Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Tisme]

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.

 

[SirRumpole]

Nice little match into the kindling there.

 

[luutzu]

If you remove "God" from their argument and replace it with, I don't know... Pol Pot, Hitler, our/their Military, Catholic Pope... does it still apply?

Nope.

An Objective morality does not reside in any one entity, be it real or imaginary.

The act of flattening a city and literally obliterate hundreds of thousands of people - that's immoral and fark up. It does not depends on which side you're looking at it; does not depends on what the victims or their Emperor did.

 

[Tisme]

If you remove "God" from their argument and replace it with, I don't know... Pol Pot, Hitler, our/their Military, Catholic Pope... does it still apply?

IF you replace HIM with Tony Abbott the morality of the Liberal Party voters shifts with him. Likewise for any political party and its adherents.... it's subjective on the circumstance. The Trinity God is not subjective ....... HIS rulz are the rulz, no facsimile thereof, no correspondence entered into.

 

[luutzu]

IF you replace HIM with Tony Abbott the morality of the Liberal Party voters shifts with him. Likewise for any political party and its adherents.... it's subjective on the circumstance. The Trinity God is not subjective ....... HIS rulz are the rulz, no facsimile thereof, no correspondence entered into.

And here I thought political parties will always do what it does, regardless of leadership. That leaders are like branding, they give a different feel and vibe, but slight below that fascade it's all the same. Kinda like Home Brand.

Pretty sure the Trinity God has been plagiarised more than a few times over the centuries.

Not sure why people think God is the North Star of high morality. I mean, look at the world He'd created. If I were God I'd be so upset I might start another flood to clean the deck. Alright, so maybe He does have a moral compass of hiding in some corner to wish the bad creations to go away all by itself.

 

[SirRumpole]

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?

Yes you can say all that. Some (VC) say that it is moral to care about other people. I agree but there are a lot of people who don't care about other people and do all right, by their standards.

They might say "I've only got one life to live and I want to enjoy it all, others just get in the way. Why should I help if I gain no benefit from it ?". They may not actually tread on other people but they won't go out of their way to help anyone either. Are they moral, amoral or somewhere in between, and what do those words mean anyway ?

 

[Tink]

Thanks for your youtubes, Tisme.

How simple was that black and white one, such a joy to watch, no fuss.

The morality one is spot on, in my view.

We are human beings, not animals, as VC says.

We live in a civilised, orderly society where family is the foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

VC, we probably have much in common on some things, but you pushing your atheist views so far, you have to accept that it has become a religion also, imv.

You can't sit here pointing fingers at Christianity, which is the base of this country and western culture, without accepting atheists own failures.

As I said, I don't care what people believe.

 

[Tisme]

Yes you can say all that. Some (VC) say that it is moral to care about other people. I agree but there are a lot of people who don't care about other people and do all right, by their standards.

I'm not sure that a lot of people don't care, more that they can't handle the emotion and consequences of overt and introvert compassion. There is also the spiritual rules that play out from organised religions.

The behaviours of the "Great Generation" would be quite different to the "Baby Boomer" generation, the first probably less generous with care than the second (based on the staunch and proper behaviours I witnessed)..

 

[smallwolf]

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?

maybe I could have worded it better, and used the word 'MANY' or 'MOST' people accept those books as religious novels (fictional) as opposed to historical fact. (MANY <> EVERYONE)

As for the names of cities etc. little different to historical fiction or the general fiction where the author makes up place names, etc. The difference is that these particular book are contained in the bible and some would say that EVERY christian treats every word as LITERAL FACT.

 

[Tisme]

Thanks for your youtubes, Tisme.

How simple was that black and white one, such a joy to watch, no fuss.

The morality one is spot on, in my view.

We are human beings, not animals, as VC says.

We live in a civilised, orderly society where family is the foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

VC, we probably have much in common on some things, but you pushing your atheist views so far, you have to accept that it has become a religion also, imv.

You can't sit here pointing fingers at Christianity, which is the base of this country and western culture, without accepting atheists own failures.

As I said, I don't care what people believe.

As usual Tink, you show a degree of civility that others can only envy. Thank goodness I'm comfortable being below par.

 

[Value Collector]

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,.

No, you benefit in a lot more ways than just a "Feel good" factor, Your own and everyone you care about's over all well being is improved on pretty much every level.

You benefit greatly from being able to walk down the street and not be bashed and robbed, you benefit greatly from not having to worry that your children will be raped, your wealth and health benefit greatly by society working together to provide services such as roads and hospitals.

Society acting morally towards one another builds a greater society where everyone benefits on all levels, so acting morally has real world benefits, you don't need to trick people with superstition.

others may feel good by acquiring wealth and power to the detriment of others.

That will happen, there will always be a few pirates, but pirating in unsustainable as system, eg we can't all be pirates, and a lot of the time those that live by the sword die by the sword, and there short term gains were at the detriment of their long term well being, eg how many gangsters etc live the high life only to end up being killed or jailed, there extra benefits are not free, they put themselves and their families at huge risk.

Explain to them why this is immoral in your world view

I can easily explain that its immoral, it's then up to them to act based on that knowing the risks, But to say that rather than teach the real world morality we should instead teach that a god is watching is silly, because once they relise that's BS, then without a moral base, they are capable of anything.

 

[SirRumpole]

No, you benefit in a lot more ways than just a "Feel good" factor, Your own and everyone you care about's over all well being is improved on pretty much every level.

You benefit greatly from being able to walk down the street and not be bashed and robbed, you benefit greatly from not having to worry that your children will be raped, your wealth and health benefit greatly by society working together to provide services such as roads and hospitals.

Of course, and that is why we have LAWS. So obviously, laws are based on morality or is morality based on laws ?

As you say, it's not against the law to gamble, but is it moral to deprive a lot of people of their money to benefit a few ?

Society acting morally towards one another builds a greater society where everyone benefits on all levels, so acting morally has real world benefits, you don't need to trick people with superstition.

That can be hard to show in some cases.

There have been many cases of good samaritans stopping to help people in broken down cars and getting run over, or people trying to stop a fight and getting beaten up by the fighters, or people offering medical assistance and later getting sued etc etc, so you will have a hard time convincing people that it's always in their interests to act morally towards others, and a lot of people these days will just look the other way..

 

[Value Collector]

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.

I asked how you tell the facts from the fiction, what I meant was since you know that there is fiction in the bible, and there is little historical evidence for Jesus outside the bible, how can you take the claims of miracles etc seriously, even if there was a Man, how can you believe the miracles?

For example, we accept Julius Ceaser as a historical figure, because we have loads of evidence for him, much more than for Jesus, but we don't take the super natural claims of Ceaser as truth.

I also asked, Do you care if your religion is true? (before I discuss anything more with you I need you to answer this, because there is no point me discussing it if you don't care if its true and you just want to believe because it makes you feel good)

 

[luutzu]

...

I can easily explain that its immoral, it's then up to them to act based on that knowing the risks, But to say that rather than teach the real world morality we should instead teach that a god is watching is silly, because once they relise that's BS, then without a moral base, they are capable of anything.

That's true. If we use religion and the fear of God to teach morality.. then some smart azz figured there's no God and religion is full of contradictions, and them going against religion and God's teaching have no consequences - then society as a whole become Capitalist, people hungry for power but not good looking enough strive to become high priest...

 

[luutzu]

As usual Tink, you show a degree of civility that others can only envy. Thank goodness I'm comfortable being below par.

yes, thank goodness.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's true. If we use religion and the fear of God to teach morality.. then some smart azz figured there's no God and religion is full of contradictions, and them going against religion and God's teaching have no consequences - then society as a whole become Capitalist, people hungry for power but not good looking enough strive to become high priest...

Maybe it's more dangerous to teach that there is no judgement day so people should just do what they like because there are no consequences.

 

[smallwolf]

Firstly, Jesus (or Yeshua) was a common name 2000 years ago. Secondly, the area where Jesus came from would be considered a backwater, so there would no reason to report on what he did. He was also disliked by the other religious groups in the area.

On his existence...

I cannot really prove it either, except to rely of writings of people like Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus etc.

On the miracles...

Again, I cannot prove the miracle, anymore than you cannot.

"...does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that? (http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources)

If you asked me whether I think that Christianity has changed somewhat for the worse since the church became an institution.... probably yes. But that does not negate by belief in (a) God.

At the end of the day, it comes down to faith. I have chosen to believe and you have not. To say it is all superstitious nonsense and fairy tales however is insulting.

 

[Value Collector]

IF you replace HIM with Tony Abbott the morality of the Liberal Party voters shifts with him. Likewise for any political party and its adherents.... it's subjective on the circumstance. The Trinity God is not subjective ....... HIS rulz are the rulz, no facsimile thereof, no correspondence entered into.

I think you are confusing "Objective Morality" with peoples opinions on what Morality is.

Morality is indeed Objective and is not something that is decided, It doesn't need a god to be objective either.

What makes morality "Objective" vs "Subjective" is that what is moral vs Immoral is based on the scientific facts of the universe, and what effect our actions have on the well being of other thinking beings.

eg, we don't need to invoke a god to have objective morality, whether an action increases or decreases the well being of humans and other thinking creatures is a scientific fact, not a subjective opinion.

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

Offcourse we do have to make decisions, which are based on opinions, but those decisions in no way change what the facts are, they will either be right or wrong.

 

[Value Collector]

Maybe it's more dangerous to teach that there is no judgement day so people should just do what they like because there are no consequences.

I never said there is no judgement day, you are judged every day, multiple times, by yours peers and society.

In your life you have people that you would do anything for and protect with your life, and you probably have others that you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

My guess, is the people you go out of your way to protect, assist and support are also the ones that to their best to help others, are generally good people, don't rip off others etc etc.

And if you find out that person does hit their wife or rob people, you won't be part of their support system anymore.

 

[luutzu]

Maybe it's more dangerous to teach that there is no judgement day so people should just do what they like because there are no consequences.

There are consequences either way. Put religion into the mix will first dumb down the masses, make them susceptible to charlatans, pious politicians and other fake religious nuts who spout one thing but do the other.

edit: not either way... God's Judgment Day doesn't exist