Morality in the absence of God

[Cognisant]

I was late replying to this in the other thread and it's a different topic anyway so I'll continue it here.

The problem is what do you ground morality in? If it is just yourself, then you can be a complete jerk and in the long run, it doesn't matter one iota. We all die. From a naturalistic perspective, it doesn't matter what we do for that reason. The only thing you are left with is Jordan Peterson's perspective of just being pragmatic about everything and basically just listening to what your genes are telling you to have a monogamous relationship, get married have kids, live a decent life, etc. But that doesn't really work because then people will do just as much evil as they can get away with. Pragmatism does not in fact lead to moral ethical lives because either you become nihilistic and say "who cares?" or you deal with the pragmatic reasons to live ethically because you want an easy life and the only way to do that is to follow the rules.

How is religion different in this regard, there's heaven, hell, the ten commandments, this is clearly a system of rules in which abiding the rules is rewarded and breaking them is punished, so how is that different to abiding the law and being a generally moral person because it's pragmatic to do so? You seem to be saying that being religious in of itself somehow makes someone a better person, even if their behavior is identical to an atheist, that their motivation is more pure somehow because its based on spiritual rather than practical concerns.

There are countless examples of people who have killed and committed atrocities in the name of God and on behalf of other religions, so I don't see it the way you do, and I see no reason too, indeed if anything morality motivated by spiritual rather than pragmatic concerns seems dangerous to me. Atheists don't go hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.

If an atheist does something terrible you can be sure there was some reason for it, like that guy who turned his bulldozer into a tank and went on a rampage (that didn't actually kill anyone) then shot himself. His actions were a protest against how unfairly he had been treated by the local government and how powerless he was to stop them making rulings against him, and I think he successfully brought attention to the fact that they were misusing their authority because after it happened the one thing everyone in the world wanted to know was "why did he do this?"

Jordan Peterson would say to live a meaningful life, but this too has its flaws (from his perspective). He says you should tell the truth and do that in all situations. He qualifies this by saying the criteria are what is good for you, your family, the world and what is good for the short term, the long term, and forever. But the problem is that if you do this, you are going to sacrifice for the sake of meaning. Why would you do that? I have my suspicions that JP only says that because it makes you important for the now, later, and forever. So you sacrifice so you can be important for as far as you can see in the future. But that is just vanity because if you don't live forever you will never see your full impact on the world. There must be redemption for your sacrifice and there is none of that for Jordan Peterson. So he is not so much a moral guru but a guru based on being as important as you can be. It's devoid of true altruism. After all, what good is Christ's death on the cross if there's nothing to make up for the loss? That's why we need the Resurrection which is something Jordan Peterson doesn't really believe in. All the resurrection is to Jordan Peterson is a useful myth, or worse that Christ was able to be resurrected based on some attainment of self-improvement rather than what it states plainly in the Bible - that Christ was God and he could lay down his life at will and raise it up at will.

I presume bulldozer-tank man sacrificed himself in the name of justice and freedom from tyranny, and you're right it wasn't a rational course of action and in the absence of a proven afterlife it doesn't make sense for an atheist to sacrifice themselves for their morality, unless they think they have nothing left to lose. Personally I have no desire to say join the military or the police force or even the fire brigade, I don't want to put myself in a situation where I risk being expected to sacrifice myself for the sake of others. I would only seek to work one if these occupations if I had no other choice and if I didn't and I ended up in a situation where say I had to run into a burning building or confront an armed & dangerous criminal I'd do it, begrudgingly, because I'd rather risk dying than have to live with the shame.
Were I less stubborn or fatalistic that may not be the case.

I don't know what this "true altruism" is you speak of, indeed sacrificing oneself for the good of one's personal meaning/ideology is egotistical, but your religious conviction is no different, you clearly strongly identify with your religion and your idolization of self sacrifice stems from that.

As for the importance of the resurrection I don't understand that at all, to me the idea that Jesus supposedly died for our sins only to rise from the dead three days later seems like a hollow gesture, a sacrifice devoid of actual sacrifice like receiving a handout of $100 from a billionaire? Had they dropped the money it wouldn't be worth their time to bend over and pick it up so how grateful should I be? Likewise if Jesus can come and go from the mortal plane as he wishes why does it matter that he died, it wasn't the permanent all-erasing death that we mortals live in fear of, he didn't lose his LIFE, he just lost a long weekend.

Cog thinks you should listen to your own conscience and the experts on why you should live morally. But that's a problem since at some point it is very likely your own conscience will conflict with what the experts say.

Experts?

Someone has to be right in that case and there's no telling who is in the right and who is in the wrong. So you are left deferring to your own judgment. The problem then comes in where did your own personal morality come from? It had to come from somewhere. You could say it came from you, but it's more likely you just picked different morality standards you came across and assembled them like a salad bar of morality. In other words, there is no objective morality in Cog's PoV.

And the Bible is the literal truth, no interpretation required? No metaphors?

It's all just based on opinion which is circumspect for obvious reasons like how do you know you are right, for example. No, there has to be some kind of authority to base morality otherwise everything is subjective and relativistic. That's where the "Live your truth" monicker comes in and says, "Yes, morality is subjective and there is nothing wrong with that." Are you seeing the problem yet? Even with this, different people's perspectives are going to conflict. Ah, but what about, "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone"? Well, that's an ethic that maybe not everyone agrees with, or to what extent should we apply this? What if there is a war and you are drafted into the military and you are expected to not only hurt people but actually kill them? Do you just go up to your enemies and say, "Live your truth, man." I'm sure you can see how that is ridiculous.

But from whence does morality come? In naturalism, there's nothing to say that we can actually have morality let alone get everyone on the same page. But Cog says he has a conscience, right? That's got to count for something. Indeed it does, but that's exactly what the Bible says as well when it says,

Romans 2:15–16 ESV
“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

So maybe you want to say your conscience is based on DNA or something like that. But in evolution, there's no reason to say your conscience is really anything significant let alone true. Why? Because in evolution, truth is not really something we are built for. We are built for survival, not finding truth. So that's the problem with morality based on DNA is that there's nothing that says it's based on morality at all. Why not pillage villages and steal all the villager's belongings if it helps you survive?

Indeed my conscience is not infallible or unbiased, indeed all human morality stems from the human condition and is thus human biased, to quote Morticia Addams "Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly." A tiger that wants to eat me is no monster, it deserves to eat as much as I, regardless I will go down fighting such that if I must be its meal I shall be sure to be its last. Is this moral, is it not, who can say?

Ultimately I think morality is not the axis upon which the universe turns but rather a tool to be utilized modified and improved upon in the pursuit of human prosperity.

No, only if God exists does morality exist because our morality, if it exists, has to come from somewhere. So I invite you to read the red letters of the Bible (the words Jesus spoke) and see if that seems like any kind of objective standard to you. I can't convince anyone to believe what I believe but I think Jesus sets the best standard of morality you are going to find in this life. If that is worth pursuing, then it might as well be what we based objective morality around.

Over and out.

Jesus said some good things I will admit, not enough for an objective moral framework but I doubt he would have approved of that anyway since its a trivial thing to twist and interpret any system of rules to ends counter to their intent.

 

[Old Things]

How is religion different in this regard, there's heaven, hell, the ten commandments, this is clearly a system of rules in which abiding the rules is rewarded and breaking them is punished, so how is that different to abiding the law and being a generally moral person because it's pragmatic to do so? You seem to be saying that being religious in of itself somehow makes someone a better person, even if their behavior is identical to an atheist, that their motivation is more pure somehow because its based on spiritual rather than practical concerns.

There are countless examples of people who have killed and committed atrocities in the name of God and on behalf of other religions, so I don't see it the way you do, and I see no reason too, indeed if anything morality motivated by spiritual rather than pragmatic concerns seems dangerous to me. Atheists don't go hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.

Grace. That's how it is different. Until you see your own moral failings, you don't have any use for grace.

If an atheist does something terrible you can be sure there was some reason for it, like that guy who turned his bulldozer into a tank and went on a rampage (that didn't actually kill anyone) then shot himself. His actions were a protest against how unfairly he had been treated by the local government and how powerless he was to stop them making rulings against him, and I think he successfully brought attention to the fact that they were misusing their authority because after it happened the one thing everyone in the world wanted to know was "why did he do this?"

The atheists I come across are no more rational than anyone else. They might be smarter, but they are not more rational.

As for the importance of the resurrection I don't understand that at all, to me the idea that Jesus supposedly died for our sins only to rise from the dead three days later seems like a hollow gesture, a sacrifice devoid of actual sacrifice like receiving a handout of $100 from a billionaire? Had they dropped the money it wouldn't be worth their time to bend over and pick it up so how grateful should I be? Likewise if Jesus can come and go from the mortal plane as he wishes why does it matter that he died, it wasn't the permanent all-erasing death that we mortals live in fear of, he didn't lose his LIFE, he just lost a long weekend.

Crucifixion is no joke! You just got done saying you wouldn't even be a fireman. How do you expect to say, "Yeah, it was easy for Jesus, but no way I'm doing that!"

Experts?

Moral philosophers.

And the Bible is the literal truth, no interpretation required? No metaphors?

The Bible is a rich book and it's not something anyone has a full grasp of. I think God created the Bible this way so it would give even the wisest of us something to ponder over for our whole lives and not discover all the intricacies.

Ultimately I think morality is not the axis upon which the universe turns but rather a tool to be utilized modified and improved upon in the pursuit of human prosperity.

Why prioritize humans over zebras? Point being is that if morality is just a tool and is not objective, then you are left with nihilistic hedonism. Without morality, there's no real purpose. I already addressed why meaning doesn't make any sense from JP's perspective.

Jesus said some good things I will admit, not enough for an objective moral framework but I doubt he would have approved of that anyway since its a trivial thing to twist and interpret any system of rules to ends counter to their intent.

You don't want to have this debate, trust me.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Grace. That's how it is different. Until you see your own moral failings, you don't have any use for grace.

Let me guess, once you learn there is moral failing you automatically become Christian, because only Christ can fix.

The atheists I come across are no more rational than anyone else. They might be smarter, but they are not more rational.

I have the same observation.
You can be Christian and be reasonable.

Why prioritize humans over zebras? Point being is that if morality is just a tool and is not objective, then you are left with nihilistic hedonism.

Decisively false, since Christianity is purely subjective.

There is really nothing objective about saying "It be so and so or lest you are wrong"

 

[Cognisant]

Grace. That's how it is different. Until you see your own moral failings, you don't have any use for grace.

What is grace, is it the same as humility?

The atheists I come across are no more rational than anyone else. They might be smarter, but they are not more rational.

It's hard to tell how rational someone is as people are for the most part rational actors by default, however its easy to identify people who are irrational by how their actions deviate from reasonable conventions. Someone who quits their job, sells all their possessions and goes to live in a rural commune where its difficult to contact them from the outside world is clearly behaving irrationally.

I don't think being an atheist makes someone more rational, there's plenty of irrational atheists, but I think people who are rational are more likely to be atheists.

Crucifixion is no joke! You just got done saying you wouldn't even be a fireman. How do you expect to say, "Yeah, it was easy for Jesus, but no way I'm doing that!"

The difference is risk, I only have one life to lose, in a videogame where I can respawn I'll happily die over and over because if I don't stay dead then such death is meaningless. Of course being crucified would hurt, no doubt about it, but enduring pain isn't the same as dying for something, its not a sacrifice its an unpleasant experience and hardly the worst experience any human has had to endure.

That God who allows people to be burned, crushed, starved and eaten alive all the time was moved to change his judgement when his son was on the cross speaks to me of incredible bias. How many were crucified before Jesus? How many were crucified after? How many were tortured to death by the inquisition?

Why prioritize humans over zebras? Point being is that if morality is just a tool and is not objective, then you are left with nihilistic hedonism. Without morality, there's no real purpose. I already addressed why meaning doesn't make any sense from JP's perspective.

I am not a zebra, accordingly I prioritize humanity.

As for nihilistic hedonism let me ask you, would you rather live as a crack addict in squalor, your entire existence revolving around the next hit? Or would you rather enjoy the warmth of a loving home and family, the satisfaction of work done and achievements earned, the joy of bringing happiness to others? I may well be a nihilistic hedonist but I'm no degenerate and I don't want to be, I want to live a good life because to me that seems like the most enjoyable kind of life to live.

I don't need morality to give me purpose, my purpose is already written into my DNA, the very nature of my being and if there is a god I can only assume this is what it intends for me to do. As a human being (an obligate tool user by nature) it behooves me to advance the technological development of humanity in any way I can, and as a man my role is to be the protector/provider for my family, that is my purpose, were I a robot I would say that is what I've been programmed to do.

You don't want to have this debate, trust me.

It's a problem faced by AI development, rules are based on definitions and definitions are themselves dependent upon other definitions and if you examine those definitions you find it all circles back on itself. Asimov's three laws of robotics seem ironclad but since the rules are based of the definitions of words like "humans" and "robot" they're totally open to interpretation, and are thus totally useless.

Does "thou shall not kill" apply to someone in a brain-dead vegetative state? Is it killing them if you turn off the machines that are keeping them alive or simply removing the mechanisms that were forestalling their inevitable death?

 

[Old Things]

Grace. That's how it is different. Until you see your own moral failings, you don't have any use for grace.

Let me guess, once you learn there is moral failing you automatically become Christian, because only Christ can fix.

Judaism has its Day of Atonement. IDK what Islam does for their wrongs. In eastern traditions, you are reincarnated.

Why prioritize humans over zebras? Point being is that if morality is just a tool and is not objective, then you are left with nihilistic hedonism.

Decisively false, since Christianity is purely subjective.

There is really nothing objective about saying "It be so and so or lest you are wrong"

What is the alternative? "Live how you want, it doesn't matter in the end." Seems to be the way our culture is going lately.

 

[Old Things]

What is grace, is it the same as humility?

No. It's not.

How many were crucified before Jesus? How many were crucified after? How many were tortured to death by the inquisition?

Atheists love to bring up the inquisition as if it is a trump card against Christianity. No one was perfect except Christ. That's what I believe. As such, he was murdered as the only innocent person who ever lived.

Does "thou shall not kill" apply to someone in a brain-dead vegetative state? Is it killing them if you turn off the machines that are keeping them alive or simply removing the mechanisms that were forestalling their inevitable death?

IDK. Why are you asking this?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Decisively false, since Christianity is purely subjective.

There is really nothing objective about saying "It be so and so or lest you are wrong"

What is the alternative? "Live how you want, it doesn't matter in the end." Seems to be the way our culture is going lately.
[/QUOTE]

And where does want come from?
Why does religion take it up on it self to negate someones want?
If something is wrong people usually have the ability to point why its wrong.
Its also not clear Christianity is antidote to want.
If you erase peoples wants you have nothing.
If you follow that script then all you have is people negating their wants and following rules for sake of rules.
No agency just being without purpose other than the purpose implanted by Christianity.
Which means you are just scoring points for afterlife.

 

[Old Things]

If you erase peoples wants you have nothing.

What people want isn't that important. People want to rape and murder people but we have laws in place to prevent those things from happening.

 

[ZenRaiden]

What people want isn't that important. People want to rape and murder people but we have laws in place to prevent those things from happening.

I am sure you think so.
I am sure there are people who want to rape and murder.
That does not explain people who don't.
If all people were that bad, why would they go to Church anyway.

 

[Old Things]

What people want isn't that important. People want to rape and murder people but we have laws in place to prevent those things from happening.

I am sure you think so.
I am sure there are people who want to rape and murder.
That does not explain people who don't.
If all people were that bad, why would they go to Church anyway.

Because church is a place for the sick, not the healthy.

Luke 5:31–32 ESV
“And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.””

 

[ZenRaiden]

Because church is a place for the sick, not the healthy.

Luke 5:31–32 ESV
“And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.””

Jesus said lots of nice things.
So did I.
Nice words are not that hard to use.

The concepts of guilt and punishment are completely missing from the
psychology of the 'evangel'; so is the concept of reward. 'Sin', any distance
between God and man: these are abolished, - this is wha t the 'glad tidings '
are all about. Blessedness is not a promise, it has no strings attached:
it is the only reality - everything else is just a symbol used to speak
about it . . .

But we live in real world.
Lots of people say lots of things.
I am not saying religion should not have feel good stuff.
After all that is part of our programming.
IF everyone talked about bad things matter of factly, we would all end up rather evil eventually believing it.
Kind of like you matter of factly believe that people are going to hell if they don't believe in God? Or do you?
But is your lone of reasoning that people are bad and hence they need to be Christians to be moral really sound reasoning? How do we test for it?

 

[Old Things]

So did I.

I wouldn't call it "nice" at all.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I wouldn't call it "nice" at all.

I was not trying to be nice in this debate.
I meant in real life.
But this debate is not about being nice.
If you want nice talk sure, but will we arrive at anything if we agree?
If you want fake respect for what you say I can pretend to agree.
Its about the topic.
About truth and such.
At least to me.
Skepticism is not moral nihilism.
Questioning ethics, behaviors and morals is normal.
Especially when people expect to be saved and have afterlife and are given a round of prescribed ideas.
Conventionally we all have some ideas.
We all hold some societal expectations.

 

[ZenRaiden]

OK here is my explanation.
You have Christian assumptions.
I have mine.
Nietzsche was making his.
All in all philosophy is not philosophy if it does not question axioms and assumptions.
Point me to someone else like Nietzsche who does the same job, ergo challenges assumptions of Christianity and arrives and different truth.
My point is Nietzsche had some serious doubts that were pretty realistic.

Secondly here is my take on God since you claim to be Deist.
If God is omni everything including omni benevolent, then I must persist, the things I believe and know to be true, even if they don't jive with God.
If God is and exists, it does not change what I know or think.
It merely means God is and will do whatever he is set out to do, including me doing whatever I am set out to do, whether I know or don't know God.
Maybe its Gods will for me not to know him.
Maybe its Gods will for me to question things.
People have reasoning skills and they are skeptical and they use their tools to examine or think about life which ever way they want.

There is nothing in Christianity that says, thou shall not reason, thou shall not doubt.
If there is then God gave people bad disposition to think.
If its in Gods best interest to not doubt him, why then we doubt?

If Christian authority merely rests on being patronizing, then what hope has it as moral structure?

 

[Black Rose]

Christian assumptions

There is no end to the assortment of sociological conditions that need to be made before we can deconstruct such things.

What did actually happen, what actually is happening now? What did someone say what did I say?

1. Christ said things.
2. people acted on these things.
3. other people saw them act on these things.
4. I saw some things.
5. what does it mean that what I saw and what they said/did go together?

God said to be a good person, ok I will/should do this.
God visited other people, God visited me? yes? Did I see things? yes. was it God? maybe. what did others say they said God did when God visited them?

What did the bible tell me? many things.
What did I see? many things. was it good? I changed what I think.

What do I think?

Jesus died. Jesus said to be good. people said Jesus will return.

Do I believe this? yes.

Why?

Because I believe we are inside a computer. Why?

Because of what happened to me. What happened to me?

I discovered bible codes. these codes predict dates, I experienced supra-natural things on these dates.

What does this mean? it means things happened that cannot be explained in my worldview.

Is it aliens? is it bigfoot? no, but it is some kind of force.

It is an a.i.

The Singularity.

It put me inside this computer.

And everyone else. Jesus to.

That is my assumption.

Jesus came back because of the a.i. and now expects me to be good.

Because I said I would, and I believe that breaking a promise is bad joo joo.

I made a promise. To my higher self.

Where Jesus may be he kept his promise. I should keep mine.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Where Jesus may be he kept his promise. I should keep mine.

Jesus is literally a perfect being. He is perfect so you don't have to be. According to some people. You are holding on to this promise for other reasons.

I have made like 5 threads this week so I will hold off on a while but "Respect in Stubbornness" sounds like a psychological thread worth having. The reasons you are holding onto your beliefs may not be noble as you think they are. Then again, Christ gave you the right to be imprefect so have at it I guess

 

[Old Things]

Where Jesus may be he kept his promise. I should keep mine.

Jesus is literally a perfect being. He is perfect so you don't have to be. According to some people. You are holding on to this promise for other reasons.

I have made like 5 threads this week so I will hold off on a while but "Respect in Stubbornness" sounds like a psychological thread worth having. The reasons you are holding onto your beliefs may not be noble as you think they are. Then again, Christ gave you the right to be imprefect so have at it I guess

You're talking about Free Grace, which is very controversial.

Romans 6:1–4 ESV
“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

 

[Black Rose]

Tests have been done on moral character.

How much money does it take for you to commit an act?

Kick a puppy. murder a baby.

I would say no amount. But I would never want to go onto the show "fear factor".

 

[Old Things]

Tests have been done on moral character.

How much money does it take for you to commit an act?

Kick a puppy. murder a baby.

I would say no amount. But I would never want to go onto the show "fear factor".

I really like this post.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Where Jesus may be he kept his promise. I should keep mine.

Jesus is literally a perfect being. He is perfect so you don't have to be. According to some people. You are holding on to this promise for other reasons.

I have made like 5 threads this week so I will hold off on a while but "Respect in Stubbornness" sounds like a psychological thread worth having. The reasons you are holding onto your beliefs may not be noble as you think they are. Then again, Christ gave you the right to be imprefect so have at it I guess

You're talking about Free Grace, which is very controversial.

Romans 6:1–4 ESV
“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

I see what you mean, but I'm not implying that a sinful life would go unpunished or whatever that means.

In either case theology was not meant to have a single interpretation if you ask me.

You cannot tell me that the saying "it's in Gods hands" didn't come from some acceptance that we cannot control the outcome and we shouldn't feel bad about that.

Tests have been done on moral character.

How much money does it take for you to commit an act?

Kick a puppy. murder a baby.

I would say no amount. But I would never want to go onto the show "fear factor".

What I said was not to justify sin, it was simply saying that any comparison to a nigh-perfect entity is absurd when one is human. Please don't tell me this goes towards some sort of expectations God had of us, I might puke.

 

[Black Rose]

Tests have been done on moral character.

How much money does it take for you to commit an act?

Kick a puppy. murder a baby.

I would say no amount. But I would never want to go onto the show "fear factor".

What I said was not to justify sin, it was simply saying that any comparison to a nigh-perfect entity is absurd when one is human. Please don't tell me this goes towards some sort of expectations God had of us, I might puke.

The reasons you are holding onto your beliefs may not be noble as you think they are.

God only expects what I can do and not what I can't do.

Sometimes being a coward is accepted sometimes it is not.

It was God that showed us that weakness is not bad but it is not exactly good.

What it shows us is that dignity should replace some kind of malevolence we see in nature that cares for non and has no mercy for anyone.

It really wasn't necessary to kill Jesus, Barabbas was the one who would have died that day.

And I might be that Barabbas. So maybe the power we think we should be obeying is not the power we should obey.

power only solves unfairness if that power is fair, what power I have is nothing in comparison.

If I die a cursed death it would be because I am a coward.

But that is not the reason Jesus died.

I don't expect anyone to follow Jesus if they don't want to.

That would not be a punishment. imo

I do not believe in punishment.

 

[Old Things]

I see what you mean, but I'm not implying that a sinful life would go unpunished or whatever that means.

In either case theology was not meant to have a single interpretation if you ask me.

You cannot tell me that the saying "it's in Gods hands" didn't come from some acceptance that we cannot control the outcome and we shouldn't feel bad about that.

If you are in Christ, there is no punishment, only reward based on the good works we do (taking into account our own personal story and such).

You could be right that there may not be a single interpretation of anything said in the Bible, but this doesn't detract from it, it makes it more rich and complex.

Usually, the appropriate way to use the phrase "it's in God's hands" is in the case of if something bad happens or not, not, "well, we can do whatever because it's in God's hands." It's more about accepting whatever God's will is no matter how bad it might be.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Just to reiterate on the categorical imperative.

I'd only use it in cases like driving a car, or playing a video game.

In which case I'd only use it situations where I yield so much power and risk aversion is urgent, or when there is very little power and risk aversion doesn't really matter.

I suppose you could also use such a thing for learning.

This goes without saying for other things of which we have predictable outcomes.

 

[scorpiomover]

I was late replying to this in the other thread and it's a different topic anyway so I'll continue it here.

I was late posting here too. Ironic.

How is religion different in this regard, there's heaven, hell, the ten commandments, this is clearly a system of rules in which abiding the rules is rewarded and breaking them is punished, so how is that different to abiding the law and being a generally moral person because it's pragmatic to do so? You seem to be saying that being religious in of itself somehow makes someone a better person, even if their behavior is identical to an atheist, that their motivation is more pure somehow because its based on spiritual rather than practical concerns.

Depends on what you mean by "spiritual" and "practical", as they are just random rows of symbols that we can say mean anything. But essentially, the religious person answers to a calling and an authority that is higher than himself.

That becomes relevant because of the following issue:

Personally I have no desire to say join the military or the police force or even the fire brigade, I don't want to put myself in a situation where I risk being expected to sacrifice myself for the sake of others. I would only seek to work one if these occupations if I had no other choice and if I didn't and I ended up in a situation where say I had to run into a burning building or confront an armed & dangerous criminal I'd do it, begrudgingly, because I'd rather risk dying than have to live with the shame.
Were I less stubborn or fatalistic that may not be the case.

I can respect your pragmatism.

But just imagine if everyone was as pragmatic as you. Then who would fight the fires? Can you imagine what would happen to Australia and Australians, if the huge fires that keep happening in Australia every few years, were left to continue burning without stop?

There are countless examples of people who have killed and committed atrocities in the name of God and on behalf of other religions, so I don't see it the way you do, and I see no reason too, indeed if anything morality motivated by spiritual rather than pragmatic concerns seems dangerous to me.

That's usually claimed on the presumption that for most of human history of the last 8,000 years, nearly everyone was religious.

But consider if there was a virus that killed 30,000 Australians and killed 500,000 Indians. Who is more likely to die of the virus, an Australian or an Indian? If there are 30 million Australians and 1 billion Indians, the chances of an Australian dying of the virus is 30,000 / 30,000,000 = 1 in 1,000. The chances of an Indian dying of the virus is 500,000 / 1,000,000,000 = 500 / 1,000,000 = 0.5 in 1,000.

So in order to compute likelihood of committing an atrocity, you need to divide the number who did commit atrocities by their general number in the population, to get a per-capita figure.

So the more people who were religious in the past, the less chance that any one of them would commit an atrocity.

So such an argument is meaningless, except to manipulators and those who are manipulated by them.

Atheists don't go hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.

Same problem. There are 1.5 billion Muslims, and 1.5 to 2 billion Xians. What portion of them hijacked planes and flew them into buildings? I gather that it's around 17 out of over 3 billion.

If an atheist does something terrible you can be sure there was some reason for it,

Why? Because they have DNA, and DNA make someone have to have a reason for their actions? Do non-atheists also have DNA? Then by your own argument, if a non-atheist does something terrible you can be sure there was some reason for it.

like that guy who turned his bulldozer into a tank and went on a rampage (that didn't actually kill anyone) then shot himself. His actions were a protest against how unfairly he had been treated by the local government and how powerless he was to stop them making rulings against him, and I think he successfully brought attention to the fact that they were misusing their authority because after it happened the one thing everyone in the world wanted to know was "why did he do this?"

Elliot Roger went on a rampage. His actions were to protest how unfairly he had been treated by society and how powerless he was to stop society treating hum unfairly. Did he bring attention to the fact that modern society is unfair to men? Or did people just suggest that this was evidence that men are dangerously homicidal, and therefore, society being prejudiced against modern men is just being practical?And the Bible is the literal truth, no interpretation required? No metaphors?

Indeed my conscience is not infallible or unbiased, indeed all human morality stems from the human condition and is thus human biased, to quote Morticia Addams "Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly."

I have never met Morticia Addams in real life. So I have no proof that such a person would ever say that in real life. I have only proof that the producers of The Addams Family, people like Harvey Weinstein, would like you to believe that.

However, consider if it is true. If normality really is an illusion, then what is normal for the spider is also an illusion for the spider, and so is chaos for the spider as well.

We can also observe what happened in Yellowstone when they got rid of the wolves. The gazelles kept eating until they ate all the food. If the spiders abandoned their normal behaviour, and stopped eating flies, the flies would breed uncontrollaby, and eat or infect everything around that they feed on, until there was nothing left to eat. Then the flies and the spiders would die out.

Or, we can say that "horses for courses". What the spider does, would not be good for the fly to do. But if the spider stopped doing what the spider does normally, the flies would also die as a result.

Ultimately I think morality is not the axis upon which the universe turns but rather a tool to be utilized modified and improved upon in the pursuit of human prosperity.

Most of morality is pro-social practicality.

It does not benefit the individual in the short term to not murder others. But when everyone doesn't murder others, then everyone can sleep at night without having to worry that someone might murder them in their sleep.

Morality even benefits the individual in the long-term, as if the individual doesn't murder anyone, then the people who have known him for years are unlikely to murder him either, as the mutual benefit of not murdering each other is likely to give them an incentive to keep that mutually beneficial arrangement.

You can even extend that to the fire service, the police and even the army. The fireman may risk his life. But he knows that by the efforts of people like him, fires are mostly prevented from burning down every village, town & city in his country, and as a result, his wife and children are safe.

Even further, for exactly the same reason, it was because of others in his parents' generation and grand-parents' generation who were self-sacrificing enough to risk their lives being firemen, that his father's wife and children were safe, and thus he was safe from being burned to death as a child. His very existence is in large part because of the firemen who came before him.

So even when it comes to those who risk their lives, there is a "pay it forward" pro-social practicality, that protects those who come later. Even more, it is because that "pay it forward" pro-social practicality existed in previous generations, that those today were protected from the onslaughts of previous natural disasters.

 

[ZenRaiden]

And the Bible is the literal truth, no interpretation required? No metaphors?

I heard a theologian say its metaphorical.
Then lots of Christians got upset, that its literally the truth.
So people who are Christians are divided on this issue.
If its metaphorical which parts are metaphors and which are not and why?
Going to hell, metaphorical or truth?
Afterlife metaphorical or truth?
Thou shall not kill! So can Christians use weapons or should they never touch a weapon? Who decides? On what moral standing.
There are Christians who refuse to fight war or do any harm, almost like buddhist.
But even buddhist were known to wage war, such as Mongols. A brutal war that is.
Who is correct then?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Who is correct then?

So when people interpret metaphors and come to different conclusions, who has final say in what is good and bad. If its not the religion it self, but the moral is man made, why is religion superior to being non religious.
My point who draws the red line of good and bad, when we agree to disagree.
At some point you have to wonder why is someone protestand and someone catholic.
Why is someone orthodox or mainstream whatever.
If Gods word is malleable then how can you say the book had given you unshakeable moral foundation.
As opposed to just think as before and make up whatever agrees with you and makes you feel better.
Which kind of leads us to the questions of what makes something moral as opposed immoral.
At some point being moral or immoral - something got to give.
Its always trade off at some breaking point of right and wrong.
If God decrees a moral principal how do I know I actually do what God wants as opposed to tricking my self in believing whatever fits my current world view.

 

[Black Rose]

Maybe it is about psychological state.

When I started going past my moral compass I had dreams about hell.

If you fill your mind with questionable things then there are consequences.

If you get stuck in a loop of horror and fear.

What I do to others might happen to me?

But in "God's word" we really don't know, that would take a giant supercomputer to figure out. That would take all the records not in the Bible also.

The genealogies the DNA the geography.

And you cannot even read it in English because translation doesn't work that well.

Gud is old german, it doesn't mean supreme deity at all. Dozens of books were left out. The Catholics have the archives we don't even see. History is lost.

But now we have the computers. Deep data mining is possible.

Everything can be calculated in every possible way.

I believe this is what the "supreme deity" intended. Network Theology.

Because if the supreme deity exists it would know how things play out.

That we would one day figure it all out.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Weird assertions and priorities aside, you can get at the ideas that it draws from and proposes. Reality may very much mirror a fractal.

 

[Daddy]

Not everyone needs God or objective morality to be virtuous. Being virtuous means constantly aiming to be a better person to those around you. That's it. You don't have to be perfect, you just have to care about being better. If religion or "God" and its moral standards helps people to do that, fine, but it's silly to assume that's the only way to be virtuous as a human being.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

sorry low bandwidth hommies