[anakronisM]

Terez, on 19 February 2010 - 07:05 PM, said:

You can't really get away from it, though. People are religious because they fear death; you won't change that by emphasizing different propaganda.

This is true for some, but you can't really say that this is true for all religious people. There are many sociological theories why there are people who become religious. While they all can be true, there aren't one single theory who applies for all people.

stone monkey, on 19 February 2010 - 11:46 PM, said:

tbh I find "the sound theological" approach to be as objectionable as any other. It still all pretty much boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong and you'll be going to hell for it..."

Yeah i understand that it can be frustrating, its a claim about how the ontological truth looks like and that everyone else is wrong.

stone monkey, on 19 February 2010 - 11:46 PM, said:

I mean, if you don't accept Christ as the son of God and Saviour, most Christians are pretty firm on the idea that you (or, in this case, me ) are going to be suffering for all eternity in whatever hell there may be as a result. And it actually doesn't matter how you've lived your life. And as the vast majority of all the people who've ever lived, whether they were saintly or depraved, did not believe this then they're surely doomed to an eternity of torment. That doesn't strike me as justice of any sort.

The idea is that there cannot be enough good deeds to make you saved. Even though this is deeply integrated in what is judged in the end. There's the idea of a judgment based on deeds as well as faith.
I think in essence its about choosing God or Not. My point is that there is a clear path by which Jesus is the way, but there are also open how God understands people to be saved, we can't say how this salvation is to be measured in the heart of people. The point is this doubleness which i fear i don't are making myself understood on.

If there is a free choice between Good or evil, God or not God, then you are responsible for your actions, and there are consequences based on those actions. If i jump off a building and think i won't die, there still will be consequences despite any subjective opinion on my part.

This is still depending on if there is a heaven and a hell after the end of time. It's surely discussible. And its something i cannot expect everyone to believe in.

stone monkey, on 19 February 2010 - 11:46 PM, said:

And emphasising the heaven aspect doesn't actually make it any better imo. "Do this because you want to go to heaven, 'cos heaven's ace!" would appear to me as an equally impoverished argument. It's just replacing the stick with a carrot. Choosing to be good to those around you because it's better than not doing so, without basing it on promises of a reward after death seems to me an altogether much more honest way of going about your life.

You make an excellent point here, the reason cannot primarily be this, it would spoil the more honest way to live as you put it. There must be primarily out of love and goodness we should be good to those around us.

My question to you is this: Why is it better to be Good than not to be Good to people around us? What are your thoughts about this if you have more thoughts apart from your utilitarian view. (If that is your view).

As for heaven, i think there is a great argument not for how we live our lives but what happens after death. Is there more after death? There could be this positive place that is without evil or suffering. That leads me to the second argument, that the idea that evil and suffering will end. The evil and suffering of this world can be changed into hope for the future and an endurance in this life can spring out of it. There's a deeper meaning to the life on this earth that can blossom through it, a security. But not a reason to be good primarily.

Another question for you: Do you think there's something after you die? Or does life just end? Couldn't the fact that there isn't something after you die make everything hopeless and without meaning? What is my reason to do good if there isn't anything more after death, the absence could make us ultimately unresponsible of our actions.

stone monkey, on 19 February 2010 - 11:46 PM, said:

And as an aside, it's a curious fact that quite a lot of atheists tend to be fairly well informed about religions; quite often more so than their adherents. I, for one, have heard most of the arguments (scriptural, theological, philosophical or whatever) before, but I was educated by Jesuits... It's something of an illusion held by quite a lot of believers, amongst the many they tend to hold about us, that atheists are atheist because they just don't know anything about what the religious believe and why they believe it. In my experience, it's just the opposite; most of the atheists I've ever encountered have thought hard about and researched deeply into religion and have come out of the other side still not believing.

Surely this is different for different places in our world and the circles we move in. In Sweden there are many who doesn't know much about religion or Christian faith. There's a dogmatic opinion about Christians that they are secteristic and stupid in general, so people doesn't feel any need to think about Christianity or the big questions in life.
Still there are people who do know alot about religion. This isn't something you could generalize here in Sweden, but maybe where you are it is true in general.

[anakronisM]

Adjutant Stormy, on 24 February 2010 - 03:25 AM, said:

I didn't say they weren't comparable, but you'll never convince any genital-mutilators that they're moral code is corrupt. They would likewise think that you're absurd for not doing so. But it's not that I don't agree with you, it's just that I don't have any way to quantify the difference. It's not that it's impossible, but it is unfeasible in the highest degree.

And on judicial systems, the guiding principle on most of them is a largely mutually subscribed-to code of behavior. By vote into law, it's at least in theory minimizing the "forcing" of people into morality.

I believe we need an objective moral code for these genital-mutilators who doesn't think their moral code is corrupt. Their subjectiveness cannot be refuted by other subjective standards or societies codes. But they can be refuted by objective moral codes that come from an objective and universal ground.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

The only way to have an 'objective moral code' is to ascribe to a certain moral philosophy, all of which are roughly equally valid. The point is that whether you're looking at it from a strict-utilitarian, deontological, consequentialist, or what have you, the other systems are equally valid (insofar as there is no reconciliation and therefore no total comparison). Of course, within these well-known highly 'objective' systems, the definition of 'good' or 'better' or 'worse' are entirely subjective. You can have an objective system, but avoiding a subjective foundation is impossible.

This is why morality is subjective and relative.

[Sinisdar Toste]

anakronisM, on 24 February 2010 - 03:58 PM, said:

Another question for you: Do you think there's something after you die? Or does life just end? Couldn't the fact that there isn't something after you die make everything hopeless and without meaning? What is my reason to do good if there isn't anything more after death, the absence could make us ultimately unresponsible of our actions.

thats kind of a strange logic to me there. if there is no life after death then that means this is the only existence we will ever known. i'd think my conclusion to that revelation would be to cherish this life all the more. if its all i've got than its going to be the best i can do. this is a major beef of mine with the idea of heaven. that this life is just a waystation full of sin and suffering before going to one of two unequal eternities of either damnation or paradise.

[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

I believe we need an objective moral code for these genital-mutilators who doesn't think their moral code is corrupt. Their subjectiveness cannot be refuted by other subjective standards or societies codes. But they can be refuted by objective moral codes that come from an objective and universal ground.

Thus, my code, that puts forth absolute justice from an absolute source cannot be questioned:

If a person puts out an eye through his actions, his eye shall be put out.
If a woman commits adultery, she shall be subject to physical sex by the husband of the wife that was subject to the original adultery.

Objective moral grounds are fun aren't they?

[Advent]

H.D., on 25 February 2010 - 07:34 AM, said:

Quote

I believe we need an objective moral code for these genital-mutilators who doesn't think their moral code is corrupt. Their subjectiveness cannot be refuted by other subjective standards or societies codes. But they can be refuted by objective moral codes that come from an objective and universal ground.

Thus, my code, that puts forth absolute justice from an absolute source cannot be questioned:

If a person puts out an eye through his actions, his eye shall be put out.
If a woman commits adultery, she shall be subject to physical sex by the husband of the wife that was subject to the original adultery.

Objective moral grounds are fun aren't they?

So, what you're doing here is proclaiming some personal distaste, right? You surely can't be implying that these moral standards are wrong, can you?

Adjutant Stormy, on 24 February 2010 - 03:25 AM, said:

I didn't say they weren't comparable, but you'll never convince any genital-mutilators that they're moral code is corrupt. They would likewise think that you're absurd for not doing so. But it's not that I don't agree with you, it's just that I don't have any way to quantify the difference. It's not that it's impossible, but it is unfeasible in the highest degree.

And on judicial systems, the guiding principle on most of them is a largely mutually subscribed-to code of behavior. By vote into law, it's at least in theory minimizing the "forcing" of people into morality.

Convincing someone is really beside the point. Either one culture is morally better in that respect or it is not; it matters not that genital-mutilators don't think their moral code is corrupt. It simply is. Just because there's disagreement on an issue doesn't imply that there actually isn't an answer.

How about we take personal dignity as a basis, and doing that, we could easily argue genital-mutilation violates that dignity. I don't see what is unfeasible about that.

And your view seems to commit you an argument ad populum. What is morally right is whatever the majority mutually suscribed-to code of behavior is.

Adjutant Stormy, on 25 February 2010 - 06:09 AM, said:

The only way to have an 'objective moral code' is to ascribe to a certain moral philosophy, all of which are roughly equally valid. The point is that whether you're looking at it from a strict-utilitarian, deontological, consequentialist, or what have you, the other systems are equally valid (insofar as there is no reconciliation and therefore no total comparison). Of course, within these well-known highly 'objective' systems, the definition of 'good' or 'better' or 'worse' are entirely subjective. You can have an objective system, but avoiding a subjective foundation is impossible.

This is why morality is subjective and relative.

How does it follow from "there is no reconcilliation between certain moral systems" to "all moral philosophies are equally valid"? If, going back to the female genital-mutilation example, if we have one culture that practices it and that one does not (which would make them mutually irreconcilable in that respect) it would not follow that would couldn't compare the morality of both cultures and determine which one has better morality.

This post has been edited by Advent: 25 February 2010 - 08:50 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

[quote name='Advent' date='25 February 2010 - 02:48 AM' timestamp='1267084128' post='734058']
[quote name='H.D.' date='24 February 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1267083263' post='734046']
[quote]I believe we need an objective moral code for these genital-mutilators who doesn't think their moral code is corrupt. Their subjectiveness cannot be refuted by other subjective standards or societies codes. But they can be refuted by objective moral codes that come from an objective and universal ground.[/quote]

Thus, my code, that puts forth absolute justice from an absolute source cannot be questioned:

If a person puts out an eye through his actions, his eye shall be put out.
If a woman commits adultery, she shall be subject to physical sex by the husband of the wife that was subject to the original adultery.

Objective moral grounds are fun aren't they?
[/quote]

So, what you're doing here is proclaiming some personal distaste, right? You surely can't be implying that these moral standards are wrong, can you?

Of course not. What I am stating is that an objective standard of justice is just that, an objective standard.
Morals are a much different story and merely play a part of the big picture.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Exactly. Thank you HD - justice is completely separate from morality. Justice is action and consequence. It can be objective and formalized and has inherent structural merits. Morality is in part the rationale behind Justice, and is highly amorphous, personal, and culturally relative.

@Advent:

If you take 'personal dignity' as a standard, who's to say that the other culture considers it in any fashion undignified? You consistently choose standards that are not objectively defined, and so you find that morality is subjective. It's not that it is unclear in your mind whether it is right or wrong. But you cannot necessarily prove it to anyone that does not have the exact same assumptions about the way the world works as you do.

Justice, in most societies, is formed via argument ad populum.
Morality is distinct.

[stone monkey]

That "no life after death" argument really confuses me every time it gets wheeled out. If this life is all you have and all you will ever have, surely it's obvious that this makes you even more responsible for your actions? Nothing else matters but what you do in this life because there isn't anything else.

The is entirely the opposite of an idea that seems to imply that the sum meaning of a human life and all that can be accomplished in it and all the highs and lows and glories and failures and everything that a person is, is merely equivalent the queue before you get into a gig... i.e. the only thing you have to do is make sure of is that you've got your ticket when you reach the end of it, the rest is irrelevant. That strikes me as a deeply sad and incredibly impoverished attitude..

[Powder]

stone monkey, on 25 February 2010 - 09:11 PM, said:

The is entirely the opposite of an idea that seems to imply that the sum meaning of a human life and all that can be accomplished in it and all the highs and lows and glories and failures and everything that a person is, is merely equivalent the queue before you get into a gig... i.e. the only thing you have to do is make sure of is that you've got your ticket when you reach the end of it, the rest is irrelevant. That strikes me as a deeply sad and incredibly impoverished attitude..

QFT

-Powder

PS I like agreeing with SM, AS, and HD.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

We like it when you agree with us too Pow. New abbreviation for you!

[Powder]

Adjutant Stormy, on 26 February 2010 - 05:10 AM, said:

We like it when you agree with us too Pow. New abbreviation for you!

You forget that I am an old hand at the intranets. Seriously though, as SM put it there life is pretty abysmal. I like pointing out when we can agree even though we have very different PoV's. This thread has very much focused on the differences between at least two groups. Yet there are some points of agreement which should be pointed out as well. Here is a list I think I have gathered so far:

1. Our common humanity
2. Our common belief that people should have some standard of conduct
3. Our common positive outlook upon this life
4. Our common esteem for human intelligence
5. Our common love for Karsa

Ok maybe I fudged a bit on that last one, but even though we get to these common points in very different ways we come to the same point none the less. I maintain that you all would make wonderful 'mates' at a local 'pub'...

-Powder

[Adjutant Stormy~]

You strain our friendship on that last point, mate.

[Powder]

Adjutant Stormy, on 26 February 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

You strain our friendship on that last point, mate.

What good friendship is left unstrained?!?!?

-powder

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Not to further derail the thread, but there is one way to solve this:

BATTLE TO THE DEATH

[anakronisM]

@Powder

Couldn't agree more, we should look to what we actually do agree upon. I feel comfortable at leaving this discussion for a while now There are many discussions to be made here on the intrawebs in Sweden that does not have the same respectfulness.

Adjutant Stormy, on 03 March 2010 - 05:30 AM, said:

Not to further derail the thread, but there is one way to solve this:

BATTLE TO THE DEATH

Haha i can't help thinking of a Monty Python sketch were there's a debate in the topic "Does god exist?" or something, between a theologian and a humanist. And John Cleese suddenly states that they instead of debating each other are going to fight about it.

Don't know if you've seen it. I can recommend it it's hilarious:

[Shinrei]

I found this on another forum where members were debating the rather un-PC topic of which Asians are the most rude. This topic has touched on morality, so I'm curious what people think of this guy's point:

Quote

I was hanging out and watching a TV program about adoptions from China with some Chinese - they couldn't wrap their head around why an American family would adopt a Chinese child.

"To give him/her a better life."
"Why? It's not blood-relation, the original family didn't want it, so who would?"
"...because he/she is a human being and you should do something to help if you can."
"...why?"
"(Sarcasm). They think Chinese kids are smart and will get good jobs to help contribute to the family."
"(Seriously) Oh! Yeah, that makes sense."
Narrow, self/group interest they understand.

I think even the most selfish American asshole can see why someone would want to adopt a kid.

The Koreans on the other hand, they might not have liked me but at least they're on-time, polite, etc. They talked to me more like I was a person than some object for their amusement/errand-boy. Probably the fact they were Christian helped to some degree. (And the Chinese who were Christian or not mainlanders, were nice too) For all the shit I give Christianity, this is one of the things that makes me think otherwise. It really is a humanizing thing, even if it's a bunch of bullshit, it makes people have concepts of empathy and compassion. I've heard people say things like "Hey, if a stranger was drowning, anybody would go save him! It's a universal thing." It's not. That's Christian-martyr-good-Samaritan-thinking. Different culture doesn't mean they just dress different, and eat some exotic food, it means a lot more than that.

Missionaries have told me, in several cultures, when they tell the story of Jesus - hopeful-converts-to-be think Judas was the hero/example, because he did it for the money. Salvation for mankind or thirty pieces of silver? Some cultures would take the silver. I'm an atheist, but I've had exposure to religion, it's around - and so has every 'Western' atheist, its influence still impacts me as a person even though I don't believe, etc.

[Sinisdar Toste]

i think his points to a large degree speak to my understanding of the gospel. nevermind whether jesus was god or not, following his teachings can lead you to be a good person. for awhile i've been trying to motivate myself to go out and get thomas jeffersons "faith and moral teachings of jesus of nazareth" which is apparently the new testament minus all the unnecessary bells and whistles.

jesus is a good example for people. i'd never refute that. but you should focus on his teachings, not on his supposed divinity, and be able to recognize when something that he's saying is just not applicable in our times.

[Powder]

Sinisdar Toste, on 20 April 2010 - 04:24 PM, said:

i think his points to a large degree speak to my understanding of the gospel. nevermind whether jesus was god or not, following his teachings can lead you to be a good person. for awhile i've been trying to motivate myself to go out and get thomas jeffersons "faith and moral teachings of jesus of nazareth" which is apparently the new testament minus all the unnecessary bells and whistles.

jesus is a good example for people. i'd never refute that. but you should focus on his teachings, not on his supposed divinity, and be able to recognize when something that he's saying is just not applicable in our times.

I disagree.

-Powder

[Terez]

Yes dear, we know.