[Adjutant Stormy~]

I'm going to avoid the gigantic quote-war, and say that there is no Good and Evil, there is only more utility, less utility, and insanity.

[noothergods32]

@Adjutant Stormy: Would you care to give reasons for this belief? I'd like to understand the basis of your position before I attempt to respond.

[Silencer]

Now now, AS, a war implies someone has to lose.

Wouldn't you say that your perception of right/good and wrong/bad would be, respectively, what brings about more utility, and what brings about less utility?

Also, very interested to see how the 'Neither' option I requested is ahead in the polls, though only with a slight edge (5 vs 4) to Inherently Bad. Our forum seems to encompass, again, the traditional and the modern in fairly equal measure. (Not that I'm saying the 'traditional' view is outdated or whatever, ofc.)

@noothergods - well, typical cultural relativism as I've had it explained to me, yes, suffers from the idea that there can be no wrong. I find myself disagreeing with this (and quite a lot of what my various lecturers have said, and sources have proposed, in relation to relativism and the normative ethical theories both) because there is an obvious 'wrong' involved: whatever your culture says is wrong. Even though other cultures are equally correct from their own context, they are not from yours. It's practically impossible to reconcile with any normal worldview, though, because it does mean that they should be left alone to their own devices to rape unmarried women - as long as those women are within the same culture. It may be reprehensible and wrong to us, but what I feel cultural relativism does is tell you one thing: don't interfere forcefully in other people's culture.
I probably haven't explained that very well, because I want to write more, but I feel that any extra will simply be a repetition. Basically, cultural practices are right within their own cultural group, and wrong from other cultural groups that disagree with them. But if you extend your cultural practices to another society that doesn't agree with you, don't be offended when they retaliate.

While I agree this leads to 'might makes right' mentality on occasion, there is a point where all cultures will be acceptable enough to each other that conflict ends, too. And a culture is only 'obviously wrong' from your cultural pov, too, btw.
And I agree with your second difference, though to my mind cultural relativism allows for the exact same mentality to be adopted.

And ofc, I should have thought of belief in God preceding belief in the Bible. That's genius! I always viewed that you have to attribute a high level of credibility to the institutions on which faith is based before believing in the deity they represent...just a natural progression from my point of view. Of course, I'm already formulating, somewhere in the back of my head, some logic loop which would probably fry my brain if I tried to put it into words, but it's something along the lines of not being able to know of God without the scripture. Don't mind that, though, or we'll really divert the thread. XD

I think the circumstances of the divine event are important. My argument is that parting the Red Sea or walking on water are measurable, provable events that have no special circumstances involving the witness (whereas a near-death experience is questionable because of your state of mind at the time, for example). It stems from a natural desire to remove all other variables, I guess. Hence my experiment with asking for a lightning strike on occasion - very specific, very controlled, and only an absolute fluke of nature could even come close to causing a false positive. While I tend to agree that I'd argue and fight against any form of evidence against my position, except for whatever it is that I deem enough (and I won't know what that is until/if it occurs) to change my mind, my point was more that other people in the past have had much more reason to believe shown to them than I have, and many of those who witnessed the miracles DID convert. I'm just asking for a bit of fairness, is all.

Quote

In my experience those who have chosen not to believe in God or the supernatural are loathe to change their minds on the subject

I'd argue that those on *either* side of the fence, or even those sitting on the fence, share a similar stubbornness.

Uhm, I'd respond to the rest, but I think we'll thoroughly derail the thread if I make this post any longer, and there's not a lot to say other than that it comes down to those differences we've already acknowledged, I think. Though I'm glad you didn't find my post antagonistic, I suspected that might be the case, just covering my ass from some of the more militant forum-goers.
Perhaps any further discussion of the matters at hand could take place via PM? Keep Dolmen's thread from going to the wolves, so to speak.

EDIT: And I've just realised how many 's I have in there. O.o

[noothergods32]

@ Silencer:
I understand your stated position, my question to you is this. What if it is wrong to the women being raped? The culture in question was male dominated, women were viewed as property and, as is obvious, profoundly ill-treated. Seeing this and seeing the desire for freedom in them could one fail to act. The man in question was a missionary and over the course of the year he spent with them (he knew their language going in) he taught them the scriptures. Many, far from all or even most I think but many, of the tribe converted, 'came to Christ' to use Christian terminology. Those who did were convicted in themselves (one could argue that this was the influence of the new faith upon them however I personally think it happened awefully fast for that to be the case) of the wrongs that they had made a part of their daily lives, the rapes being one of the foremost, and began working from within the culture to change it. Thus the 'wrongs' of the culture were changed, or at least began to change, without rejecting the culture as a whole. This was a few years ago and I haven't spoken with the man since, a far as I know he is back out with some aboriginal tribe. However I do feel that this is, at the very least, an example of one culture's morality trumping anothers without a 'might makes right' confrontation...at least none that I know of.

To my mind belief in a god must precede belief in the God and I think it likely that belief in the God would precede a belief in his teachings, though I know some people who have gone in the opposite direction.

You are correct in saying that others in the past have had much more reason to convert than yourself, however others have had much less. And in your example the 'miracle' might be clear to you but to anyone and everyone else it would simply be one more anecdotal story. In the same way the parting of the red sea and walking on water may have been measurable and provable at the time but now they are simply anecdotal and prone to rejection. As to why God shows some people miracles that convince them to believe and not others I don't know, though I am forced to admit that he does.
Personally I can point to one instance in my life before my conversion that I now believe was clearly a miracle but at the time wrote off as a fluke. It did not change my belief, it didn't really even challenge my belief much at the time mostly because I was unwilling to consider the possibility that it may have been a miracle.
As for fairness...life isn't fair, I honestly think we make far to much of the idea...hope that isn't too harsh.

I completely agree with your comment on stubborness, it is very difficult to change one's basic beliefs, difficult and painful which is why late converts often go on to become the most fanatical. As for the pms, I would be happy to continue our conversation via pms...just have to figure out how to use them first...

[Silencer]

PM sent in reply.

[General King]

I think I said somewhere there was the argument that god to me was a being that was comprised of tne entire universe.

Weigh it up 6 billion humans vs creation (which could include maybe millions of other sentient races). I've argued for a long time that a part of every human forms god, look at genesis and God formed man in his own image, it not physical body but the spirit, I tend to lean towards Bhuddist believe in that it the life force or as scientist I would argue that god is energy.

The only interference from God was creation itself which allowed all of this to happen, sure it took billion of years, but an intelligence that could wait that long to watch creation unfold, World War 2 would look insignificant it would have passed by with all of human history by the time God got back from the toilet it over.

The closer equivalent analogy of God say watching humans would be a kid with an ant farm. Imagine all the ways a kid could interfere is such an environment?

For creature to see the future 100%, it would need to know at that moment of prediction every particle in creation it position and it velocity 100%. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says to get accurate on one increases your error on the other. Thus god would have to be aware of everything in the universe to the point that he knows where it is and it speed. The second he allows his conscious to comprehend everything, it a 100% foresight of the entire future, interference would for such a creature would create a new future, it would be like us swapping channels on tv.

I mean god would forsee the second the first big bang occured, everything, the creation of the entire universe. Could you imagine being able to see all of that in one second. If he didn't interfere then he allows it to continue there will be no surprise, no ability to learn anything new from his perspective. Actually there a possibility with this argument that go is actually doing that right now everything we know is him predicting the future in a dream that exists for him a small moment in time and that real timeis we are still at the creation of the universe.

Of course the entire argument is based on old classical physics, if God operates under quantum mechanics as is subject to HUP then he can't predict the future, ok he may be able to interfere in the experiment like any outside observer and that changes results. But a scientist wants to see what happens as naturallly as possible, if you keep interfering you can upset the results of the experiment. But with that argument god could easily just be a very technologically advanced alien.

[Satan]

Dolmen, on 18 June 2010 - 05:26 PM, said:

hMMMM.....Firstly wow, a lot of great debate going on, I am pleased that the nature of God has been delved into to this degree however I just want to remind those participating in the talks to try not veer too far from the debate of the inherent human nature.

Its fine to debate the four parameters listed in the poll but please try not to respond to anyone without refering your views to the question of the human moral condition.

Now:

Quote

Brynjar said:

I'm rather curious as to what sort of research it is that you do? From the amount of (in my eyes) non-scientific vocabulary bandied about, I'd assume you're studying theology. If that's the case, would you really be interested in hearing the arguments of atheists (which most of the members of this board seems to be)? If you do, then I suggest you dispense with "good" and "evil" as the archaic and misleading categories that they are (as intimated, I think, by Silencer). They adhere to a sort of platonic, idealistic idea that abstractions can exist outside the individual. They're universalistic, without thought of who made the categories and for what purpose (yes, you point to Christianity, but that is a huge group and purpose doesn't seem to be central to your study).

I am not a theologian but I have studied both criticisms and supports for mono-deistic, poly-deistic and anti-deistic belief systems as a matter of personal importance and self education (having close talks with theologans in my family makes it impossible to ignore religion). I am in favour of a mono-deistic approach, as mentioned above I agree with the perspective that "God" is one with or inseperable from creation. being a believer doesn't make me a biggot though. I like to listen to intelligent atheistic perspectives because they provide me with fresh perspective for my personal studies.

1. Now the nature of good and evil is not so much archaic as it is ahead of its time. moral systems that provide clear definitions between the objectionable and the encouraged are seminal to civil balance and function. You could never have a society that values order without constructs of good and evil. One could argue without a pursuit of order and a search for what is just, we wouldn't even have science and philosophy, key elements to the development of human intelligence and cognitive ability. One could then argue that these platonic ideals as Brynjar puts them are as seminal to the discussion of human nature as the invention of the wheel was seminal for the development of the bugatti Veyron itself.

2. I believe to this point the individuals that initiated this construct are irrelevant as they had no vision for what their construct would ultimately become just as the inventors of the wheel could never imagine the complex monstosities they advented. good and evil as a concept has undergone innumerable change and should be respected as a refined yet poorly understood social enabler. take for example the prison system. It serves a vital role and pivots around our collective understanding of good and evil. the prison system is employed throughout the world with varying degrees of success because the need for punishment is just as necessary now as it was 2000 years ago and it probably will be 2000 years from now as well.

Notice how I am sidestepping religion here. The justice system is proof that good and evil exist outside of the religious elements. we merely interpret them as right and wrong. they surmount to the same thing. For atheists my question can be thrown then in this light: Are we born with an inherent need to do right or an inherent subversion to do wrong?

I think if you look into it you'll find that more and more (industrial) countries are moving away from the punishment rhetoric, and are rather adopting the view that prisons are correctional institutions. Although this doesn't negate your argument, it does make it somewhat blunted. Just thought I'd say that.

In regards to the rest of the discussion, I believe I have to leave off. My education (and from that, personal beliefs) more or less prohibits me from entering a discussion which intends to unravel the "essence" of anything. That's a topic for theologians, who, presumably, can agree on certain necessary foundations for argument.