Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[SirRumpole]

Would they do it if they didn't believe in an afterlife?

That's my point, a doctrine that promotes belief in an afterlife, is more likely to see a lower value to this life, and perhaps human life in general.

That's a pretty limited view.

If a doctrine taught that our actions today good or bad will form part of our future lives, that good acts would be rewarded and bad ones punished, then I think that would lead to a greater respect for life and greater propensity to do good things.

 

[Value Collector]

That's a pretty limited view.

If a doctrine taught that our actions today good or bad will form part of our future lives, that good acts would be rewarded and bad ones punished, then I think that would lead to a greater respect for life and greater propensity to do good things.

Unless those good acts aren't really good (eg suicide bombing, denying rights to women, opposing gay rights etc) and the bad acts aren't really bad (eg being gay)

--------------------------

These religions tend to tie themselves to a lot of old ideas that are in themselves immoral.

And as I have said there are very practical real world reasons to be good and value human life, you don't need the punish/reward of the superstitious religions.

 

[SirRumpole]

Unless those good acts aren't really good (eg suicide bombing, denying rights to women, opposing gay rights etc) and the bad acts aren't really bad (eg being gay)

--------------------------

These religions tend to tie themselves to a lot of old ideas that are in themselves immoral.

And as I have said there are very practical real world reasons to be good and value human life, you don't need the punish/reward of the superstitious religions.

Actually there are a lot of good reasons to be evil if you can get away with it. Money, power, sex etc.

The threat of punishment is one of the few things that deters people, and even that is not enough for some.

 

[Value Collector]

Actually there are a lot of good reasons to be evil if you can get away with it. Money, power, sex etc.

.

and what better way to take those things than with the authority of a god? again its peoples belief in fairy tales and lack of scepticism that opens them up to being taken advantage of in the first place.

trying to trick people into being good by making them superstitious, won't help society long term, if anything the good effects are offset by the bad, and also when people finally realise the superstitious stuff is BS, then you may be to late to actually teach them the real reasons why being its beneficial to act morally.

This goes back to my analogy on Amorality, and the two groups of children that appear to be behaving well, one group from the threat of a smack or promise of desert and the other group behaving because they have been raised to value others and care about the effect of their actions on others.

 

[SirRumpole]

and what better way to take those things than with the authority of a god? again its peoples belief in fairy tales and lack of scepticism that opens them up to being taken advantage of in the first place.

trying to trick people into being good by making them superstitious, won't help society long term, if anything the good effects are offset by the bad, and also when people finally realise the superstitious stuff is BS, then you may be to late to actually teach them the real reasons why being its beneficial to act morally.

This goes back to my analogy on Amorality, and the two groups of children that appear to be behaving well, one group from the threat of a smack or promise of desert and the other group behaving because they have been raised to value others and care about the effect of their actions on others.

Good, so please let us know when you find a way to abolish prisons and courts.



You still have to explain why morality is better than no morality. The examples of people getting into positions of power and wealth whilst being amoral are plentiful.

Try explaining to a child that it's better to live a poor and moral life than a rich amoral one, especially when there is no afterlife where they have to account for their actions.

 

[smallwolf]

again its peoples belief in fairy tales and lack of scepticism that opens them up to being taken advantage of in the first place.

does that apply to Christianity or all "religions"? What about the indigenous people and dreamtime stories?

trying to trick people into being good by making them superstitious, won't help society long term, if anything the good effects are offset by the bad, and also when people finally realise the superstitious stuff is BS, then you may be to late to actually teach them the real reasons why being its beneficial to act morally.

Source: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/identity/marks-of-mission.aspx

The Five Marks of Mission are:

• To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
• To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
• To respond to human need by loving service
• To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation
• To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth

(Bonds of Affection-1984 ACC-6 p49, Mission in a Broken World-1990 ACC-8 p101)

skipping over the first two items.... how does this not help society?

 

[Value Collector]

Good, so please let us know when you find a way to abolish prisons and courts.



You still have to explain why morality is better than no morality. The examples of people getting into positions of power and wealth whilst being amoral are plentiful.

Try explaining to a child that it's better to live a poor and moral life than a rich amoral one, especially when there is no afterlife where they have to account for their actions.

Why would we get rid of prisons and courts?

The benefits of morality are pretty clear? Or are you saying you would rather live amongst a group with no morals?

Why not live a rich moral life? You don't have to be poor to be moral, and being amoral doesn't guarantee wealth, your statement makes no sense.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why would we get rid of prisons and courts?

You are saying you can persuade anyone to live a moral life without resorting to a "punishment" scenario.

The benefits of morality are pretty clear? Or are you saying you would rather live amongst a group with no morals?

The benefits of morality may not be clear to everyone. A lot of amoral people get rich and powerful so they set an example for others that "the good life" can be gained without morality.

Why not live a rich moral life? You don't have to be poor to be moral, and being amoral doesn't guarantee wealth, your statement makes no sense.

It's harder to live a rich moral life if you are talking about "rich" being wealth. Bill Gates is probably soothing his morals now after ripping off a lot of people's IP over the years and stomping on his competition.

So, why don't you tell us the benefits of being moral. Is it just a "feel good" factor ?

 

[Value Collector]

does that apply to Christianity or all "religions"? What about the indigenous people and dreamtime stories?

The Christianity and Islam are open to it the most of any religion I know, But offcourse any religion that relies on any sort of priest, pastor, wiseman, guru, etc etc who knows what the gods think and what they want of us will be open to being used to take advantage of people.

• To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
• To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
• To respond to human need by loving service
• To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation
• To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth

Do you care if your religion is true?

you skipped my question about how do you tell the false parts of the bible from the true bits

 

[Value Collector]

You are saying you can persuade anyone to live a moral life without resorting to a "punishment" scenario.



?

Nope, I never said you can persuade anyone one, some people will be born psychopaths or not learn basic moral concepts or be distorted by drugs etc for these people we will need a place to store them to get them out of society or to fix their problems.

The benefits of morality may not be clear to everyone. A lot of amoral people get rich and powerful so they set an example for others that "the good life" can be gained without morality.

So we should just avoid trying to teach good morals and instead teach superstition????

It's harder to live a rich moral life if you are talking about "rich" being wealth

.

I don't agree

So, why don't you tell us the benefits of being moral. Is it just a "feel good" factor

Its easy to understand if you answer this question for me.

"why do you want to live in a country that cares about morals?"

 

[SirRumpole]

Its easy if you answer this question for me.

"why do you want to live in a country that cares about morals?"

I would say "define your morals, they may be different to mine".

 

[Value Collector]

I would say "define your morals, they may be different to mine".

Lets just limit it to well being based morality, eg caring about the affect of your actions on others.

Would you agree that a society where a large portion of the population care about how its actions affect the well being of others would be a better place to live than one where the majority of the population had no regard for the well being of others?

 

[SirRumpole]

Lets just limit it to well being based morality, eg caring about the affect of your actions on others.

Would you agree that a society where a large portion of the population care about how its actions affect the well being of others would be a better place to live than one where the majority of the population had no regard for the well being of others?

I would, but others may feel that as long as they are Ok that's good enough for them.

There are some on this forum that believe in a dog eat dog, buyer beware, survival of the fittest philosophy.

I would say that if you are engaged in share trading then you have some of those "morals". Your profit could be someone else's loss and you can't take care of everyone can you ?.


One example.

You are looking to buy a house. You come across one owned by an old lady who needs a quick sale to pay for a nursing home for her husband. You know she wants to sell fast. Do you try and beat or down or offer her a higher price so she can get a better home for her husband ?

 

[Value Collector]

I would, but others may feel that as long as they are Ok that's good enough for them.

There are some on this forum that believe in a dog eat dog, buyer beware, survival of the fittest philosophy.

I would say that if you are engaged in share trading then you have some of those "morals". Your profit could be someone else's loss and you can't take care of everyone can you ?.


One example.

You are looking to buy a house. You come across one owned by an old lady who needs a quick sale to pay for a nursing home for her husband. You know she wants to sell fast. Do you try and beat or down or offer her a higher price so she can get a better home for her husband ?

But do you think promoting superstition is the best way around that? I doubt it.

I am a long term investor, I look to the assets I own to generate my returns, it's not dog eat dog, the types of companies I like to own everybody wins, eg our suppliers, employees, customers, shareholders and government all benefit from our existence.

The fact that one trader buys in today and sells at a loss tommorow is irrelevant to the long term returns of investors and the company in general, they are playing a different game, that they choose to play, gambling isn't immorral.

The old lady will only take my offer if I am the highest bidder, so my buying her house has helped her achieve a higher price than she otherwise could have.

-------------

We are getting away from my original question,

Do you want to live in a country with good morals? And if so why?

 

[smallwolf]

you skipped my question about how do you tell the false parts of the bible from the true bits

Some might argue that Esther, Tobit and Judith are historical. Others not... You determine it by Research, study, and ????

Just take book of Judith as an example, the place mentioned in the story is only mentioned in this story and nowhere else. Also the events are stated as occurring during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who is called the king “who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.” (Judith 1:1, 7 [1:5, 10, Dy]) The introduction and footnotes of this translation point out that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylonia and never reigned in Nineveh, since Nineveh had been destroyed earlier by Nebuchadnezzar’s father (copied from wikipedia)

have a look here also...

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...nFAaM4ChC7BQgqMAI#v=onepage&q=fiction&f=false

you also refer to "myth" quite a bit.... read pg 53 in "An Introduction to the Bible" by Kugler and Hartin.

 

[SirRumpole]

We are getting away from my original question,

Do you want to live in a country with good morals? And if so why?

I've already said I would (assuming your morals coincide with mine). Why, because it makes me feel better that we live in a cooperative society. This feel good factor may be different for others, as I've said and I don't want to repeat myself more than necessary, others may feel good by acquiring wealth and power to the detriment of others.

Explain to them why this is immoral in your world view.

 

[luutzu]

....

I am a long term investor, I look to the assets I own to generate my returns, it's not dog eat dog, the types of companies I like to own everybody wins, eg our suppliers, employees, customers, shareholders and government all benefit from our existence....

You've been watching way too much Disney VC.

 

[luutzu]

I've already said I would (assuming your morals coincide with mine). Why, because it makes me feel better that we live in a cooperative society. This feel good factor may be different for others, as I've said and I don't want to repeat myself more than necessary, others may feel good by acquiring wealth and power to the detriment of others.

Explain to them why this is immoral in your world view.

Didn't your phrasing kind of explain itself?

It is wrong to harm people; it is immoral to intentionally harm people; it's messed up to harm people so you can profit from it.

True there are sociopaths and psychos out there who get kicks out of hurting people and also get the material reward out of it. But Karma has a way of bringing balance back to the universe.

First, when you screw people over... you'll constantly be looking over your shoulders.

Can have that fixed with body guards and all the security measures in the world... but it's hard to get a good night sleep even if your conscience are living the dream.

Second, if the person is a bastard, good people won't be hanging around them. Those that hang around are brown nosing sycophants... and those tend not to make loyal friends or lovers. They will turn on you for a dime.

Three, assuming all is good and legal and the world doesn't see your crimes as crimes but as "natural" habits of responsible leaders and kings... That if you're big enough and can screw over enough people and countries for power and riches... you can destroy the city, the community, and even the world we all inhabit.

What good is it to have all the power and riches but no friend, no loved ones, no confidant and living in a screwed up environment.

So in the end, you won't be living in riches nor have power - power over what?

 

[Tisme]

You've been watching way too much Disney VC.

 

[luutzu]

Some might argue that Esther, Tobit and Judith are historical. Others not... You determine it by Research, study, and ????

Just take book of Judith as an example, the place mentioned in the story is only mentioned in this story and nowhere else. Also the events are stated as occurring during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who is called the king “who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.” (Judith 1:1, 7 [1:5, 10, Dy]) The introduction and footnotes of this translation point out that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylonia and never reigned in Nineveh, since Nineveh had been destroyed earlier by Nebuchadnezzar’s father (copied from wikipedia)

have a look here also...

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...nFAaM4ChC7BQgqMAI#v=onepage&q=fiction&f=false

you also refer to "myth" quite a bit.... read pg 53 in "An Introduction to the Bible" by Kugler and Hartin.

The Bible is real now?

You would expect the guys who live around the area to know and could name a few of the cities around it. So why the big surprise?