[Message Deleted]
-
Consider this: (a) As per some Hindu beliefs eating Onions and Garlic is considered immoral. (b) In Some other Hindu beliefs eating Meat to be immoral. (c) In Still some other Hindu beliefs eating Cow's meat is the most immoral thing. Each of them cite God's words as their authority. The same is true with Christians. If you ask those Hindus in (a), (b) or (c) they will consider most Christians immoral because they eat meat. Now religions devoid of God such as Buddhism and Jainism just have the concept of morals they don't believe that morality gets defined by some God. Yet they believe in non-violence to any creature, no intoxication, no gambling etc. which are all moral principles. If there is one God from which Moral authority comes from it should be same for all the religions which believe in God. Failing that the concept of God itself is relativistic. Since we comprehend God using our senses and our senses are themselves are bound by relativity it is not possible to get an absolute interpretation of what is God.
Somewhat unironically, Hinduism is probably the world's only relativistic religion.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus have been slaughtering each other
Uh, just to point out that the Jews (not sure about Hindus) have had WAY less cases than Christians and Muslims. As my grandmother used to say to the question about what any Jewish holiday was about... "They tried to kill us. We survived. Let's eat!"
Mike Mullikin wrote:
religious freaks
Some of us are religious...but we're not all freaks. Some, yes, most definately need medication.
__________________ Bob is my homeboy.
leckey wrote:
As my grandmother used to say to the question about what any Jewish holiday was about... "They tried to kill us. We survived. Let's eat!"
The Jews cut a swath of death and destruction out of Egypt and into Canaan, slaughtering men, women and children in their path. That is, if the bible is to be believed. For example: "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3) "And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." (II Samuel 12:31) "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18) "And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 3:6-7) "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21) etc.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Despite what you might admit, EVERYONE is their own moral authority. Even the most religious among us evaluate each circumstance and apply "God's morality" as they see fit.
Not quite. Clergy have traditionally been the moral authority. They are, as a group, educated in the details of biblical interpretation. There tends to be widespread moral agreement amove the disparate Christian churches (they tend to disagree on methods of worship more than anything else). Therein lies the importance that religion be organized...So that relativistic interpretation, which can creep into biblical interpretation, be minimized.
Red Stateler wrote:
So that relativistic interpretation, which can creep into biblical interpretation, be minimized.
So it wasn't relativistic when the church hierarchy decided that just moving pedophile priests the moral thing to do rather than actually addressing the problem? Something like let he who hasn't lusted over the altar boy cast the first stone? :laugh:
-
Consider this: (a) As per some Hindu beliefs eating Onions and Garlic is considered immoral. (b) In Some other Hindu beliefs eating Meat to be immoral. (c) In Still some other Hindu beliefs eating Cow's meat is the most immoral thing. Each of them cite God's words as their authority. The same is true with Christians. If you ask those Hindus in (a), (b) or (c) they will consider most Christians immoral because they eat meat. Now religions devoid of God such as Buddhism and Jainism just have the concept of morals they don't believe that morality gets defined by some God. Yet they believe in non-violence to any creature, no intoxication, no gambling etc. which are all moral principles. If there is one God from which Moral authority comes from it should be same for all the religions which believe in God. Failing that the concept of God itself is relativistic. Since we comprehend God using our senses and our senses are themselves are bound by relativity it is not possible to get an absolute interpretation of what is God.
Morality should not be confused with following rules and regulations. If someone were to ask you what morality is, you would not hand them a book on civil law. Although they intersect at times (e.g. we believe stealing is immoral and we have laws against it) they are, as ideas, entirely independent of each other. Consider speed limits. The law states you cannot exceed a particular speed on a particular stretch of highway. I don’t imagine many would argue that driving 70 mph is itself immoral. However, because we have a law against it, many would argue that it is at least wrong and some would argue that it is immoral – not because any speed could itself be wrong, but because breaking a law is wrong. Now consider the idea of kindness. Everyone believes being kind is good and being unkind is bad. However, there is no civil law governing the moral law of kindness. So we see that written rules and morality are not the same. This is true of religious rules as well as civil laws. Jews did not stop eating certain meats because eating meat was itself immoral. They stopped eating certain meats because God told them to stop. So the morality is not found in the eating or not eating of certain meats, but in obeying or disobeying God. In this particular example, Christ later abolished this restriction, making the eating of any kind of meat OK. This further proves that the eating of meat was never the issue. Rather, it was obedience. So the apparent differences of morality from one religion to the next are not as great as they may seem on the surface. Jews say certain foods must not be eaten because God told them not to eat them. Christians believe all food is OK because God said it is. The moral issue is obedience to God. The differences are in our understandings of what He said.
-
Consider this: (a) As per some Hindu beliefs eating Onions and Garlic is considered immoral. (b) In Some other Hindu beliefs eating Meat to be immoral. (c) In Still some other Hindu beliefs eating Cow's meat is the most immoral thing. Each of them cite God's words as their authority. The same is true with Christians. If you ask those Hindus in (a), (b) or (c) they will consider most Christians immoral because they eat meat. Now religions devoid of God such as Buddhism and Jainism just have the concept of morals they don't believe that morality gets defined by some God. Yet they believe in non-violence to any creature, no intoxication, no gambling etc. which are all moral principles. If there is one God from which Moral authority comes from it should be same for all the religions which believe in God. Failing that the concept of God itself is relativistic. Since we comprehend God using our senses and our senses are themselves are bound by relativity it is not possible to get an absolute interpretation of what is God.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
If there is one God from which Moral authority comes from it should be same for all the religions which believe in God.
a) Not all religions came from a divine source, and hence from the outset are off. b) Not all religions have maintained their purity (they have been polluted later till the message no longer resembles the original message) c) Different peoples who received divine revelation might have had different Sharia’s(look at ‘Edmundisme’ example of Jews vs. Christians on eating meat)
Who is the creator? Atheists are Polytheists Finding Allah (Video) Surah Al-An'aam (Ayah 74-110)
-
Despite what you might admit, EVERYONE is their own moral authority. Even the most religious among us evaluate each circumstance and apply "God's morality" as they see fit. Hell, all the various religions and sects can't even agree on basic principles of morality. Every major religion in history has justified or rationalized killing at some point or another. Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus have been slaughtering each other for centuries and don't appear to be slowing down. They steal, they cheat, they lie... no better than us godless heathens. GWB claims to be a Christian man, yet he sent soldiers to kill and be killed. Isn't there a direct commandment being ignored? :rolleyes: You religious freaks crack me up!
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
EVERYONE is their own moral authority
But where does our sense of morality come from? And how do you explain why we often do things we know we should not do? Doesn't our own guilt response to cowardice, lying, cheating, etc. testify to a higher standard that exists somewhere outside of ourselves? We are all holding ourselves and others to a standard of behavior. If everyone had their own basic standards, we would not expect that others would hold to our own. But not only do we expect it, We demand it! We call people to task when they are rude to us or unfair. But if we all have our own sense of morality, why should we expect that they'll agree that rudeness is wrong in the first place? We're appealing to a standard we expect them to know about. And why is it that more often than not, when someone calls us on our "bad" behavior, we almost never deny that the standard to which they are referring does not exist? If someone catches us lying, we don't say "lying isn't wrong." No, we say something like, "I only lied because such and such." We make excuses. We always make excuses. We try to point out that we had a good reason for breaking a moral law or that a particular moral law does not apply in our current situation, but we never deny that the moral law exists! In spite of what we might say or argue, our actions confirm that not only do we have a standard of behavior, but that we expect everyone else to have the same standard. This talk of morality being a personal trait does not hold up. We don't criticize people for preferring purple over blue, but we criticize them for preferring cowardice over courage. We understand that somethings are personal and others are universal.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
EVERYONE is their own moral authority
But where does our sense of morality come from? And how do you explain why we often do things we know we should not do? Doesn't our own guilt response to cowardice, lying, cheating, etc. testify to a higher standard that exists somewhere outside of ourselves? We are all holding ourselves and others to a standard of behavior. If everyone had their own basic standards, we would not expect that others would hold to our own. But not only do we expect it, We demand it! We call people to task when they are rude to us or unfair. But if we all have our own sense of morality, why should we expect that they'll agree that rudeness is wrong in the first place? We're appealing to a standard we expect them to know about. And why is it that more often than not, when someone calls us on our "bad" behavior, we almost never deny that the standard to which they are referring does not exist? If someone catches us lying, we don't say "lying isn't wrong." No, we say something like, "I only lied because such and such." We make excuses. We always make excuses. We try to point out that we had a good reason for breaking a moral law or that a particular moral law does not apply in our current situation, but we never deny that the moral law exists! In spite of what we might say or argue, our actions confirm that not only do we have a standard of behavior, but that we expect everyone else to have the same standard. This talk of morality being a personal trait does not hold up. We don't criticize people for preferring purple over blue, but we criticize them for preferring cowardice over courage. We understand that somethings are personal and others are universal.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
But where does our sense of morality come from?
From our civilized society. Don't over complicate things.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
By saying our society is civilized, you are implying that it adheres to a standard of civility but you ignore the question of where this standard of civility comes from. You accuse me of overcomplicating things but you fail to convince me that the issue is a simple one. Perhaps you think that the origin of our morality is unimportant but I find it both essential and fascinating.
-
By saying our society is civilized, you are implying that it adheres to a standard of civility but you ignore the question of where this standard of civility comes from. You accuse me of overcomplicating things but you fail to convince me that the issue is a simple one. Perhaps you think that the origin of our morality is unimportant but I find it both essential and fascinating.
Edmundisme wrote:
but you ignore the question of where this standard of civility comes from.
Some of our civility may originate from religious morality, but I don't think religion can't take credit for all of it or even most of it. Unless of course religion wants to accept responsibility for mans incivility as well. ;) Humans have always fared better when working together in a group (whether you look back to pre-history or at a modern city). Being civil to your neighbors is essential within a group if the group is to have long term success. Civilization and civility have "evolved" over time due to natural selection.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...",
Who is us? Who is this "our image"?
This statement was never false.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
but you ignore the question of where this standard of civility comes from.
Some of our civility may originate from religious morality, but I don't think religion can't take credit for all of it or even most of it. Unless of course religion wants to accept responsibility for mans incivility as well. ;) Humans have always fared better when working together in a group (whether you look back to pre-history or at a modern city). Being civil to your neighbors is essential within a group if the group is to have long term success. Civilization and civility have "evolved" over time due to natural selection.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good? On what basis is it good? Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die? There is a standard of right and wrong that cannot be explained by natural selection. Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Despite what you might admit, EVERYONE is their own moral authority. Even the most religious among us evaluate each circumstance and apply "God's morality" as they see fit.
Not quite. Clergy have traditionally been the moral authority. They are, as a group, educated in the details of biblical interpretation. There tends to be widespread moral agreement amove the disparate Christian churches (they tend to disagree on methods of worship more than anything else). Therein lies the importance that religion be organized...So that relativistic interpretation, which can creep into biblical interpretation, be minimized.
Red Stateler wrote:
biblical interpretation
Exactly. Interpretation. Organized religion is a bane. Personal religion is what needs to return. Personal experience. Organized religion is responsible for quite a bit of immorality. Pack mentality suggests that with a gang to back em up, they can do just about anything they choose. Just need to get the gang behind it.
This statement was never false.
-
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good? On what basis is it good? Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die? There is a standard of right and wrong that cannot be explained by natural selection. Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
Edmundisme wrote:
Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die?
Not at all, from an evolutionary standpoint the bigger the extended family group the more help and protection there is to raise your children. Many in the animal kingdom exhibit such traits. It is also beneficial to have the sick and weak hang around long enough to be the ones killed off by your predators.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Edmundisme wrote:
Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die?
Not at all, from an evolutionary standpoint the bigger the extended family group the more help and protection there is to raise your children. Many in the animal kingdom exhibit such traits. It is also beneficial to have the sick and weak hang around long enough to be the ones killed off by your predators.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
from an evolutionary standpoint the bigger the extended family group the more help and protection there is to raise your children
OK, the bigger the herd the better? I can buy that. But why help the sick and weak if they are purely a burden and no help at all? Buying the homeless old man a sandwich doesn't seem to be full of evolutionary purpose. Still, what about my other point? Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
-
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good? On what basis is it good? Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die? There is a standard of right and wrong that cannot be explained by natural selection. Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
Edmundisme wrote:
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good?
Have you ever been sick or felt weak? If so, you know how it feels and can thus feel empathy. Over a generation or 2 or 1000 that becomes learned kindness.
Edmundisme wrote:
We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish!
Speak for yourself. Seriously though, how does theism explain selfishness?
Edmundisme wrote:
Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
How does a religious morality fare any better? :confused:
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
David Wulff wrote:
from an evolutionary standpoint the bigger the extended family group the more help and protection there is to raise your children
OK, the bigger the herd the better? I can buy that. But why help the sick and weak if they are purely a burden and no help at all? Buying the homeless old man a sandwich doesn't seem to be full of evolutionary purpose. Still, what about my other point? Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
I was not addressing your thread as such because I don't have the time to do it justice before I go to bed, I was just replying to the obvious bit that jumped out of the page. I added a further sentence to my last message just as you posted your reply. To repeat it -- it is beneficial to have the sick and weak hang around long enough to be the ones killed off by your predators. In other words, to further your individual chance of survival. Meerkats are amongst the most studied social animals and such behaviour (and it's observed results) are commonplace and well documented in books and on the TV. To answer your question here, the concept of buying a homeless old man a drink is exactly the same as the meerkats caring for the attacked pack member who they all know will die within a few hours: it spreads risk and reinforces emphathy and associated social bonds. All of which are critical to their individual survival as group animals.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
The Grand Negus wrote:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...",
Who is us? Who is this "our image"?
This statement was never false.
Christians believe in the doctrine of the trinity. That is, one God, three persons. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Christian doctrine does not try to diminish the distinction of the three, nor their total and complete unity. So, how do we rationalize this apparent logical paradox? Well, honestly, we can't. However, we believe it. We accept on pure faith that there are truths that are outside our abilities to understand. So, in the face of contradiction, we count God as one and three. Not because we reason it to be so, but because He declares it to be so. So, that's the explanation.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good?
Have you ever been sick or felt weak? If so, you know how it feels and can thus feel empathy. Over a generation or 2 or 1000 that becomes learned kindness.
Edmundisme wrote:
We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish!
Speak for yourself. Seriously though, how does theism explain selfishness?
Edmundisme wrote:
Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
How does a religious morality fare any better? :confused:
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
that becomes learned kindness
Learned behavior, maybe. But kindness? You're treating it qualitatively without acknowledging a standard of quality. The question here is whether empathy can be called "good" at all.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Seriously though, how does theism explain selfishness?
The question is not about why we are or aren't good, but whether anything can be considered "good" at all. In order to declare something as "good", there must be a standard in light of which we can view the act in question. If no such standard exists, by what logic can we conclude that something is "good"?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How does a religious morality fare any better
Remember, we aren't talking about the quality of one morality vs. another. We are talking about whether morality exists at all and what its origin might be. The point I'm making is that the standard of morality that we seem to hold ourselves and others to cannot be explained as an evolutionary survival technique because we fail to follow that standard! We are selfish when we know we should share. We are rude when we know we should be kind. We tell lies when we know we should be honest, etc.
-
John Carson wrote:
you and I are both atheists: I just am an atheist about one more god than you are.
You and him are the same. He claims that not believing in God is a belief. I disagree with both of you. :rolleyes:
"The trouble with the profit system has always been that it was highly unprofitable to most people." - E. B. White Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
You and him are the same.
Wash your mouth out with soap.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
He claims that not believing in God is a belief.
Actually, he claims that it is a religion --- which is nonsense.
John Carson
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
You and him are the same.
Wash your mouth out with soap.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
He claims that not believing in God is a belief.
Actually, he claims that it is a religion --- which is nonsense.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Wash your mouth out with soap.
Done that. I've also tasted. It sucks. :)
John Carson wrote:
Actually, he claims that it is a religion --- which is nonsense.
I agree. But your quote that you're both atheists since you believe in one less god than him is also nonsense. ;-P
"This perpetual motion machine she made is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster. Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM