1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Jun '08 10:22
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Of course that statement makes your whole religion a bit of a sham. Your God must be morally neutral as all morals are created by man.

    Food for thought: can morals be reversed or are they set for all time. If someone decides that raping children is OK, and everyone else agrees, will it be OK? What will Gods opinion be if he gets out voted on the matter?
    he generally has no say in the matter. man is free to do what he wants but of course will be held responsible.

    sometimes He might choose to send some prophets or do a Sodoma and Gomorrah episode or a great flood equivalent. this was the case in biblical times. when he sent moses, or eli or his son Jesus when mankind really acted like jerks. However, the lack of prophets in this age(better said the lack of our faith in nutjobs pretending to be prophets) seems to indicate God has given up on influencing mankind. We are now intelligent enough(or so we would claim) to be making our own morals. If god doesn't like it he will hold us responsible after death.

    that was my response on God's view of our morals
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Jun '08 10:26
    Another food for thought: if the survivability of our race required we do despicable acts by todays standards, would it be morally right? and i am not asking if we would see it as right, i am asking if the humans having to make those despicable decisions would view themselves as morally right?

    If your answer is no, would it be morally right to allow mankind as a race die out rather than do the despicable acts and ensure its survivability? If your answer to this is yes, then read Frank Herbert's Dune Saga(all six books, although my point requires only the first four). it is a lengthy read but then again quite worth it.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jun '08 10:57
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    he generally has no say in the matter. man is free to do what he wants but of course will be held responsible.
    What do you mean by 'held responsible'?

    sometimes He might choose to send some prophets or do a Sodoma and Gomorrah episode or a great flood equivalent.
    But why? They didn't do anything morally wrong. What they did was widespread and accepted as morally correct by the majority at the time.

    this was the case in biblical times. when he sent moses, or eli or his son Jesus when mankind really acted like jerks.
    Mankind is incapable of acting like jerks. Whatever mankind does is morally correct - your definition. Only individuals going against the majority are morally wrong (Moses, Eli and Jesus).

    However, the lack of prophets in this age(better said the lack of our faith in nutjobs pretending to be prophets) seems to indicate God has given up on influencing mankind.
    More likely we are more skeptical about nutjobs.

    We are now intelligent enough(or so we would claim) to be making our own morals. If god doesn't like it he will hold us responsible after death.
    Again I ask, what do you mean by "hold us responsible"? It just doesn't make any sense.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jun '08 10:591 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i am asking if the humans having to make those despicable decisions would view themselves as morally right?
    Then its a ridiculous question as we cannot know the views of some hypothetical humans. We could guess, but I think the answer would come out both ways depending on various circumstances.

    I've only read one of the Dune books.
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Jun '08 11:39
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Then its a ridiculous question as we cannot know the views of some hypothetical humans. We could guess, but I think the answer would come out both ways depending on various circumstances.

    I've only read one of the Dune books.
    if by one you mean the first one, it isn't related yet to my point. only by the fourth book it becomes apparent how an organism(eg mankind as a whole) can indulge in morally wrong activities to ensure survival.

    although even in the first book there are the fremens. we as a society condemn the act of cannibalism and the act of killing the useless people(old people, disabled etc). fremens however live in an extreme environment(desert). it endangers their survivability chances to care for the blind so they leave them in the desert to die. or they take every last amount of water from a corpse because the water is so scarce. to the other societies in dune it is barbaric. to the fremens it is morrally right for a blind man to die so that the society can better survive
  6. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Jun '08 11:47
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    What do you mean by 'held responsible'?

    [b]sometimes He might choose to send some prophets or do a Sodoma and Gomorrah episode or a great flood equivalent.

    But why? They didn't do anything morally wrong. What they did was widespread and accepted as morally correct by the majority at the time.

    this was the case in biblical times. when he sen ...[text shortened]...
    Again I ask, what do you mean by "hold us responsible"? It just doesn't make any sense.
    basically man is free to make his own choices. god already set some rules when jesus came. if man decides those rules no longer apply and makes another, god will have to (A)bort, (R)etry (I)gnore. i cannot expect god to condemn all humans from this point forward just because they don't treat women like worthless slaves as Paul instructed just i don't think he will send atheists and budhists to hell. so if i hold him to be permissive of the way atheists make their morals why not allow him to be permissive of the way all humans make their morals. At the judgement we shall be judged on the way we lived our life, and not put in some simple test of Pass/Fail

    how about we leave god out of this for now. this debate is interesting enough without him.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jun '08 11:53
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    At the judgement we shall be judged on the way we lived our life, and not put in some simple test of Pass/Fail
    But such 'judgment' is meaningless if the way we live our life is up to us. Or do we get judged by how well we lived up to our own morals? If someone thinks its morally acceptable to murder then he gets no punishment for murder whereas you, who knows its wrong to steal will be punished for pirating a CD.

    how about we leave god out of this for now. this debate is interesting enough without him.
    But your stance on morals conflicts with your religion so you must be seriously wrong about one of them.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Jun '08 12:10
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But such 'judgment' is meaningless if the way we live our life is up to us. Or do we get judged by how well we lived up to our own morals? If someone thinks its morally acceptable to murder then he gets no punishment for murder whereas you, who knows its wrong to steal will be punished for pirating a CD.

    [b]how about we leave god out of this for now. t ...[text shortened]... tance on morals conflicts with your religion so you must be seriously wrong about one of them.
    no it doesn't conflict. i am simply saying that localized (ie on the level of a society) there aren't rights or wrongs other than the ones we create. when you come out of a society with a set of morals and enter another of course some of them will conflict.

    even God changes. if even his laws are subject to change how can you discuss absolute morals. have you discussed with god lately? how do you know what his stances are nowadays? so if we do not get outside input in the moral problem, it is logical we make them ourselves. and we assume responsibility for it. either in the face of God's judgment or in the face of future generation's judgment.

    we cannot involve God in this argument because we don;t know what he wants now, we don;t know for sure he exists. so when current state of society demands we change out morals to allow slavery(or die), will we sit and wait for God to give his ok?
  9. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Jun '08 12:24
    Is there an absolute moral or not?, this is the question.

    To understand this question we have to define two words.

    (1) def: "absolute"
    (2) def: "moral"

    If we don't define those two words, we are not sure if we discuss the same thing. Especially 'moral', because it is relative the culture and time we live in. Is the Swedish moral mean the same thin as the US moral, or Chinese moral, or Inuit moral... etc. Is any of these morals better than others? Which one is the best moral of all cultures and all times?

    The very existance of the concept of "absolute moral" is taken from a website that tries to prove the existance of god himself in the way of a decision tree. This decision tree does not work if you don't believe in the "absolute moral". So the test is meaningless.

    Any try to prove the existance of god, as any try to prove the non-existance of god is futile from the beginning to the end. Because it simply cannot be proven, it's impossible. That's the reason we have religions.

    So weather there is such thing as "abolute moral" is not very interesting. However, it is interesting to follow the discussion about "absolute moral". But it is totally meaningless if we define the words "abolute" and "moral" differently.

    I say there is no existance of "absolute moral".
    I say there is no proof of "existance of god".
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jun '08 12:56
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    no it doesn't conflict.
    Then I ask you again. How does God judge us? Based on what? His morals last year, his morals this year or our morals last year or this year?
    Without absolute morals, his judgment is arbitrary or relative.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jun '08 12:59
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Any try to prove the existance of god, as any try to prove the non-existance of god is futile from the beginning to the end. Because it simply cannot be proven, it's impossible.
    Why is it impossible? Because you think so? I bet you haven't really thought about it.
    I believe that it is perfectly possible to show that every definition of God that is actually believed in by someone is incoherent (and thus cannot exist).

    That's the reason we have religions.
    No it isn't. We have religions because people are quite easily deluded.
  12. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Jun '08 13:16
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why is it impossible? Because you think so? I bet you haven't really thought about it.
    I believe that it is perfectly possible to show that every definition of God that is actually believed in by someone is incoherent (and thus cannot exist).

    [b]That's the reason we have religions.

    No it isn't. We have religions because people are quite easily deluded.[/b]
    Be sure of that I've thought about it a lot. Even some christian people that I have met says the same. But that doesn't matter. If you believe god can be proven, or disproven, please, give me a stratght proof, one that is not based on faith, than I willingly change my mind.

    One reason that I think cog cannot be proven, is that there is so many gods out there - the hindi gods, the african gods, the shaman gods - which one of the gods would you like to prove? And would you like to disproove the rest too?

    God is about faith. Religion is about faith. They don't have to be proven.

    I don't think we have religions becase people want to be deluded. Ask them and you will hear. Religions are there to explain the unexplainable.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jun '08 13:38
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    If you believe god can be proven, or disproven, please, give me a stratght proof, one that is not based on faith, than I willingly change my mind.
    I already gave the key to the proof. Any given God concept is incoherent. An incoherent entity cannot exist.

    One reason that I think cog cannot be proven, is that there is so many gods out there - the hindi gods, the african gods, the shaman gods - which one of the gods would you like to prove? And would you like to disproove the rest too?
    I could disprove any given one. To disprove all at once might be difficult as you correctly guess, but that does not make all immune to being disproved which is where you went wrong. If you tell me there is a pink elephant in your cupboard, the fact that there are millions of cupboards in the world does not stop me from searching your cupboard and showing that there is no pink elephant in it.

    God is about faith. Religion is about faith. They don't have to be proven.
    But they can be disproven.

    I don't think we have religions becase people want to be deluded.
    Neither do I. What I said was that they are there because people are easily deluded. - not the same thing.

    Religions are there to explain the unexplainable.
    I am yet to hear a religious person explain the unexplainable. In my experience, religious beliefs try to hide the unexplainable. 'God did it' may sound like an explanation but it isn't really. Surprisingly many people however think it is.
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Jun '08 13:39
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why is it impossible? Because you think so? I bet you haven't really thought about it.
    I believe that it is perfectly possible to show that every definition of God that is actually believed in by someone is incoherent (and thus cannot exist).

    [b]That's the reason we have religions.

    No it isn't. We have religions because people are quite easily deluded.[/b]
    i don't understand how you are so sure god doesn't exist yet you believe some moral laws are absolute. for absolute good to exist(and absolute evil for that matter) it must not have a time of beginning. it is not absolute if you say"from now on it is absolute" since there must have been a time it was not. so why can a moral law exist since always but a supreme being cannot? and you have no proof moral laws are absolute other than your feeling that it must be right(a feeling that child rape is wrong for example)

    i guess you are starting to become religious.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Jun '08 13:56
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    so why can a moral law exist since always but a supreme being cannot?
    I really don't see the connection. You might as well claim that because God is absolute then invisible pink unicorns must also be able to exist.

    i guess you are starting to become religious.
    You guessed wrong.
    Its a rather silly guess anyway as you made it quite clear that in your religion morals are not absolute, so I am actually going in the opposite direction from your religion.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree