased.

if i'm going to be erased then does that not support the idea of doing what i can to attain quality of life right now - even by going so far as to embrace godism as a means of immediate comfort.

if the truth will only lower my quality of life then exactly how do i benefit from that? what is my motivation? im not going to remember the truth beyond this life anyway so what the hell does it matter?

ray

chezlaw

12-13-2006, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
if the truth will only lower my quality of life then exactly how do i benefit from that? what is my motivation? im not going to remember the truth beyond this life anyway so what the hell does it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter a damn except that even religous folk care about truth.

You don't very often here them say that religon makes them happy so they don't care if its true or not. Which is kinda strange because it's true.

chez

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
guys,

assuming this poll is even close to being indicative of society in general, how would somebody like dawkins explain the propensity of godism in the context of evolution?

to rephrase: how would evolution explain the apparent human tendancy toward godism?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Dawkins might come to the same conclusion that most of us have, which is that you suck at creating threads to demonstrate your points, since this is essentially asking "How can evolution explain entities who want things which make their lives super easy happy fun time."

[/ QUOTE ]

why the anger and bitterness dude?

i agree that evolution will first seek to survive and then fulfill. higher evolved beings have more demanding fulfillment requirements and in fact they have quite often demonstrated a propensity to voluntarily end this life if fulfillment is too low.

if atheists are correct then our current situation could be that this is a dead end path and evolution will fail us if it cannot find a way to supply the minimum critical threshold of quality of life.

faith then might be the evolutionary element that can deliver immediate quality of life while evolution and science find a way to survive.

from a scientific point of view, it is not irrational to assert that if you removed all faith from the human race - they would have comitted suicide or destroyed each other long ago - or never have left the stone age.

science delivers both surviveability (and im some cases increased chances for a wipeout - i.e. the bomb) and quality of life (i.e. hot and cold running water)

faith delivers immediately accessible quality of life and culture while science searches for results.

ray

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if the truth will only lower my quality of life then exactly how do i benefit from that? what is my motivation? im not going to remember the truth beyond this life anyway so what the hell does it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter a damn except that even religous folk care about truth.

You don't very often here them say that religon makes them happy so they don't care if its true or not. Which is kinda strange because it's true.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i think you are correct.

have mercy on those that have not yet found the freedom to demand that the form of godism they embrace deliver immediate quality of life.

"peace on earth ... good will toward men"

ray

kurto

12-13-2006, 12:35 PM

"from a scientific point of view, it is not irrational to assert that if you removed all faith from the human race - they would have comitted suicide or destroyed each other long ago - or never have left the stone age."

Sheesh. You can't say theists aren't imaginative. I suppose if you're going to have faith you're also going to think its alright to just make up ridiculous assumptions and pretend they're rational.

madnak

12-13-2006, 12:39 PM

This just sounds like trouble accepting death to me. You aren't making a good case for faith improving quality of life.

Does it? Well, it may. But there is no indication that the same level of fulfillment can't be achieved without faith - in fact, there's every indication that, though it may be harder, it may also be more rewarding.

kyro

12-13-2006, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I voted no, I don't want some angry dude in the sky, testing people wantonly (ie. Job and Abraham) or flooding the world if he's not pleased with people (ie. Noah).

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously misinterpreted the question.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 01:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"from a scientific point of view, it is not irrational to assert that if you removed all faith from the human race - they would have comitted suicide or destroyed each other long ago - or never have left the stone age."

Sheesh. You can't say theists aren't imaginative. I suppose if you're going to have faith you're also going to think its alright to just make up ridiculous assumptions and pretend they're rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok so supposed you had the chance to visit an ancient agrarian culture and convince them of one of the following beliefs:

a) individual consciousness ends at death
b) individual consciousness continues after death

which would you choose?
why?
what results would you predict?

ray

kurto

12-13-2006, 01:49 PM

Your question is irrelevent to my post. You make up assumptions and treat them like they're fact. That's fine for your own amusement but it seems kind of foolish to me to post your gross assumptions as fact on a discussion board.

You seem to think that people need faith to survive. I think you're projecting the weaknesses of some onto the entire human race.

Regarding your question... I imagine the answers would vary by individual/by tribe depending on their current beliefs, their level of intelligence, etc.

More importantly, your new question is just meandering away from my points about your earlier post. That is... you assume people need a belief in God.

Not sure why you think that or why you even think its relevent. Let's pretend that man needs to believe in some unknown entity. What does that mean exactly? It doesn't say ANYTHING about whether there is a God.

But, the existence of atheists alone is proof that man doesn't need to believe in Gods. Its quite obvious your assumption is wrong.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This just sounds like trouble accepting death to me. You aren't making a good case for faith improving quality of life.

Does it? Well, it may. But there is no indication that the same level of fulfillment can't be achieved without faith - in fact, there's every indication that, though it may be harder, it may also be more rewarding.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying that the best atheism can offer is for me to just make peace with the finality of death and being erased - i.e. i should embrace the god of ultimate death as a means to acquire quality of life right now.

is this correct?

please say this out loud for me:
"science is weak and impotent and has a tiny pee pee insofar as helping humans find a way to continue consciousness beyond this life (which is something that many want). our current strategy will be to encourage atheism and ask everyone to embrace ultimate death so as to draw attention away from our tiny pee pee. we are somewhat embarrassed that there is a major segment of the population that we are unable to satisfy and we'd prefer to avoid the subject altogether whenever possible."

case in point: dawkins has a tiny pistis

ray

kurto

12-13-2006, 02:00 PM

I think Ray's response reinforces the point in the post he responded to.

Ray needs religion because he's afraid of death. His bizarre and childish response about 'pee pees' and his asking "what atheism has to offer" him are what gives that impression.

BTW- Ray- Atheism isn't supposed to 'give' you anything. It simply means you don't believe in God because the evidence available would indicate there isn't one.

Clearly you have some mental crutch and you need to believe in God or you get scared. That's fine. But it doesn't mean there's any truth to your beliefs.

You draw comfort from religion and seem unable to accept the fact that others don't need religion as you do to feel comfortable. You don't seem to have the ability to consider that your needs and experiences aren't universal.

keith123

12-13-2006, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It simply means you don't believe in God because the evidence available would indicate there isn't one.

[/ QUOTE ]

what evidence? i don't really need a response, but this is not the position of many athiests.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 02:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your question is irrelevent to my post. You make up assumptions and treat them like they're fact. That's fine for your own amusement but it seems kind of foolish to me to post your gross assumptions as fact on a discussion board.

You seem to think that people need faith to survive. I think you're projecting the weaknesses of some onto the entire human race.

Regarding your question... I imagine the answers would vary by individual/by tribe depending on their current beliefs, their level of intelligence, etc.

More importantly, your new question is just meandering away from my points about your earlier post. That is... you assume people need a belief in God.

Not sure why you think that or why you even think its relevent. Let's pretend that man needs to believe in some unknown entity. What does that mean exactly? It doesn't say ANYTHING about whether there is a God.

But, the existence of atheists alone is proof that man doesn't need to believe in Gods. Its quite obvious your assumption is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

the question is not irrelevant.
there's no way for you to prove that a faithless culture would thrive.
there's no way for me to prove that a faithless culture would fail.
(although i'd like to point out that the quality of life in godless cultures is typically very gray - the u.s.s.r. being a well established modern example)
about the only thing we can prove is what each of us wants.

atheists are most definitely predicted to exist in any place where god is not.

as i've said elsewhere, my view is that if god exists then this universe is a lab experiment to observe the results of existence in a place where god is not. the why of this has to do with somebody or something wanting to acquire the knowledge maybe for no other reason than that of any scientist wanting to know the results of an experiment that interests them - curiosity.

ray.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 02:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think Ray's response reinforces the point in the post he responded to.

Ray needs religion because he's afraid of death. His bizarre and childish response about 'pee pees' and his asking "what atheism has to offer" him are what gives that impression.

BTW- Ray- Atheism isn't supposed to 'give' you anything. It simply means you don't believe in God because the evidence available would indicate there isn't one.

Clearly you have some mental crutch and you need to believe in God or you get scared. That's fine. But it doesn't mean there's any truth to your beliefs.

You draw comfort from religion and seem unable to accept the fact that others don't need religion as you do to feel comfortable. You don't seem to have the ability to consider that your needs and experiences aren't universal.

[/ QUOTE ]

kurt,

i fully accept an atheists' right and power to choose. and furthermore i choose to accept on good faith that you're telling the truth about the quality of your chosen life. i need you to acknowledge to me that i've openly admitted this to you as best i can.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW- Ray- Atheism isn't supposed to 'give' you anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you for saying this. it's honest.

now in all fairness, i want you atheists to not ridicule me simply because i'm attracted to the idea of continuing the existence game beyond this life.

and btw - i'm not scared of death as such - yes the potential physical pain associated with certain ends is not attractive (i'm sure i'm not alone in this regard) but otherwise i accept physical death as a natural part of being human. i don't see myself as inferior for wanting to continue to play the existence game beyond this human life.

ray

luckyme

12-13-2006, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
now in all fairness, i want you atheists to not ridicule me simply because i'm attracted to the idea of continuing the existence game beyond this life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rarely ridicule a person who is attracted to almost anything, even living with wombats. When they build backwards from the attraction and create a bizarre chain to end up claiming the actuality of their attraction ... that sometimes needs 2 dollops of ridicule, but even then not usually. It tends to bring out a sense of amazement at the abilities of the human mind.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
now in all fairness, i want you atheists to not ridicule me simply because i'm attracted to the idea of continuing the existence game beyond this life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rarely ridicule a person who is attracted to almost anything, even living with wombats. When they build backwards from the attraction and create a bizarre chain to end up claiming the actuality of their attraction ... that sometimes needs 2 dollops of ridicule, but even then not usually. It tends to bring out a sense of amazement at the abilities of the human mind.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont claim it to be true. (that's beliefism)
i claim that i want it to be true. (that's godism)

ray

arahant

12-13-2006, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]

now in all fairness, i want you atheists to not ridicule me simply because i'm attracted to the idea of continuing the existence game beyond this life.

and btw - i'm not scared of death as such - yes the potential physical pain associated with certain ends is not attractive (i'm sure i'm not alone in this regard) but otherwise i accept physical death as a natural part of being human. i don't see myself as inferior for wanting to continue to play the existence game beyond this human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok...time to join the thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif
I certainly won't ridicule you for this desire, and I don't think it makes you inferior. I think people may be better off without it, but I think it's an almost universal desire, going hand-in-hand with wanting to continue one's existence in THIS life.

Still, I find your arguments very odd. It's almost like you're saying 'i know it's not true, but i'm going to believe it because it makes me happy'. Atheism comes down to the very simple and obvious observation that there is no god. For most atheists, it's clear where the idea of god arose from, and it's clear that it's a silly belief.

FWIW, the argument about religion as an evolutionary good is a bit off...In order for religion NOT to be a part of most cultures, people would need to be built differently in the first place.

kurto

12-13-2006, 03:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
what evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science, history and logic.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

now in all fairness, i want you atheists to not ridicule me simply because i'm attracted to the idea of continuing the existence game beyond this life.

and btw - i'm not scared of death as such - yes the potential physical pain associated with certain ends is not attractive (i'm sure i'm not alone in this regard) but otherwise i accept physical death as a natural part of being human. i don't see myself as inferior for wanting to continue to play the existence game beyond this human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok...time to join the thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif
I certainly won't ridicule you for this desire,

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
and I don't think it makes you inferior.

[/ QUOTE ]

thak you again.

[ QUOTE ]
I think people may be better off without it,

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think i can prove you wrong here so i'll agree this is possible within the lives of certain individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
but I think it's an almost universal desire, going hand-in-hand with wanting to continue one's existence in THIS life.

[/ QUOTE ]

totally agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Still, I find your arguments very odd. It's almost like you're saying 'i know it's not true, but i'm going to believe it because it makes me happy'.

[/ QUOTE ]

foul.
i never said that.
my position is that:
nobody can prove that god exists.
nobody can prove that god does not exist.
and so far the evidence suggests that this universe is a place where god is not. my use of the word universe has to do with a pure knowledge barrier - much like the surface of a sphere or egg. the rules of such a sphere are that nothing inside the sphere (experiment) can move information across the barrier (in either direction). but forces (scientists) outside the sphere probably can do that. my use of the word universe would not extend to the place where these scientists exist (outside the experiment). such an experiment might be useful to the scientists but might not be pleasant at all times for those of us inside the sphere. it's possible that some of us are the the scientists performing the lab test upon ourselves.

this view is very much inline with a dawkins type "foam" of bubbles.

my views will not make sense if you dont use the word "universe" the same way i do. hope this makes sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism comes down to the very simple and obvious observation that there is no god.

[/ QUOTE ]

foul. that is a religious statement if you're asking us to accept on good faith that this is something that will be true for all time. the correct way to make your point is to say:

"at this point in time we do not have any hard objective evidence for the existence of god" (standard jodie foster stance in the film - contact)

[ QUOTE ]
For most atheists, it's clear where the idea of god arose from, and it's clear that it's a silly belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes indeed. it comes from a desire to continue the existence game beyond this human life.

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, the argument about religion as an evolutionary good is a bit off...In order for religion NOT to be a part of most cultures, people would need to be built differently in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok so you seem to be making the case that evolution has selected a version of humanity that has a widespread propensity to want there to be a god.

if that's what you're trying to say then i'm gonna definitely agree with you there.

ray

kurto

12-13-2006, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
there's no way for you to prove that a faithless culture would thrive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm... I believe others have already posted examples of faithless cultures.

More importantly, I don't have to provide proof. You're the one making claims that faith is a necessary component of human survival simply because you think so. You're the one making stuff up, not me.

[ QUOTE ]
(although i'd like to point out that the quality of life in godless cultures is typically very gray - the u.s.s.r. being a well established modern example)

[/ QUOTE ]
Aah yes... your one example of a Godless culture allows you to make generalizations about them. And its grayness can ONLY be attributed to its lack of religion.

Dude, seriously, take a logic course. You'll save yourself some embarrassment.

Also... first you state that there's no way to prove that a Godless culture could thrive. Then you give an example of a Godless culture. You're contradicting yourself.

kurto

12-13-2006, 03:35 PM

I think there's a slight misunderstanding.

[ QUOTE ]
now in all fairness, i want you atheists to not ridicule me simply because i'm attracted to the idea of continuing the existence game beyond this life.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one ridicules people for being attracted to the idea of people living longer or spiritually or whatever.

What I'm saying is bothersome is many people seem to think that religion MUST exist because they find the idea that life ends at death too depressing. That is... they're afraid of there being nothing so they decide that religion has to exist.

I'm sure most people would love for life to continue eternally (or at least longer then their life on earth)... but wanting that is no reason to follow a particular religion. Wanting something to be true has little bearing on the liklihood of it being true.

What we were saying about you having issues with death... it appeared you were defending religion not because of its likelihood of being true... it appeared you were appalled at the idea of atheism because you didn't like the implications that a person's conciousness ends with death. So you reject it.

We weren't ridiculing what you wanted. We were simply pointing out that you seemed to be deciding what's 'true' based on what you want.

keith123

12-13-2006, 03:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science, history and logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

none of those are very relevant.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there's no way for you to prove that a faithless culture would thrive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm... I believe others have already posted examples of faithless cultures.

More importantly, I don't have to provide proof. You're the one making claims that faith is a necessary component of human survival simply because you think so. You're the one making stuff up, not me.

[ QUOTE ]
(although i'd like to point out that the quality of life in godless cultures is typically very gray - the u.s.s.r. being a well established modern example)

[/ QUOTE ]
Aah yes... your one example of a Godless culture allows you to make generalizations about them. And its grayness can ONLY be attributed to its lack of religion.

Dude, seriously, take a logic course. You'll save yourself some embarrassment.

Also... first you state that there's no way to prove that a Godless culture could thrive. Then you give an example of a Godless culture. You're contradicting yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've not refuted anything until we both agree on the meaning of the word

"thive"

if thrive means only to survive - you win.
if thrive means high demand culture - i win.

let's talk about all of the people trying to leave the soviet union during the cold war. and let's also talk about all of the people trying to get into the united states right now.

successful evolution requires both surviveability and thriveability

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thrive
thrive (verb) 1. to prosper; be fortunate or successful.

ray

kurto

12-13-2006, 04:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science, history and logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

none of those are very relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not to people who decide to randomly believe things just because they want to. If I decide Unicorns are real, then science, history and logic are irrelevent to me.

Theists don't care about relevence, logic, science or history. We all know that already. They're illogical. What's your point?

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
guys,

assuming this poll is even close to being indicative of society in general, how would somebody like dawkins explain the propensity of godism in the context of evolution?

to rephrase: how would evolution explain the apparent human tendancy toward godism?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Dawkins might come to the same conclusion that most of us have, which is that you suck at creating threads to demonstrate your points, since this is essentially asking "How can evolution explain entities who want things which make their lives super easy happy fun time."

[/ QUOTE ]

why the anger and bitterness dude?

i agree that evolution will first seek to survive and then fulfill. higher evolved beings have more demanding fulfillment requirements and in fact they have quite often demonstrated a propensity to voluntarily end this life if fulfillment is too low.

if atheists are correct then our current situation could be that this is a dead end path and evolution will fail us if it cannot find a way to supply the minimum critical threshold of quality of life.

faith then might be the evolutionary element that can deliver immediate quality of life while evolution and science find a way to survive.

from a scientific point of view, it is not irrational to assert that if you removed all faith from the human race - they would have comitted suicide or destroyed each other long ago - or never have left the stone age.

science delivers both surviveability (and im some cases increased chances for a wipeout - i.e. the bomb) and quality of life (i.e. hot and cold running water)

faith delivers immediately accessible quality of life and culture while science searches for results.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, thats funny. I contemplated using 'suck' because I thought some people might think exactly that, that it was being hostile. Had I just said "are bad" or "could use a little help" you wouldn't think I was being hostile. I just thought suck was efficient and appropriate, no bitterness intended.

kurto

12-13-2006, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
let's talk about all of the people trying to leave the soviet union during the cold war. and let's also talk about all of the people trying to get into the united states right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you're making horrible (seriously, freshman logic class) basic logic errors. You're assuming that the reason people demanded one culture over another has to do with its religion. Honestly, you would fail out of logic 101 so fast.

Its almost impossible to discuss this with you because you routinely make up premises then treat them like fact.

You're also ignoring the fact that you are using exactly ONE example of a primarily atheistic society and then generalizing from it.

Seriously... take an entry level logic course then come back.

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 04:35 PM

Also, I'm a little tired of the "if this is all we have, then life is meaningless anyway and who cares about humanity?" argument. This is pointless, and positing an afterlife is exactly the same as positing God as a first cause...it just pushes it back a step. If our souls live for ever, then life is still just as 'meaningless!' Its just meaningless for longer. Unless life gets its meaning from within, you can always say, "Yeah, but so what?" Whats the point of eternal happiness? Its all so meaningless! We live forever, then what? WHY? Who cares? These questions only seem absurd because you think 'forever' changes them, but I don't see why it does. Permanence doesn't infer meaning, at least I don't see how it does.

kurto

12-13-2006, 05:16 PM

I was just checking this thread... I apologize if this came out sounding harsher then I intended.

But it it is important for you to realize that you are making some very basic errors in your arguments. Namely- you are drawing conclusions about the quality of societies without faith based on one example.

That's no different then me meeting one Blond Haired guy (let's call him Mike) and assuming that everything he believes, everything about him is representative of all Blond People. (Mike is poor. I guess people don't want to be blond then because blond people are poor.)

That's no different then you assuming that the reason people left Russia or wanted to get into America had to do with 'Faith.' There are much more obvious reasons you can look at that have nothing to do with Faith.

I believe Mexico is a Christian nation but people flee Mexico to come to the US. So, obvious there's some quality about our nation besides its predominant religion that draws people here.

Your sample size for 'godless cultures' is too small. Furthermore you haven't isolated what effects the faith has on the society to draw any conclusions.

At even a simple level, you haven't addressed why man would need to have some belief in God to survive. (I'm an atheist... can you articulate why I'm in danger as my "God Believing" system is obviously broken.)

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 06:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science, history and logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

none of those are very relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not to people who decide to randomly believe things just because they want to. If I decide Unicorns are real, then science, history and logic are irrelevent to me.

Theists don't care about relevence, logic, science or history. We all know that already. They're illogical. What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

the only logical reason to adopt a belief in unicorns would be if you could demonstrate a way to extract quality of life from the belief. i dont know of anybody that can demonstrate that.

atheists are unable to extract quality of life via faith.
they should not be indicted for that.

those trying to extract quality of life from faith should not be indicted either unless they are damaging the lives of others.

ray.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
let's talk about all of the people trying to leave the soviet union during the cold war. and let's also talk about all of the people trying to get into the united states right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you're making horrible (seriously, freshman logic class) basic logic errors. You're assuming that the reason people demanded one culture over another has to do with its religion. Honestly, you would fail out of logic 101 so fast.

Its almost impossible to discuss this with you because you routinely make up premises then treat them like fact.

You're also ignoring the fact that you are using exactly ONE example of a primarily atheistic society and then generalizing from it.

Seriously... take an entry level logic course then come back.

[/ QUOTE ]

kurt,

there's no logic flaw here.
dont get your panties into a wad man.

all i did was invite a discussion about the possible reasons why life in the late great u.s.s.r. sucked and why life here in the u.s. doesn't suck as bad for most people. never once did i say that life sucked in russia because it was atheistic. and never once did i say life was great here in the u.s. because of religious freedom. any logical flaws you think i made are pure wishes on your part.

my statement boils down to:

let's talk about apparent demand for u.s.s.r. culture and u.s. culture.

where's the logic flaw here dude?

ray

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was just checking this thread... I apologize if this came out sounding harsher then I intended.

But it it is important for you to realize that you are making some very basic errors in your arguments. Namely- you are drawing conclusions about the quality of societies without faith based on one example.

That's no different then me meeting one Blond Haired guy (let's call him Mike) and assuming that everything he believes, everything about him is representative of all Blond People. (Mike is poor. I guess people don't want to be blond then because blond people are poor.)

That's no different then you assuming that the reason people left Russia or wanted to get into America had to do with 'Faith.' There are much more obvious reasons you can look at that have nothing to do with Faith.

I believe Mexico is a Christian nation but people flee Mexico to come to the US. So, obvious there's some quality about our nation besides its predominant religion that draws people here.

Your sample size for 'godless cultures' is too small. Furthermore you haven't isolated what effects the faith has on the society to draw any conclusions.

At even a simple level, you haven't addressed why man would need to have some belief in God to survive. (I'm an atheist... can you articulate why I'm in danger as my "God Believing" system is obviously broken.)

[/ QUOTE ]

again, any logic errors you think i made are pure wishes on your part.

i simply invited you to disucss the demand for the cultures of the u.s.s.r. and the u.s.

is there a name for somebody that wants and wishes another person to make a logic flaw so they can transition to elitist statements about freshman logic courses?

ray

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm a little tired of the "if this is all we have, then life is meaningless anyway and who cares about humanity?" argument. This is pointless, and positing an afterlife is exactly the same as positing God as a first cause...it just pushes it back a step. If our souls live for ever, then life is still just as 'meaningless!' Its just meaningless for longer. Unless life gets its meaning from within, you can always say, "Yeah, but so what?" Whats the point of eternal happiness? Its all so meaningless! We live forever, then what? WHY? Who cares? These questions only seem absurd because you think 'forever' changes them, but I don't see why it does. Permanence doesn't infer meaning, at least I don't see how it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

if i tell you that i'm not able to be interested in a world view where i get erased at death and you tell me you're tired of hearing that, then where is our common ground?

if i want to continue playing the existence game and you dont then what do we do?

if i dont want to get erased and
if you do want to get erased then
how exactly do we relate to each other in this life?

ray

kurto

12-13-2006, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the only logical reason to adopt a belief in unicorns would be if you could demonstrate a way to extract quality of life from the belief. i dont know of anybody that can demonstrate that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Unicorns give me comfort, that is a reason. If I believe Unicorns protect me from evil... perhaps I believe Unicorns will give me eternal life...

[ QUOTE ]
those trying to extract quality of life from faith should not be indicted either unless they are damaging the lives of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a thread awhile back about why atheists get annoyed at the religious. There are many arguments about how religion is consistantly harming people (from manipulating people, to wars, to persecution of games, etc.)

kurto

12-13-2006, 07:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
let's talk about apparent demand for u.s.s.r. culture and u.s. culture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on. The entire thread has been based on religion. The only reason the USSR was brought up was because it was the one culture you could name that was secular.

You were trying to debate that atheistic societies couldn't thrive.

Now you want to pretend that the discussion was on something else?

kurto

12-13-2006, 07:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
again, any logic errors you think i made are pure wishes on your part.

i simply invited you to disucss the demand for the cultures of the u.s.s.r. and the u.s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. It appears you're being dishonest. (either that or you can't follow your own thread/remember what you wrote) Not really interested in discussing something with someone whose outright dishonest and can't remember his own posts...

Have fun with others. You lost me.

MidGe

12-13-2006, 10:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if i tell you that i'm not able to be interested in a world view where i get erased at death and you tell me you're tired of hearing that, then where is our common ground?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have none. To me, what makes life bearable is the fact that it will end. I could not conceive of a greater torment/bad joke than for it to continue forever in whichever way.

51cards

12-13-2006, 10:13 PM

My God is a cheeseburger. I'm hungry so I voted yes.

How is this not the stupidest thread ever? Or is it?

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 10:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
let's talk about apparent demand for u.s.s.r. culture and u.s. culture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on. The entire thread has been based on religion. The only reason the USSR was brought up was because it was the one culture you could name that was secular.

You were trying to debate that atheistic societies couldn't thrive.

Now you want to pretend that the discussion was on something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

incorrect.

in the exact same way that an atheist correctly claims that there is no evidence available for the existence of god, i suggested that, so far, i've not seen any evidence for a high demand atheistic culture.

if you want to speculate about the kinds of atheistic cultures that could exist in the future - fine. but lets be sure to point to the fact that such speculation would be somewhat "faith" based and/or "want" based and otherwise pure conjecture, until such a time as you obtained hard evidence and/or proof.

ray.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 10:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if i tell you that i'm not able to be interested in a world view where i get erased at death and you tell me you're tired of hearing that, then where is our common ground?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have none. To me, what makes life bearable is the fact that it will end. I could not conceive of a greater torment/bad joke than for it to continue forever in whichever way.

[/ QUOTE ]

but i thought atheists had access to as much quality of life as any godist. now you're suggesting otherwise. maybe non-godism isn't as great as you athiests claim, otherwise you might have a better life now such that you might actually be attracted to the idea of an afterlife.

your overall point is well taken. if i had very low quality of life right now and i had no reason to believe an afterlife would be any different i too would be attracted to the idea of being erased.

my present strategy is to "want" a superior after life - the experimental evidence, so far, suggests that this "want" is having a positive impact on my life right now.

ray.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 10:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My God is a cheeseburger. I'm hungry so I voted yes.

How is this not the stupidest thread ever? Or is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

the best godists are those able to extract quality of life from their definitions.

atheists can't or won't try to extract quality of life from any faith based idea.

neither strategy should be indicted.

however, your definition doesn't seem to value anything other than gluttony - is this a good strategy for you?

ray

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 10:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm a little tired of the "if this is all we have, then life is meaningless anyway and who cares about humanity?" argument. This is pointless, and positing an afterlife is exactly the same as positing God as a first cause...it just pushes it back a step. If our souls live for ever, then life is still just as 'meaningless!' Its just meaningless for longer. Unless life gets its meaning from within, you can always say, "Yeah, but so what?" Whats the point of eternal happiness? Its all so meaningless! We live forever, then what? WHY? Who cares? These questions only seem absurd because you think 'forever' changes them, but I don't see why it does. Permanence doesn't infer meaning, at least I don't see how it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

if i tell you that i'm not able to be interested in a world view where i get erased at death and you tell me you're tired of hearing that, then where is our common ground?

if i want to continue playing the existence game and you dont then what do we do?

if i dont want to get erased and
if you do want to get erased then
how exactly do we relate to each other in this life?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not about whether you want to get erased or not. Its assuming there is some fundamental difference between the two. What about eternity bestows this magical property of 'ultimate meaning' on life? My life has meaning to me, right now. The longer I live, perhaps the more meaning it will have, but thats not even close to being implied.

You aren't talking about whether you WANT to live forever or not. You are implying there can be no meaning in life UNLESS you live forever.

I get that your arguments all boil down to "this is my opinion and opinions can't be wrong" as a defense mechanism, but thats not whats going on here.

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 10:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My God is a cheeseburger. I'm hungry so I voted yes.

How is this not the stupidest thread ever? Or is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its pretty close, and its racking up replies because just about everyone is smart enough to figure out how bad it is!

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 11:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My God is a cheeseburger. I'm hungry so I voted yes.

How is this not the stupidest thread ever? Or is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

the best godists are those able to extract quality of life from their definitions.

atheists can't or won't try to extract quality of life from any faith based idea.

neither strategy should be indicted.

however, your definition doesn't seem to value anything other than gluttony - is this a good strategy for you?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

What does faith have to do with the OP? I see no reason to include any concept of faith in my God. OH WAIT THE OP WAS AN UNDERHANDED ATTEMPT TO MAKE A DIFFERENT POINT? Impossible.

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 11:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm a little tired of the "if this is all we have, then life is meaningless anyway and who cares about humanity?" argument. This is pointless, and positing an afterlife is exactly the same as positing God as a first cause...it just pushes it back a step. If our souls live for ever, then life is still just as 'meaningless!' Its just meaningless for longer. Unless life gets its meaning from within, you can always say, "Yeah, but so what?" Whats the point of eternal happiness? Its all so meaningless! We live forever, then what? WHY? Who cares? These questions only seem absurd because you think 'forever' changes them, but I don't see why it does. Permanence doesn't infer meaning, at least I don't see how it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

if i tell you that i'm not able to be interested in a world view where i get erased at death and you tell me you're tired of hearing that, then where is our common ground?

if i want to continue playing the existence game and you dont then what do we do?

if i dont want to get erased and
if you do want to get erased then
how exactly do we relate to each other in this life?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not about whether you want to get erased or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

it most definitly is.
i dont want to be erased.
you apparently do or dont care if you do.

[ QUOTE ]
Its assuming there is some fundamental difference between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

well i'd say getting erased versus not getting erased is not a small difference dude.

[ QUOTE ]
What about eternity bestows this magical property of 'ultimate meaning' on life?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't have hard answers.
i can only tell you what i want.
i'm more attracted to the idea of not getting erased.

[ QUOTE ]
My life has meaning to me, right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

same. and i'm willing to admit to you that "wanting" to exist beyond this life has a positive impact on my quality of life. deciding to not "want" to exist beyond this life would feel almost like wanting suicide.

[ QUOTE ]
The longer I live, perhaps the more meaning it will have, but thats not even close to being implied.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok.

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't talking about whether you WANT to live forever or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes i am.

[ QUOTE ]
You are implying there can be no meaning in life UNLESS you live forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

incorrect. i never once said that. i'm saying to you that i "want" to exist beyond this human life and i'm not able to understand how i could possibly increase the quality of my life by not wanting that. this desire is not an indictment on my ability to enjoy my life right now in the present.

[ QUOTE ]
I get that your arguments all boil down to "this is my opinion and opinions can't be wrong" as a defense mechanism, but thats not whats going on here.

[/ QUOTE ]

opinions can be wrong if they involve factual claims.

desires are what they are; desires can and do change over time.

ray

RayBornert

12-13-2006, 11:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My God is a cheeseburger. I'm hungry so I voted yes.

How is this not the stupidest thread ever? Or is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

the best godists are those able to extract quality of life from their definitions.

atheists can't or won't try to extract quality of life from any faith based idea.

neither strategy should be indicted.

however, your definition doesn't seem to value anything other than gluttony - is this a good strategy for you?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

What does faith have to do with the OP? I see no reason to include any concept of faith in my God. OH WAIT THE OP WAS AN UNDERHANDED ATTEMPT TO MAKE A DIFFERENT POINT? Impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes indeed. the OP doesn't ask any definition to be faith-based.

i agree that your definition could be entirely non-faith based - as in cheeseburger.

ray

kurto

12-13-2006, 11:45 PM

contradicted yourself again. Now it IS about USSR being atheist.

[ QUOTE ]
in the exact same way that an atheist correctly claims that there is no evidence available for the existence of god, i suggested that, so far, i've not seen any evidence for a high demand atheistic culture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really completely irrelevent. Whether or not its high demand was never the question. You started by saying that man needed religion to survive. Now you've changed it to being about 'high demand atheistic culture.' Just keep changing your answers as you avoiding everytime someone points out something irrational you said.

[ QUOTE ]
if you want to speculate about the kinds of atheistic cultures that could exist in the future - fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You're the one so puzzled by the possibility of a culture without religion. You can't imagine a world without your crutch. Frankly most of us don't find it all that hard to imagine.

[ QUOTE ]
but lets be sure to point to the fact that such speculation would be somewhat "faith" based and/or "want" based and otherwise pure conjecture, until such a time as you obtained hard evidence and/or proof.

[/ QUOTE ] Once again, others have already pointed out that there are cultures without religion. You want to pretend once again that they don't exist. Its really quite sad.

kurto

12-13-2006, 11:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but i thought atheists had access to as much quality of life as any godist. now you're suggesting otherwise. maybe non-godism isn't as great as you athiests claim, otherwise you might have a better life now such that you might actually be attracted to the idea of an afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is obvious to everyone but Ray that he's speaking for himself and not 'atheists'?

[ QUOTE ]
my present strategy is to "want" a superior after life - the experimental evidence, so far, suggests that this "want" is having a positive impact on my life right now.

[/ QUOTE ] It may be hurting your ability to think critically but if you're happy that's good!

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 12:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but i thought atheists had access to as much quality of life as any godist. now you're suggesting otherwise. maybe non-godism isn't as great as you athiests claim, otherwise you might have a better life now such that you might actually be attracted to the idea of an afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is obvious to everyone but Ray that he's speaking for himself and not 'atheists'?

[ QUOTE ]
my present strategy is to "want" a superior after life - the experimental evidence, so far, suggests that this "want" is having a positive impact on my life right now.

[/ QUOTE ] It may be hurting your ability to think critically but if you're happy that's good!

[/ QUOTE ]

and your critical thinking only strategy might limit your available quality of life.

your choice.
my choice.

my strategy is to retain some godism in my life and yield anywhere science delivers evidence that contradicts any godist theory i'm using.

i'm able to extract benefit from the "crutch" as you say while maintaining 100% control over my views should they need to be modified in light of better information.

your strategy is to never use the "crutch" for any reason.

ray

vhawk01

12-14-2006, 01:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm a little tired of the "if this is all we have, then life is meaningless anyway and who cares about humanity?" argument. This is pointless, and positing an afterlife is exactly the same as positing God as a first cause...it just pushes it back a step. If our souls live for ever, then life is still just as 'meaningless!' Its just meaningless for longer. Unless life gets its meaning from within, you can always say, "Yeah, but so what?" Whats the point of eternal happiness? Its all so meaningless! We live forever, then what? WHY? Who cares? These questions only seem absurd because you think 'forever' changes them, but I don't see why it does. Permanence doesn't infer meaning, at least I don't see how it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

if i tell you that i'm not able to be interested in a world view where i get erased at death and you tell me you're tired of hearing that, then where is our common ground?

if i want to continue playing the existence game and you dont then what do we do?

if i dont want to get erased and
if you do want to get erased then
how exactly do we relate to each other in this life?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not about whether you want to get erased or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

it most definitly is.
i dont want to be erased.
you apparently do or dont care if you do.

[ QUOTE ]
Its assuming there is some fundamental difference between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

well i'd say getting erased versus not getting erased is not a small difference dude.

[ QUOTE ]
What about eternity bestows this magical property of 'ultimate meaning' on life?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't have hard answers.
i can only tell you what i want.
i'm more attracted to the idea of not getting erased.

[ QUOTE ]
My life has meaning to me, right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

same. and i'm willing to admit to you that "wanting" to exist beyond this life has a positive impact on my quality of life. deciding to not "want" to exist beyond this life would feel almost like wanting suicide.

[ QUOTE ]
The longer I live, perhaps the more meaning it will have, but thats not even close to being implied.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok.

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't talking about whether you WANT to live forever or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes i am.

[ QUOTE ]
You are implying there can be no meaning in life UNLESS you live forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

incorrect. i never once said that. i'm saying to you that i "want" to exist beyond this human life and i'm not able to understand how i could possibly increase the quality of my life by not wanting that. this desire is not an indictment on my ability to enjoy my life right now in the present.

[ QUOTE ]
I get that your arguments all boil down to "this is my opinion and opinions can't be wrong" as a defense mechanism, but thats not whats going on here.

[/ QUOTE ]

opinions can be wrong if they involve factual claims.

desires are what they are; desires can and do change over time.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

You made the assertion that life becomes meaningless if you are an atheist. This is a factual claim, whether its able to be substantiated or not. Now you are trying to claim you did no such thing. Why would anyone care what you want to happen? I want to have five strippers in my room when I go in there. So? Just because you want there to be eternity doesnt mean there will be, and even more, it doesnt make that somehow more meaningful.

I really don't understand how you came up with this dichotomy of you wanting to exist forever versus me wanted not to. I wouldn't mind, I guess, of course it depends on what that entails. But that is irrelevant to the point. There is an answer, we either die or we don't, and I'm saying that believing we probably will doesn't make life meaningless.

vhawk01

12-14-2006, 01:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but i thought atheists had access to as much quality of life as any godist. now you're suggesting otherwise. maybe non-godism isn't as great as you athiests claim, otherwise you might have a better life now such that you might actually be attracted to the idea of an afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is obvious to everyone but Ray that he's speaking for himself and not 'atheists'?

[ QUOTE ]
my present strategy is to "want" a superior after life - the experimental evidence, so far, suggests that this "want" is having a positive impact on my life right now.

[/ QUOTE ] It may be hurting your ability to think critically but if you're happy that's good!

[/ QUOTE ]

and your critical thinking only strategy might limit your available quality of life.

your choice.
my choice.

my strategy is to retain some godism in my life and yield anywhere science delivers evidence that contradicts any godist theory i'm using.

i'm able to extract benefit from the "crutch" as you say while maintaining 100% control over my views should they need to be modified in light of better information.

your strategy is to never use the "crutch" for any reason.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

But then all of this becomes completely silly. If there is absolutely no attempt whatsover at an objective standard, then who cares what you have to say? My strategy guarantees me 100% happiness, so its obviously superior to yours which just tries to maximize your happiness. Seriously, it does, 100%.

kurto

12-14-2006, 03:01 AM

Funniest nonsense of the week:

"and your critical thinking only strategy might limit your available quality of life."

Yes... I am certainly limiting my quality of life by attempting to use critical thought.

Thanks for that one.

madnak

12-14-2006, 09:33 AM

The point is that acceptance of death may increase quality of life more than hope of immortality.

I'm not even sure they're mutally exclusive. But I think accepting death is very good goal, in any case. Most people who believe in afterlife still freak out about death. I don't think such a belief plays quite the role you seem to think.

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 10:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that acceptance of death may increase quality of life more than hope of immortality.

I'm not even sure they're mutally exclusive. But I think accepting death is very good goal, in any case. Most people who believe in afterlife still freak out about death. I don't think such a belief plays quite the role you seem to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the "death" that is being discussed here has to do with the final end of consciousness. the body itself isn't the issue (unless of course you think that there is no consciousness without a body).

an atheist asserts that consciousness is erased when the body dies and also claims they've made peace with that and that they accept that consciousness does not continue on after physical death.

i've got no problem with any of this except that the possibility of consciousness continuing beyond a physical body is an attractive idea to me. and, i like talking with those who also think it's an attractive idea. and, it's kind of annoying to listen to atheists discuss this when they can't or won't contribute anything more useful to this idea - mostly because their scientific critical thinking god won't permit them to postulate and contemplate "what if's" beyond their 5 senses and viable experimentation.

i am what you might call a theoretical godist; i enjoy discussing what might exist beyond the knowledge barrier (and yes i accept a spherical universe (in a foam) with a surface knowledge barrier as axiomatic - i think godel more or less showed that i dont have any choice but to do this)

it may be that a critical thinking practical experimentalist who is enthralled with what can be accomplished inside a laboratory won't or can't value any theories about what might be on the other side of the knowledge barrier (because it takes a different kind of mind) and that i have to make peace with that instead of trying to get them to be what they won't or can't be.

it's like trying to mix oil and water.
oil is not to be indicted.
water is not to be indicted.
but trying to get them to be friends might not be useful.

ray

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 10:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Funniest nonsense of the week:

"and your critical thinking only strategy might limit your available quality of life."

Yes... I am certainly limiting my quality of life by attempting to use critical thought.

Thanks for that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't be so smug.
i too use critical thought.
you don't have a monopoly.
and we're not really that special just because we're able to use critical thought - i.e. it has limited value. and it's not the messiah you think it is.

i dont allow the critical thought god to control what i'm allowed to contemplate any more than i'd allow a religion to control what i'm allowed to contemplate.

the act of constructing and embracing axioms is entirely independent of both religion and critical thought.

ray

madnak

12-14-2006, 11:21 AM

I think there are more than two kinds of minds, here. More than just polar and nonpolar. So the gap you're trying to bridge seems a bit too warped to bother with.

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are more than two kinds of minds, here. More than just polar and nonpolar. So the gap you're trying to bridge seems a bit too warped to bother with.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is fair.

ray.

West

12-14-2006, 03:34 PM

Do you say no because you see being Buddhist as precluding answering yes? Just curious, because I wouldn't think it would.

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you say no because you see being Buddhist as precluding answering yes? Just curious, because I wouldn't think it would.

[/ QUOTE ]

this depends on what you'd consider to be within your standards for accepting something as a definition of god.

the OP has no restrictions other than your personal desire.

there is a difference between recognizing that some definitions seem to readily suggest the word "god"

and actually wanting any definition to exist.

it seems perfectly reasonable to embrace a religion (like yours) as a whole and treat it with god like status - even though you might not use the word "god".

ray

West

12-14-2006, 06:25 PM

the actual "godist" scenario that seems the likeliest to me, would have to frame the world we live in as a direct reflection of our ourselves, with "god" operating as the rules of our existence, which could extend beyond a single lifetime (reincarnation). karma would be a part of these rules.

the "godless" alternative essentially means that all of actions will ultimately be meaningless.

MidGe

12-14-2006, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the "godless" alternative essentially means that all of actions will ultimately be meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a lot of hogwash. The godless position essentially means that all actions have a immediate meaning, of themselves, and should be decided on that basis, not a nebulous, unprovable reason, some time in a fictitious future.

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 08:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the "godless" alternative essentially means that all of actions will ultimately be meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a lot of hogwash. The godless position essentially means that all actions have a immediate meaning, of themselves, and should be decided on that basis, not a nebulous, unprovable reason, some time in a fictitious future.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. and so you and most of the entire atheist population have iterated repeatedly as if that should be enough to persuade godists to motivate themselves toward moral behavior the same way you do.

but i guess you guys have a hearing problem because many of the godists here are telling you guys that if you want them to act morally then they need to want and believe in an after life in order to do that (which gives them hope) - but apparently none of you are able to accept that as a valid means for them.

i for one am very greatful that it's not possible to prove there is no afterlife because if that could be proven as a matter of scientific fact then there's not much else to maximize in this life other than to satisfy curiosity about pretty much any experience you wanted to collect regardless of the impact on others - why? because others dont matter anymore - everyone gets erased like a bad video game anyway and they wont remember anything - this is a rational conclusion when it comes to people that are curiosity driven. and the observable evidence seems to be that there are a lot of curious people here.

i can tell you that one of the reasons that i want to be moral is because i feel connected somehow to the place where god is. this strategy works for me. so how would it serve your best interest if i forsake the thing i use as a moral compass?

ray

West

12-14-2006, 08:53 PM

MidGe

12-14-2006, 10:06 PM

Ray and West,

We have been there many times before. If you both are representative of theists, you are confirming my suspicions that most are psychopaths with no innate sense of morality. It suspect however that most have been perverted by indoctrination and the very model that their god is.

As I have said before, sorry to repeat, but hey, the empty same arguments keep on coming back from theists. True morality is only possible within an atheist framework. A lot of people have a very natural sense of compassion which manifest as moral action without need for tyrant punishment in the future. Of course, it seems obvious that there are a lot of potential psychopaths which are prevented from acting in an immoral way by the shackles of delusions or god concept. I guess it is fortunate.

arahant

12-14-2006, 10:37 PM

Prodigy54321

12-14-2006, 10:59 PM

artificial motivations are utilized everyday with things such as anti-drug laws...the problem with artificial motivation of the extraworldly kind is that it doesn't really exist.

it is entirely plausible that belief in extra punishment for specific deeds causes a person to commit less of those deeds...but that is their problem.

true morality can only be obtained by considering real world rewards and consequences...

any belief in nonexistent rewards or cosequences throws off true morality...it is despicable

if a person believes that if they eat an apple, they will be eaten by a dragon the next day..they will be less likley to eat apples...but in reality, there is no such consequence..and this person's false belief decreases their quality of life.

madnak

12-14-2006, 11:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "ultimately", what I mean is that if in 100 years the kind, generous, selfless person essentially meets the same end as criminal murderous dictator, then concepts like morality and justice don't mean much individually in the long term. The man who kills someone for their wallet with $100 in it may see the immediate meaning of his action to be that he is $100 richer, and decides on that basis - what difference will it make to him one way or the other once he is dead in a "godless" existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

And why should it make a difference to him? You're suggesting that he should be making his decisions based purely on his own pleasure.

And this is one of those key points where those who are religious and those who are spiritual differ.

The spiritual do the right thing because it's the right thing. Forget about defining "right," the point is that they have an urge, a passion even, that makes doing the right thing an end in itself. But you, you're posting here with the raw explicit assumption that a person should only do the right thing if it "makes a difference to him," if it's in his own accounted interest.

There really are people, even "strong" atheists, who take the spiritual approach. People for whom the threat of a ball and chain isn't necessary to do good. An end in itself, not a way to avoid hell or get into heaven. Perhaps that concept is beyond you, but if you simply accept the premise for the sake of argument, your question of "what difference will it make to him" is immediately absurd. He's not doing it so that he'll "get something" out of it, or if he is it's just the "moral satisfaction" or what have you.

But hey, maybe humanity really is the pathetic deranged thing you're making it out to be. Maybe we really do need a big man with a big stick to "keep us in line." If that's true, if it's our inherent inescapable nature to be greedy pigs and seek nothing beyond materialistic gain, then the honest man is the one who goes ahead and does it. Morality isn't a matter of time preference, for God's sake. You want to talk about empty codes? "It's wrong to do that because God will hurt you if you do," that's real substantial. I'd rather live in a hell of honorable men than in a heaven of sycophants who are as evil as any demon but spin their way onto the top of a cloud with good PR, thanks.

Prodigy54321

12-14-2006, 11:12 PM

I want to add a scenario..

a person is contemplating whether or not to attempt to steal a $1 pack of gum from a convenience store.

if he believes that this act will cause him to be punished in the afterlife, then it may stop him from stealing..something which we would all consider as a good thing.

consider that this is essentially the same thing as having a fake security camera in the store

both are indeed deterents

in both cases, smart people could come to the conclusion that they are being duped.

what is most curious is that the smart people who have concluded that the security camera is actually a fake are less are less likely to steal the gum /images/graemlins/smile.gif

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 01:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ray and West,

We have been there many times before. If you both are representative of theists, you are confirming my suspicions that most are psychopaths with no innate sense of morality. It suspect however that most have been perverted by indoctrination and the very model that their god is.

As I have said before, sorry to repeat, but hey, the empty same arguments keep on coming back from theists. True morality is only possible within an atheist framework. A lot of people have a very natural sense of compassion which manifest as moral action without need for tyrant punishment in the future. Of course, it seems obvious that there are a lot of potential psychopaths which are prevented from acting in an immoral way by the shackles of delusions or god concept. I guess it is fortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]

midge,

i cant continue to discuss anything with you until you get the correct view of me; your previous statements would suggest things about me that are not true; i understand the convenience that sweeping labels provides but i'm gonna need you to get a better idea of who i am and what i embrace before making comments like that in my direction.

i dont pretend to speak for west. he can do that himself.

i am a godist (not a theist)
i want god to exist.

this is very different than
i am a theist - i believe god exists.

if you always equate "tyrant punishment in the future" any time you see or hear the word god then you're childish and you need to process information with slightly more granularity than this; if you've read even half the posts i've written on these topics you'd know by now that that is most definitely not included in my definition. i agree with you that monster definitions of god can have very deleterious effects on those that embrace such definitions. please have mercy on these people and see them as victims; dont shoot the wounded.

i am not one of these people you describe.

if you're unable to have a conversation with a godist because you consider any discussion about a definition of god as a psychotic proposition then we cant really continue because your mind isn't able to allow others to construct healthy definitions of god.

please view me as somebody that has a very healthy definition of god. don't assume anything about my definition until you confirm it with me otherwise you'd be drawing conclusions about information you dont have.

ray

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 01:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
artificial motivations are utilized everyday with things such as anti-drug laws...the problem with artificial motivation of the extraworldly kind is that it doesn't really exist.

it is entirely plausible that belief in extra punishment for specific deeds causes a person to commit less of those deeds...but that is their problem.

true morality can only be obtained by considering real world rewards and consequences...

any belief in nonexistent rewards or cosequences throws off true morality...it is despicable

if a person believes that if they eat an apple, they will be eaten by a dragon the next day..they will be less likley to eat apples...but in reality, there is no such consequence..and this person's false belief decreases their quality of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think i can agree with everything here. i'm not a fan of any terrorist version of god (i.e. monster gods) that would seek to use fear as a behavior modification method. fear only has temporary effects any way; it's not long lasting; it's a negative tool.

quality of life right now is the most powerful reward there is.

it is possible to construct a definition of god that is not a terrorist.

ray

MidGe

12-15-2006, 03:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i want god to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes so do I, or at least I would like a good god to exist. OTOH I would like father xmas to exist too and bombard me with presents every year till I die!

Unfortunately both wishes/hopeful thinking have been shattered by reality as I and other experience it.

Life and consciousness are too repugnant in some respects to be able to attribute them to a "good" entity responsible. Failing the goodness criteria, any other quality that the entity maybe endowed with, becomes even more monstrous.

Note that I am not bitter or hard up in life. Rather the contrary, I have had, and have, a very privileged life, which is perhaps why I had the time and was able to get rid of the denials that so evidently affects so many. It may have to do with evolution, seeing or concentrating on the good, may increase one's survival rate, not a concern of mine. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So I hope we are closer together in viewpoints than you think. You do wish for a good god, and I sympathize very much, but what I see of the world, and existence, clearly is not compatible with such a being.

arahant

12-15-2006, 04:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[i am a godist (not a theist)

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF?!
This word keeps popping up. Is there some reason you need to invent a new word for yourself? Are you really that special?
Since you have decided to make up a word, could you please provide a definition for it?

luckyme

12-15-2006, 04:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i am a godist (not a theist)
i want god to exist.

this is very different than
i am a theist - i believe god exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using those definitions -
theist - believs god exists.
atheist - doesn't believe god exists.
godist - wants there to be a god
agodist - doesn't want there to be a god.

So, we could have-
godist theiests.
agodist theists.
godist atheists ( we have some on here).
agodist atheists ( ditto).

Like many dichotomies, everybody still won't fit. It'd take some serious shoehorning to get me into one of those 4.

I don't think the 'godist' grouping plays any useful role in philosophical discussion, it's about as important as eye color in the big scheme of things.

luckyme

arahant

12-15-2006, 04:52 AM

danke

Mickey Brausch

12-15-2006, 05:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist. I instantly voted yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same.

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 10:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[i am a godist (not a theist)

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF?!
This word keeps popping up. Is there some reason you need to invent a new word for yourself? Are you really that special?
Since you have decided to make up a word, could you please provide a definition for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

godist - noun - one who wants god to exist.
godism - noun - the desire for god to exist.

note that these are quite different than the proper definitions for theist and theism wherin the definition of god is already somewhat defined.

godism supports the idea that all human beings have a divine right to define the god they want - this includes an atheists divine right to decline to want the theistic definition.

if you read the definition of theism and atheism you will note that atheism is actually a rejection of a very specific class of definitions of god and not necessarily a rejection of all possible definitions.

an agodist would presumably reject all possible definitions - not just the theistic definition.

ray

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am a godist (not a theist)
i want god to exist.

this is very different than
i am a theist - i believe god exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using those definitions -
theist - believs god exists.
atheist - doesn't believe god exists.
godist - wants there to be a god
agodist - doesn't want there to be a god.

So, we could have-
godist theiests.
agodist theists.
godist atheists ( we have some on here).
agodist atheists ( ditto).

Like many dichotomies, everybody still won't fit. It'd take some serious shoehorning to get me into one of those 4.

I don't think the 'godist' grouping plays any useful role in philosophical discussion, it's about as important as eye color in the big scheme of things.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

there are a lot of people in this world that were given a definition of god in their youth that they then rejected later on in life - i am one of those people.

in hindsight i now know that i am a godist because when i ask myself if there is any definition of god i'd favor i can very sincerely say yes.

however, i am against many definitions of god for various reasons - some of those reasons i share with other atheists here. i wont call myself an atheist because the word is wrongly confused with the rejection of all possible definitions of god (i.e. agodism). i am very atheistic toward any definition of god that simultaneously claims to have invented the universe but refuses responsibility for the experiment. i have accumulated more than a small amount of evidence to show that such a definition causes a considerable amount of anger either consciously or subconsciously and thus it is an unhealthy definition.

i didnt make progress until i found the courage to re-invent a definition of god wherein the crucifixion was an apology to the human race and not a condemnation.

"peace on earth ... good will toward men"

ray

luckyme

12-15-2006, 11:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i wont call myself an atheist because the word is wrongly confused with the rejection of all possible definitions of god (i.e. agodism).

[/ QUOTE ]

Read your definitions again. You may want to play Humpty Dumpty again.

theism is about belief in somethings existance.
godism is about the desire for something to exist.

If you're going to make up nonsense poetry, at least make it rhyme, you'll find it easier to remember that way.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 11:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wont call myself an atheist because the word is wrongly confused with the rejection of all possible definitions of god (i.e. agodism).

[/ QUOTE ]

Read your definitions again. You may want to play Humpty Dumpty again.

theism is about belief in somethings existance.
godism is about the desire for something to exist.

If you're going to make up nonsense poetry, at least make it rhyme, you'll find it easier to remember that way.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

read the definition of theist and theism and please note that its attached definition of god already defines much.

godism invites humans to reject the notion that it's wrong to modify their working definition of god. it allows us to begin with a clean slate and construct a definition from scratch as opposed to being forced to begin with the theistic version.

ray

luckyme

12-15-2006, 11:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i am a godist (not a theist)
i want god to exist.

this is very different than
i am a theist - i believe god exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, I read them... now what?

luckyme

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 12:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am a godist (not a theist)
i want god to exist.

this is very different than
i am a theist - i believe god exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, I read them... now what?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

my bad. i shortened the definitions and caused some confusion. here you go:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism

notice that the proper definition of theism begins with minimally stated definition of god and not a clean slate.

godism begins with a clean slate and invites humans to write a healthy definition for themselves.

an agodist would presumably decide not to write.
(i.e. would leave the clean slate untouched)

ray

luckyme

12-15-2006, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
the·ism /&#712;&#952;i&#618;z&#601;m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how this standard definition doesn't cover your newly revised 'godism' one. I actually preferred you original 'godism' ( a wish for a god/s), now it just seem superfluous. Your orginal played a role, just a non-needed one.

I found one for Godism also, it's the Moonies political approach, so you may want a new one anyway.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 12:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
the·ism /&#712;&#952;i&#618;z&#601;m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how this standard definition doesn't cover your newly revised 'godism' one. I actually preferred you original 'godism' ( a wish for a god/s), now it just seem superfluous. Your orginal played a role, just a non-needed one.

I found one for Godism also, it's the Moonies political approach, so you may want a new one anyway.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

the op uses the word god for lack of a better and more convenient label. read the op again and please note that there is nothing whatsoever initially imposed upon the definition of the word. please acknowledge this so i know that you understand this.

the word god as used in the theistic definition begins with an already constructed definition. please achknowledge this so i know that you understand this.

godism begins with a clean slate definition of god.
theism begins with the god wording cited in the definition.

ray

West

12-15-2006, 01:54 PM

West

12-15-2006, 01:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just because these guys say their morals are based on religion doesn't make it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say this, and it is not true in my case.

West

12-15-2006, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And why should it make a difference to him? You're suggesting that he should be making his decisions based purely on his own pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting that he should, I'm suggesting that some people would and do.

West

12-15-2006, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
true morality can only be obtained by considering real world rewards and consequences...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's crazy..is the world perfect? Are all laws perfect? Law enforcement? Etc etc

Prodigy54321

12-15-2006, 02:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
true morality can only be obtained by considering real world rewards and consequences...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's crazy..is the world perfect? Are all laws perfect? Law enforcement? Etc etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that any of them are prefect..they clearly are not..

what people do, what is right and wrong for them, is based on rewards and consequences..we weigh them and decide what is right and what is wrong...when you introduce nonexistent rewards or consequences, the ability to come to the correct or best conclusion is hindered.

West

12-15-2006, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
true morality can only be obtained by considering real world rewards and consequences...

[/ QUOTE ]That's crazy..is the world perfect? Are all laws perfect? Law enforcement? Etc etc

[/ QUOTE ] I never said that any of them are prefect..they clearly are not..

what people do, what is right and wrong for them, is based on rewards and consequences..we weigh them and decide what is right and what is wrong...when you introduce nonexistent rewards or consequences, the ability to come to the correct or best conclusion is hindered.

[/ QUOTE ]

That brings us back to the psychopath who kills a man for the $100 in his wallet, simply because he is confident he can get away with it (or maybe he doesn't even consider his chances - but say he gets away with it this time). So in his particular case, true morality as you are defining it would make his action "moral" (and of course, make true morality relative, in a way that makes the term an oxymoron IMO).

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
true morality can only be obtained by considering real world rewards and consequences...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's crazy..is the world perfect? Are all laws perfect? Law enforcement? Etc etc

[/ QUOTE ]

west,

i want to step in here and respond to the 'true morality' statement as well. here are 4 possibilities:

a) amoral present life and amoral after life.
b) amoral present life and moral after life.
c) moral present life and amoral after life.
d) moral present life and moral after life.

atheists are in favor of rejecting choices a and b and so am i. they also correctly make the case that if a godist or theist becomes too fixated on the next life that they might lose some or all of their motivation to behave in this life - i happen to agree with atheists on this point mostly because i was raised around some people who had earthly lives that sucked and thus they spent a good deal of time focusing on the grandeur of the next life instead of trying to live well right now. this dynamic is also being played out in the lives of terrorists with torso bombs forsaking this life for the next while damaging as many of the living as they can in the process.

so it makes sense that a lot of people are disturbed at the thought of people not choosing option c or d.

atheists go too far if they assert that anybody who forms any ideas whatsoever about an after life is a danger to this world.

i'm not willing to surrender my divine freedom to build a definition of god and the after life just because some people in this world have given up on this life.

btw i am clearly in favor of option d.
i want quality of existence right now and i dont want my quality of existence to end when my body does.

ray

Prodigy54321

12-15-2006, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
true morality can only be obtained by considering real world rewards and consequences...

[/ QUOTE ]That's crazy..is the world perfect? Are all laws perfect? Law enforcement? Etc etc

[/ QUOTE ] I never said that any of them are prefect..they clearly are not..

what people do, what is right and wrong for them, is based on rewards and consequences..we weigh them and decide what is right and what is wrong...when you introduce nonexistent rewards or consequences, the ability to come to the correct or best conclusion is hindered.

[/ QUOTE ]

That brings us back to the psychopath who kills a man for the $100 in his wallet, simply because he is confident he can get away with it. So in his particular case, true morality as you are defining it would make his action "moral" (and of course, make true morality relative, in a way that makes the term an oxymoron IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

true morality IS relative morality

it is the only morality that exists (and can exist IMO)

if it is worth it to that man..he has properly evaluated the situation and come to the conclusion that it would be best for him to kill the guy and take his money, then it is morally correct (as far as he is concerned) for him to do so..

it is our natural disgust for acts like this, as well as analysis of social agreements that will ultimately help us, that inspires us to develop deterents.

I want to clear up something...

I think you will take my above statements to mean that if the guy has little to no chance of getting caught, there are no consequences, so he should kill the guy and take his money...this would be incorrect...

humans have developed a conscience and uneasyness about things for a reason..that factors in..as well as many other things.

luckyme

12-15-2006, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
atheists go too far if they assert that anybody who forms any ideas whatsoever about an after life is a danger to this world.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Anyone" and "any ideas whatsoever" are gross overstatments. Somebody who believes that the afterlife is 10,000 years of torture would be less of a danger than a non-after-lifer.
It very much depends on their vision of afterlife and the entry qualifications.

luckyme

Prodigy54321

12-15-2006, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
atheists go too far if they assert that anybody who forms any ideas whatsoever about an after life is a danger to this world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would certainly not say that...

I would say that they are a danger to themselves more than anything...they are more likley to make decisions that do not best serve their intentions.

I would also like to add that I agree that CERTAIN false beliefs can be beneficial to the world in general...

however, faith has no aim, there is no direction, when there is no evidence, there is no way to guage which is correct or incorrect.

again, that does not mean that these false beliefs cannot naturally fall in a beneficial way...in general, they should actually tend to fall in a beneficial way since they are influenced by our sense of morality.

I believe, however, that

1) as I said, they undermine the intentions of the individual making the dicision

2) a more effective and appropriate system can be constructed without the use of ANY false beliefs, rewards, consequences, or motivations.

West

12-15-2006, 02:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
true morality IS relative morality

[/ QUOTE ]

this would render the term meaningless. morality - right and wrong, is not defined by what someone can get away with ("physically", in terms of their conscience, and other factors)

IMO, "true" morality would be an objective morality

[ QUOTE ]
I want to clear up something...

I think you will take my above statements to mean that if the guy has little to no chance of getting caught, there are no consequences, so he should kill the guy and take his money...this would be incorrect...

humans have developed a conscience and uneasyness about things for a reason..that factors in..as well as many other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my example, the person in question is a psychopath. We can easily say he has no conscience, and is not bothered in the least way you can think of by his action.

For non-psychopaths, determining what is right and wrong in any given situation can be a struggle. Our consciences are not perfect.

Prodigy54321

12-15-2006, 02:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, "true" morality would be an objective morality

[/ QUOTE ]

according to who? the majority?..in that case, I agree in the same sense that you do, I just don't consider it in the same terms.

an ultimate morality? How?..even with a god, I see no ultimate morality..

I see no other morality that relative morality, an can see no possibility for any other.

[ QUOTE ]
In my example, the person in question is a psychopath. We can easily say he has no conscience, and is not bothered in the least way you can think of by his action.

For non-psychopaths, determining what is right and wrong in any given situation can be a struggle. Our consciences are not perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong, he still has internal mechanisms and properties that make his decisions..whether or not they betray the actual goal is another story..but he does have them.

are you to decide what is right and wrong for him?..surely we can put measures in place to deter him, but "ultimately" although it may seem wrong to you, it may not seem wrong to him

West

12-15-2006, 03:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, "true" morality would be an objective morality

[/ QUOTE ]according to who? the majority?..in that case, I agree in the same sense that you do, I just don't consider it in the same terms.

an ultimate morality? How?..even with a god, I see no ultimate morality..

I see no other morality that relative morality, an can see no possibility for any other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that there are at least many instances where actions could objectively be called right or wrong, by someone (say, "god") who understands all the variables involved in the decision to act (and sometimes it might not be that complicated - like with the psychopath killing the man for $100).

Situations are relative, and thus morality can be said to be relative in that sense, but for a given person, given all pertinent variables, an action may be morally right or wrong. The fact that you and I right now may not be able to agree on what actions are objectively right or wrong doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my example, the person in question is a psychopath. We can easily say he has no conscience, and is not bothered in the least way you can think of by his action.

For non-psychopaths, determining what is right and wrong in any given situation can be a struggle. Our consciences are not perfect.

[/ QUOTE ] wrong, he still has internal mechanisms and properties that make his decisions..whether or not they betray the actual goal is another story..but he does have them.

are you to decide what is right and wrong for him?..surely we can put measures in place to deter him, but "ultimately" although it may seem wrong to you, it may not seem wrong to him

[/ QUOTE ]

So a psychopath has internal mechanisms that help him make decisions...so what? I'm saying it's quite possible, and in reality happens all the time, for some people to take actions that they see as "+EV" which are not moral. And the fact that some of those actions do turn out to be "+EV" for them in this life does not make them moral, which is what you were suggesting.

[ QUOTE ]
are you to decide what is right and wrong for him?..surely we can put measures in place to deter him, but "ultimately" although it may seem wrong to you, it may not seem wrong to him

[/ QUOTE ]

Right - killing somebody for $100 may not seem wrong to him. That doesn't make it moral.

Prodigy54321

12-15-2006, 04:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that there are at least many instances where actions could objectively be called right or wrong, by someone (say, "god") who understands all the variables involved in the decision to act (and sometimes it might not be that complicated - like with the psychopath killing the man for $100).

[/ QUOTE ]

unless everyone is in complete agreement, it is still relative

the extent to which killing a random person for $100 is wrong is only proportional to the % of people that believe it to be.

some time ago, executing your wife for committing adultery would have been "right"...now it is "wrong"...the attitudes of the people are the only thing that have changed this.

[ QUOTE ]
So a psychopath has internal mechanisms that help him make decisions...so what? I'm saying it's quite possible, and in reality happens all the time, for some people to take actions that they see as "+EV" which are not moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, according to who?..if we consider what the mojority believes as being actual morality, then fine, that's what we can call it, but it doesn't mean that it is absolutely right or wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Right - killing somebody for $100 may not seem wrong to him. That doesn't make it moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

as I said, it can't be judged as aboslutely moral or immoral..it depends on who you ask..

kurto

12-15-2006, 04:12 PM

This may be the most philosophical thread yet...

My question to West: Isn't it concievable that there are times when it would be moral for the psychopath to kill someone and take his $100?

I just don't see how anyone can argue any 'absolute morality.' I don't think it exists.

You could certainly name plenty of things that we would all agree would be immoral by OUR standards. But even if we all agree on examples its still not absolute.

Even easy ones (rape, incest, etc) we can all find 'postive' examples of it in the Bible. Morality changes.

madnak

12-15-2006, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And those consequences may very well not be what those of us with an innate sense of morality (or "god") would consider just or appropriate. Meaning there would be no such thing as true justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is "true justice?" I wish that term were outlawed. If we assume that an atheistic universe is "unjust" because the "rewards and punishments" people receive are disproportionate with their action, then it follows that hell is even more unjust, because it is infinitely disproportionate with any finite action.

[ QUOTE ]
Morality is a lot less meaningful if the consequences for being immoral, and the rewards for being moral, are somewhat arbitrary and capricious.

[/ QUOTE ]

The direct implication here is that morality derives its meaning from rewards and punishments. Which leads straight back into my post above. In order for morality of any type to have a philosophical validity, it must exist independently of rewards and punishments. Well, there is the exception, the morality of pure self-interest, but that is the only morality that can be justified with this reasoning.

madnak

12-15-2006, 05:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that there are at least many instances where actions could objectively be called right or wrong, by someone (say, "god") who understands all the variables involved in the decision to act (and sometimes it might not be that complicated - like with the psychopath killing the man for $100).

[/ QUOTE ]

If some things are objectively immoral, then there must be an objective standard for morality. Someone who "knows all the variables" isn't good enough. Omniscience doesn't imply morality. I could know all the variables and say that the psycopath is doing a good thing.

So here you claim a universal standard of morality, but you haven't explained what that standard is or in what form it can exist.

[ QUOTE ]
Right - killing somebody for $100 may not seem wrong to him. That doesn't make it moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one suggesting it's immoral, and the burden is on you to establish that. So far you're simply repeating "it's immoral" and expecting us to agree with you. If you have a point you should be able to explain why it's immoral. And before you start slipping around, it's a general issue. According to what standard is he immoral, and what is the basis of that standard?

It's not just "he's immoral because he's hurting someone" (and maybe he isn't, he's just killing them). You have to answer why it's immoral to hurt someone, why it's immoral to kill someone, why pain is morally "undesirable" but pleasure is morally "desirable," why there are exceptions, etc.

West

12-15-2006, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My question to West: Isn't it concievable that there are times when it would be moral for the psychopath to kill someone and take his $100?

[/ QUOTE ]

Inconceivable is a strong word so I would hesitate to use it. Presuming the victim is a random man, and the psychopath is motivated by nothing other than greed, it's hard to conceive of how it could be objectively moral though.

[ QUOTE ]
You could certainly name plenty of things that we would all agree would be immoral by OUR standards. But even if we all agree on examples its still not absolute.

Even easy ones (rape, incest, etc) we can all find 'postive' examples of it in the Bible. Morality changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that morality changes - in the concept of objective morality, time is another variable that has to be considered. What is objectively right in one set of circumstances could be objectively wrong in another very similar set of circumstances, but where the time/place is different. But I am suggesting that given a specific set of variables for an action, including the "when", the action could be objectively right or wrong, even if none of us perosnally has enough perfect information to make the determination.

Take a guy trying to sell drugs to teenagers. Is he morally wrong? What if he grew up in a truly effed up neghborhood with effed up parents? What if he didn't? What if the guy is 16? 25? 35?

Without saying whether it's ever not morally wrong, it's probably possible to at least say (objectively) that in some cases it's more or less morally wrong than in others.

West

12-15-2006, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If some things are objectively immoral, then there must be an objective standard for morality. Someone who "knows all the variables" isn't good enough. Omniscience doesn't imply morality. I could know all the variables and say that the psycopath is doing a good thing.

So here you claim a universal standard of morality, but you haven't explained what that standard is or in what form it can exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I wasn't trying to explain what "the standard" is, just that it's possible for actions to be objectively right or wrong. With regards to a standard, I think the golden rule is a good place to start. But applying the golden rule involves considering all the specific circumstances of a given scenario...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right - killing somebody for $100 may not seem wrong to him. That doesn't make it moral.

[/ QUOTE ] You're the one suggesting it's immoral, and the burden is on you to establish that. So far you're simply repeating "it's immoral" and expecting us to agree with you. If you have a point you should be able to explain why it's immoral. And before you start slipping around, it's a general issue. According to what standard is he immoral, and what is the basis of that standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

My example was intended to be one in which there could be little debate for the purpose of illustrating my point. But sure, I can explain why that's immoral - because the psychopath wouldn't want someone to do the same to him. Because it's bad for society if people do that to each other.

Again - I might not be able to convince you that a given action is moral or immoral, and you might not be able to convince me. That doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. It's always possible that figuring out the standards that should be used is a purpose of our lives.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not just "he's immoral because he's hurting someone" (and maybe he isn't, he's just killing them). You have to answer why it's immoral to hurt someone, why it's immoral to kill someone, why pain is morally "undesirable" but pleasure is morally "desirable," why there are exceptions, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my example, pretend that the psychopath killed the man in such a way that caused pain. Shouldn't be too hard to do. (Even if the man himself experienced no pain at all, consider that others would likely experience pain due to his death). Do I really have to explain why pain is generally undesirable??

madnak

12-15-2006, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it's hard to conceive of how it could be objectively moral though.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does your ability to conceive of it affect its truth?

West

12-15-2006, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In order for morality of any type to have a philosophical validity, it must exist independently of rewards and punishments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree

But at the same time, if the "rewards and punishments" of our actions don't mirror morality, then philosophical validity is all we have. There's a lot less incentive to try and come to morally correct conclusions/decisions.

West

12-15-2006, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's hard to conceive of how it could be objectively moral though.

[/ QUOTE ]How does your ability to conceive of it affect its truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said I would hesitate to use the word "inconceivable", if that's what you mean

madnak

12-15-2006, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the golden rule is a good place to start.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about an objective standard. You can throw out all the subjective standards you like, but it won't establish any point. If I follow the golden rule because I think it's a nice rule, or because it resonates with me, or because it strikes me as a useful principle, then I am accepting it as a subjective moral principle. You're suggesting that there is an objective moral principle, and while the golden rule could be the "tip" of an objective standard, it's not the relevant part. The objectivity is the relevant part - the golden rule is frequently adopted as a subjective standard, and when it is adopted as an objective standard it is typically with respect to a theistic assumption (ie God says the golden rule is good, and what God says is objectively true, so the golden rule is objectively good). Now, that's valid. If what God says is objectively true, then God can be used as a standard for objective morality.

But you're claiming that you aren't a theist, that you don't believe in God in a normal sense, and yet that you have some objective basis for morality. It isn't god, so what is it? An objective standard looks different from a subjective standard. It's not just "it kind of feels good to me." In fact, because you're talking about how it feels to you, there's a strong element of subjectivity already there. But perhaps you think your subjective experience represents the sensation of some objective "signal." So, where is this signal coming from?

[ QUOTE ]
My example was intended to be one in which there could be little debate for the purpose of illustrating my point. But sure, I can explain why that's immoral - because the psychopath wouldn't want someone to do the same to him. Because it's bad for society if people do that to each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Because it's bad for society" can only be objective with a qualified definition of morality and certain assumptions about society. You could simply define morality as "whatever is good for society," and I suppose nobody could argue with you... But that's a rather arbitrary definition, you're being denotative and stripping away the connotative elements. You also have to describe "good" and "society" in such a way as to be tautologically objective. And that would reduce those terms, as well, to meaningless mush.

So leaving semantics. Why is it somehow better to help society than to hurt society? Most people, when they speak of morality, assume a valuative context. That is, being moral is somehow "better" than being immoral. Now, you can say that relatively speaking, according to a certain subjective standard, x has more value than y. By the same token, according to some other relative standard, y has more value than x. You are suggesting that there is an absolute, objective standard according to which one of the two - y or x - is the better of the two, end of story.

Let's pretend my morality is that whatever causes the most destruction is good. Now, without getting into relative criteria (especially practicality), reason out why your morality is superior to mine. I say psycopath man is a great hero, because he has caused extensive destruction. How do you argue against that?

[ QUOTE ]
Do I really have to explain why pain is generally undesirable??

[/ QUOTE ]

Undesirable in a subjective sense? Of course not. Undesirable in an objective sense? That should have been the very first thing you did.

West

12-15-2006, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about an objective standard. You can throw out all the subjective standards you like, but it won't establish any point. If I follow the golden rule because I think it's a nice rule, or because it resonates with me, or because it strikes me as a useful principle, then I am accepting it as a subjective moral principle. You're suggesting that there is an objective moral principle, and while the golden rule could be the "tip" of an objective standard, it's not the relevant part. The objectivity is the relevant part - the golden rule is frequently adopted as a subjective standard, and when it is adopted as an objective standard it is typically with respect to a theistic assumption (ie God says the golden rule is good, and what God says is objectively true, so the golden rule is objectively good). Now, that's valid. If what God says is objectively true, then God can be used as a standard for objective morality.

But you're claiming that you aren't a theist, that you don't believe in God in a normal sense, and yet that you have some objective basis for morality. It isn't god, so what is it? An objective standard looks different from a subjective standard. It's not just "it kind of feels good to me." In fact, because you're talking about how it feels to you, there's a strong element of subjectivity already there. But perhaps you think your subjective experience represents the sensation of some objective "signal." So, where is this signal coming from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that I personally necessarily have an objective basis for morality. However, I do see the golden rule as a good start for an objective basis, because I think it's logical. Not just because it "feels good".

I think it's a cop out to try and treat everything as "subjective", like we can't apply reason to morality. Picture a scenario where life teaches us how to make correct moral decisions, ultimately punishing us karmically when we fail to learn, and continuing over many lifetimes.

West

12-15-2006, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do I really have to explain why pain is generally undesirable??

[/ QUOTE ] Undesirable in a subjective sense? Of course not. Undesirable in an objective sense? That should have been the very first thing you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't be necesssary, since most of understand that by definition pain is something that the vast majority of us do not desire most of the time. You're just being difficult.

madnak

12-15-2006, 11:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that I personally necessarily have an objective basis for morality. However, I do see the golden rule as a good start for an objective basis, because I think it's logical. Not just because it "feels good".

I think it's a cop out to try and treat everything as "subjective", like we can't apply reason to morality. Picture a scenario where life teaches us how to make correct moral decisions, ultimately punishing us karmically when we fail to learn, and continuing over many lifetimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason extends from premises to conclusions. Reason is only as objective as the assumptions it has to work with. The process of logic appears to be objective, but the conclusions of logic are always relative. Moreover, it's impossible to reach moral conclusions without moral premises. So yes, it is absolutely impossible to find an objective basis for morality in reason.

We can certainly apply reason to morality, but we sure as hell can't create morality out of reason.

A scenario where life teaches us to make correct moral decisions? Please start making argument that aren't circular. "Correct" according to what standard? And how on earth can you suggest that standard is THE standard? And why on earth do you get to take your standard and shove it down the mouths of everyone else?

How about this. Imagine a universe where there are different standards, and what is moral depends on what standard you use. And an action might be moral according to my standards but immoral according to yours, and (here's an idea) your standard isn't some superior absolute, it's just another standard.

madnak

12-15-2006, 11:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do I really have to explain why pain is generally undesirable??

[/ QUOTE ] Undesirable in a subjective sense? Of course not. Undesirable in an objective sense? That should have been the very first thing you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't be necesssary, since most of understand that by definition pain is something that the vast majority of us do not desire most of the time. You're just being difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking objective morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism[/url), it has to be all of them and by definition it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. If it matters what humans think, that is moral subjectivism!

I'm beginning to think that either you have no idea what moral objectivism is and you've been going through this whole argument using your terms incorrectly, or you don't have much of a grasp on logic.

MaxWeiss

12-16-2006, 03:35 AM

I finally got around to looking at this thread. I'm surprised anybody answered "no". He clearly said
[ QUOTE ]
- Answering no means that it is not possible for you to construct a favorable definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

and a yes fell under these categories
[ QUOTE ]
- You get to select the definition of God.
- The definition can be anything you like.
- Answering yes does not mean that you are giving a thumbs up to all definitions.
- Answering yes means there is at least 1 definition that is favorable to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even I can come up with a favorable definition--not a supernatural one-- but a favorable, "Einsteinian" definition.

madnak

12-16-2006, 12:27 PM

Sorry, that was out of line. I had a bad day yesterday and was cranky. You make some interesting points but I don't think it's likely that there exists a morally objective universe like that you describe. If everyone is learning through iterations, then I would thik the process itself has as much meaning as the goal. So immoral actions would be just stumbling blocks on the path - but rewarding ones.

Still, I suppose there could be a context for morality there.

RayBornert

12-16-2006, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
true morality can only be obtained by considering real world rewards and consequences...

[/ QUOTE ]That's crazy..is the world perfect? Are all laws perfect? Law enforcement? Etc etc

[/ QUOTE ] I never said that any of them are prefect..they clearly are not..

what people do, what is right and wrong for them, is based on rewards and consequences..we weigh them and decide what is right and what is wrong...when you introduce nonexistent rewards or consequences, the ability to come to the correct or best conclusion is hindered.

[/ QUOTE ]

That brings us back to the psychopath who kills a man for the $100 in his wallet, simply because he is confident he can get away with it. So in his particular case, true morality as you are defining it would make his action "moral" (and of course, make true morality relative, in a way that makes the term an oxymoron IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

true morality IS relative morality

it is the only morality that exists (and can exist IMO)

if it is worth it to that man..he has properly evaluated the situation and come to the conclusion that it would be best for him to kill the guy and take his money, then it is morally correct (as far as he is concerned) for him to do so..

it is our natural disgust for acts like this, as well as analysis of social agreements that will ultimately help us, that inspires us to develop deterents.

I want to clear up something...

I think you will take my above statements to mean that if the guy has little to no chance of getting caught, there are no consequences, so he should kill the guy and take his money...this would be incorrect...

humans have developed a conscience and uneasyness about things for a reason..that factors in..as well as many other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

prodigy,

focusing on your statements:

[ QUOTE ]
true morality IS relative morality
it is the only morality that exists (and can exist IMO)

[/ QUOTE ]

these statements are not accurate enough.

any society that wants to persue morality does at least 2 things:

a) design a moral compass
b) use the moral compass

the act of using the moral compass to measure something can definitely be objective.

the design of the compass is entirely dependent on the goals of the society.

by simple observation we note that the typical human wants quality of life and thus it seems that one of the consistent themes we see repeated in compass design is the goal to reduce the overall amount of "moral entropy" within the society.

decreased moral entropy = higher quality of life (i.e. heavenly conditions)

increased moral entropy = lower quality of life (i.e. hellish conditions)

it is not physically possible to reduce moral entropy to zero in a dualistic universe.

in a universe where the set of unknowns is much larger than the set of knowns (i.e. it's dark in here), it's reasonable to predict an uncomfortable amount of misanthropy in the general population (i.e. hating human existence in this place).

therefore it would seem that an immediate practical strategy would be to reduce misanthropy to the lowest levels possible.

to effectively do this you must address their need for quality of life right now and in the future - i.e. quality of existence.

a pure misanthrope realizes quality of existence by damaging the existence of others - the psycho in the film "saw" for example.

ray

West

12-18-2006, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're talking objective morality, it has to be all of them and by definition it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. If it matters what humans think, that is moral subjectivism!

[/ QUOTE ]

If you decide to hit someone over the head with a rock, chances are you're aware (or should be), without that person telling you, that it's going to hurt him and he would prefer you not do that. If there was such a thing as a perfect being independent observer ("god"), with perfect information about everything, including what you (the guy hitting someone in the head with a rock) know, feel, think, etc., how you got that way, etc., and the same thing for the guy getting hit in the head, then what I'm suggesting is, that being could make an "objective" evaluation of your action that would not be an opinion, but would be based on non arbitrary, logical standards (starting with, for example, the golden rule). Thus if we all became perfect super beings with perfect knowledge and evaluated the situation from paradise, we would come to the same moral conclusion as the original perfect super being.

We're not perfect super beings, so obviously our attempts at objectively evaluating the morality of actions are going to be lacking to some degree. We can only do the best we can (and perhaps only "god" truly knows how well we do that). When people say that there is no such thing as objective morality, what that is saying to me is, they think morality is 'ultimately' entirely a matter of subjective opinion, like whether you like a painting or not. I think that's ridiculous.

West

12-18-2006, 03:04 PM

no problem, don't worry about it

RayBornert

12-20-2006, 10:47 AM

here is the hellism companion thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8499125

ray

RayBornert

12-25-2006, 01:30 AM

please forgive the thread bump here. it is christmas eve and i wanted to say a few words:

one of the earliest events in the story of jesus was an angelic host that very clearly declared something amazing:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk002.html#14

"Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, good will toward men"

i first intoned this aloud in a christmas play at about 5 years of age (i played the angelic messenger); i know there are those of you here who think christianity has somehow defiled mankind - for me, no; i was born into it and i don't regret it; i can honestly say that this single angelic phrase (that has stayed with me my entire life) has contributed to what i believe about the genuine healthy definition of the jewish/christian god.

if this really is an account of god making a visit to earth then i cannot help but be deeply impressed to hear a greeting of

"... peace on earth, good will toward men."

this child then grew up to be a man and publically claimed to come from the place where god is to bring information from the place where god is to the place where humans live.

at one point, he was asked by a scribe to concisely state jewish philosophy and jesus responded with:

love your god
love your neighbor

and he claimed that their entire system was built on only these 2 ideas.

where ever he travelled he looked around and observed that many no longer loved their definition of god and in fact many of them had grown to hate what the leaders had done to it.

he tried to fix their definition of god, and they killed him.

the torch then passed from judaism to christianity and jesus became the greatest religious hero in human history. no other figure even comes a close second.

to say that this story has had an impact on my life would be an understatement. i love a good hero. there are many different times and places where i might've been born - each with it's own salvation system. i don't feel abused because i was born into late 20th century american christianity. on the contrary, i consider myself blessed.

how could i not like a god who opened with:

"peace on earth ... good will toward men"

ray bornert

madnak

12-25-2006, 03:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
love my god
love your neighbor

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem.

RayBornert

12-25-2006, 11:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
love my god
love your neighbor

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

not sure i fully understand your point here. will you elaborate?

ray

madnak

12-25-2006, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
love my god
love your neighbor

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

not sure i fully understand your point here. will you elaborate?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus said the first command was to love the God, that is, the God of Abraham, the God of whom Jesus spoke - the punishing, wrathful God with all his rigid strictures and divine wrath for unbelievers.

If Jesus had said "love your God, whatever it may be" he'd have perhaps hit on the strongest wisdom possible. But instead he said, "love my God, as I describe him, and do the things he says, as I relate them to you." This is the difference between a wise man and a con man.

RayBornert

12-25-2006, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
love my god
love your neighbor

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

not sure i fully understand your point here. will you elaborate?

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus said the first command was to love the God, that is, the God of Abraham, the God of whom Jesus spoke - the punishing, wrathful God with all his rigid strictures and divine wrath for unbelievers.

If Jesus had said "love your God, whatever it may be" he'd have perhaps hit on the strongest wisdom possible. But instead he said, "love my God, as I describe him, and do the things he says, as I relate them to you." This is the difference between a wise man and a con man.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think we'll have to disagree on this point.

my backup evidence points to the fact that jesus spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to get their definition of god back on track.

therefore i assert that there is no possible way he could tell the people of the day to "love your god" if he actually was referring to the polluted definition that the leaders controlled.

you can interpret his actions in two basic ways:

a) he was trying to get them to love the unloveable definition that had been polluted

b) he was trying to get them to see that their definition had become seriously twisted and that they needed to re-evaluate that definition such that a majority of the population could love it.

i see zero evidence that he was attempting strategy a)
i see a lot of evidence that he was seriously persuing strategy b)

[ QUOTE ]
"If Jesus had said "love your God, whatever it may be" he'd have perhaps hit on the strongest wisdom possible."

[/ QUOTE ]

i submit to you that this is exactly what he was suggesting and i certainly agree that it qualifies as high value wisdom.

ask a psychologist or psychiatrist what happens over time if somebody embraces a definition of god that they do not love.

it is far better to embrace the null god rather than a god you hate. i'm sure that atheists will back me up on this.

ray

RayBornert

12-25-2006, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus said the first command was to love the God, that is, the God of Abraham, the God of whom Jesus spoke - the punishing, wrathful God with all his rigid strictures and divine wrath for unbelievers.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is your view and you do not love this god you describe then it makes perfect sense that you'd have little regard for anybody (including jesus) who wanted you to love this god.

once again, i submit to you that jesus was in fact challenging their defintion quite frequently; i challenge you to consider changing your view about what he was actually doing.

he was in fact practicing what he preached.

he said, "love your god"

the deeper long term wisdom is that every culture and every human needs to constantly monitor their ideas about god and keep them healthy.

islam has these same type of issues right now.

ray

madnak

12-26-2006, 11:15 AM

Have you actually read the Bible? You should join our club. Actually half of what Jesus said was that sinners would be punished extremely severely, worse than the Jews had imagined. And literally every compassionate or hopeful saying of Jesus was paired with a qualifier about God's Judgment or wailing and gnashing of teeth.

RayBornert

12-26-2006, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Have you actually read the Bible? You should join our club. Actually half of what Jesus said was that sinners would be punished extremely severely, worse than the Jews had imagined. And literally every compassionate or hopeful saying of Jesus was paired with a qualifier about God's Judgment or wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[/ QUOTE ]

read all of the passages you're referring to and understand that the god jesus was defining does indeed erase waste - in fact all waste regardless of who produces it.

that same god retains all value regardless of who produces it.

the error is to read scriptural references with the assumption that god uses a pass/fail justice system on an entire human life. he uses a centrifuge like system instead.

when jesus used harsh language he was talking about the waste produced by waste producers - he was trying to inform everyone that the strategy of producing waste was ev- insofar as the centrifuge game is concerned. he was trying to tell them to minimize waste and maximize value.

ray

madnak

12-26-2006, 01:12 PM

That's an interesting interpretation, but a hard one to support. Particularly given that Jesus spoke of people, not parts of people, and explained that they would be in great pain forever. He also said it was justice. None of that seems to fit the waste removal idea. Also, "the LORD your God" was a term for the God of Abraham.

RayBornert

12-26-2006, 01:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's an interesting interpretation, but a hard one to support. Particularly given that Jesus spoke of people, not parts of people, and explained that they would be in great pain forever. He also said it was justice. None of that seems to fit the waste removal idea. Also, "the LORD your God" was a term for the God of Abraham.

[/ QUOTE ]

consider that he had to talk to a people that were unable to understand justice systems in any terms other than pass/faill saved/unsaved innocent/guilty.

the people in roman prisons were there entirely. it's not like jesus could call timeout and explain a centrifuge system that sorted pieces of lives at a quantum level.

he was in fact limited to discussing a granularity that they could readily understand - and they understood pass/fail accepted/rejected and that's it.

there were two types of people that heard him:

a) those who were very grateful to hear that god would forgive their waste and not torture them for it (i.e. some part of them would make it back to god).

jesus correctly predicted that these types (who were forgiven much) would probably exhibit much gratitude. and those that had little waste to erase would exhibit less gratitude.

b) those who believed that they had zero waste in their lives and did not like the idea of god accepting those they judged to be unfit.

jesus spent a lot of time on these types trying to convince them that they really were waste producers even though they believed themselves not to be - the message here is that every human that exists will produce some waste. the leaders of the day were unable to accept this idea because they had invented a god that was required to utterly reject anybody in their entirety if their waste was greater than zero. jesus called them down from this idea several times.

god uses a centrifuge on all humans. he separates your waste from your value at a very fine granularity (particles, nanoseconds, etc.). the waste is erased (forgiven) the value is kept (redeemed).

ray

vhawk01

12-26-2006, 01:34 PM

Is there any actual reason you believe any of the points you are making here, Ray? Other than to be novel or because it would just be swell if that is the case? I mean, I can make a series of statements that Jesus was really talking about cabbage all along, but its just wishful thinking at best. You aren't supporting any of your assertions, and when those assertions are entirely unconventional, they require quite a large amount of support.

RayBornert

12-26-2006, 03:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any actual reason you believe any of the points you are making here, Ray? Other than to be novel or because it would just be swell if that is the case? I mean, I can make a series of statements that Jesus was really talking about cabbage all along, but its just wishful thinking at best. You aren't supporting any of your assertions, and when those assertions are entirely unconventional, they require quite a large amount of support.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am a theoricist. i like einsteins thought experiment approach of - "what if something simple is true?"

so i think after nearly 4 decades of arguing both sides of the pass/fail salvation systems of judaic/christian ideas, i finally decided to stop and ask myself if the pass/fail concept at the granularity of an entire life was wrong; my initial reaction was to like my skepticism for no other reason than that the widespread disagreement about pass/fail salvation systems is probably predicted if that theory is wrong. so my skepticism allowed me to do what einstein did:

what if god uses a centrifuge system of justice on all humans?

i then began to re-visit everything i knew about biblical history including all scriptural references to what looks like pass/fail justice.

the more i re-examined the more i liked the centrifuge theory.

i see god as a strong game player who has nothing to lose by finding and redeeming any and all value within a given human life. i see no injustice if waste is simply discarded the same as our sewage would be. i can find no logical reason to torture humans because they produced waste in this life. it makes much more sense to just erase it and move on.

i see zero evidence that god intends to retain any waste produced by any human (christian believers included) - the apostle paul spends a good deal of time explaining this exact point to his churches.

the great truth of eternal justice is:

waste is waste and is always erased
value is value and is always reaped

have mercy on anybody that has ever failed to understand a centrifuge justice system; consider that all we've ever seen down here is pass/fail upon entire lives.

ray

She

12-27-2006, 01:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If Jesus had said "love your God, whatever it may be" he'd have perhaps hit on the strongest wisdom possible."

[/ QUOTE ]

i submit to you that this is exactly what he was suggesting

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm comming in a little late on this one... but according to the NKJV it says:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." -Matthew 22:37

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment." -Mark 12:30

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself." -Luke 10:27

I don't see where the discrepancy is....

madnak

12-27-2006, 01:12 AM

As I've said, "the LORD your God" is a euphemism for the God of Abraham. It's certainly not a cream pie, in this context.

RayBornert

12-27-2006, 01:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If Jesus had said "love your God, whatever it may be" he'd have perhaps hit on the strongest wisdom possible."

[/ QUOTE ]

i submit to you that this is exactly what he was suggesting

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm comming in a little late on this one... but according to the NKJV it says:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." -Matthew 22:37

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment." -Mark 12:30

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself." -Luke 10:27

I don't see where the discrepancy is....

[/ QUOTE ]

the discussion is who gets to decide your definition of god?

i claim that jesus was advising everyone to make sure that they loved their definition of god - and he was implying that if they did not love their definition then something was wrong - quite possibly with the definition itself - and not necessarily the individual.

the deeper questions are:
where do you get your definition of god?
who has the final word about what ideas get installed into your head?

fundamentalists will claim that the definition is constant and that you must accept or reject it as is.

this is wrong. the definition is technically different if and when two people read the same verse of scripture differently.

up until recently, people were not allowed to question their definition of god - and in fact not to long ago you could get killed for this.

jesus got killed for trying to correct the polluted definition that was taught at the time.

ray

RayBornert

12-27-2006, 01:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As I've said, "the LORD your God" is a euphemism for the God of Abraham. It's certainly not a cream pie, in this context.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

i've got no problem whatsoever with this implication. it still does not change the core advice of "love your god"

abraham had a definition of god
isaac had a definition of god
jacob had a definition of god

jesus would have advised each of them to be sure to love their definition of god.

don't assume that anybody has ever had a perfect picture of god. no one has. even jesus said that all of the words he spoke were limited to the information he was given by god.

jesus clearly said that he was sent to the jewish culture. and so it's safe to say that he probably assumed that all of them were trying to love the same definition that abraham, isaac and jacob loved - seems perfectly valid.

but the problem at the time was that the definition they had in their minds had become seriously polluted such that it was very clear to jesus that it looked nothing like what was originally intended - and technically it was an altogether different god almost - it doesn't matter what name you use to refer to the definition (i.e. the god of a. i. and j.). what really mattered was that the definition was twisted and that many people did not like it let alone love it. and that's not a good thing.

furthermore, nobody seemed to be questioning what had gone wrong. why? they weren't allowed to question their definition of god or what they thought about it.

so everywhere he looked he saw people breaking the 1st commandment because they no longer liked the definition of god they were using - they did not love their god. sure they were going through a lot of the ritual motions; but they'd lost their way.

the fact that jesus believed this to be true is evidenced by the gospel accounts of him contradicting the thinking of most everyone he met especially the religious leaders.

*******
in this world there is no such thing as a perfect definition of god. and if this is true then all of us need to constantly measure the definition that is currently in our minds according to whether or not we love it.

and if we don't love the definition that is in our heads then that might be an indication that some part of the definition is wrong.

ray