You Know, I Was Thinking...
qxdc
Join Date: 2004-06-25 Member: 29521Members
Join Date: 2004-06-25 Member: 29521Members
in Discussions
I was playing Natural selection, and randomly I was thinking..
I don't believe it's impossible to know where there is a deity, but rather, impossible to understand how a form of a deity works. As a human being, I understand my mind does have limits to what it can and can't understand/comprehend/fathom. Knowing that, I refuse to simply believe in a "supreme being." The word being is my objection.
This is why I believe true atheism is just as bad as true Christianity. They both only accept one possibility, which stays with in the boundaries of human understanding. This is something very little (possibly no one) people take into account when formulating a belief in how the universe was "created" - that the concept of creation is commonly accepted because it does not escape the realm of human understanding.
People typically don't accept or believe what they can't understand. That's the fallacy of religion and atheism.
I do believe there is some form of a deity, a force. I don't call it a "God" or "being" but just, an entity, an entity that works outside of what we know as the natural world. I don't believe this entity interacts with the universe. The majestic ways nature works is my reasoning. Again, this definition does not quite fit me because it describes a deist as "One who believes in the existence of God"
I believe the origin of life was through natural processes. Abiogenesis
The amino acids and proteins that were a result of abiogenesis, somehow mutated into single cell organisms. With the help of low levels of radiation from cosmic rays and the sun, are then mutated to form the skill of 'self-replication.' Over billions of years, evolved into multi celled organisms. Or something like that
And you know heaven and hell? I think the very notion of a heaven and hell is ridiculous. I believe the concept of heaven and hell, or any after life for that matter is a man made idea, and is a direct result of the conflict of limited understanding. As I said before, our mind does have limits. For example, we can't fathom true nothingness, something coming from nothing, what a 5th or 6th dimension would look/feel like, and to simply stop existing. I have talked to many people about death, many people just fear the idea of death more so than the cause of death. The idea of just turning off is scary and troubling to most people. Naturally people come up with theories of what happens after death.
The strange thing is, although people have trouble accepting losing conscious thought for ever, they lose it all the time. When you sleep, or pass out it's lost. Though your physical self is still alive, awareness and consciousness are gone. Another thing people do not take into account when trying to fathom death is that you were didn't exist before you were born. So if you truly can't imagine not existing, well you already have.
I personally believe it's naive for a person to simply choose atheism or theism, and dismiss anything else. As I mentioned above, the human mind is only evolved to fit it's needs for survival, not explore the origins of the universe. Understanding this limitation, it's hard to faithfully believe you have the answers to the questions you weren't designed to answer.
To try and put this into perspective. Imagine a man who was born blind, his entire life he only hears about the concept of sight, color, and beauty, but never experiences them. The man has a limited understanding of sight and color, so any speculation by the man on how sight and color works is not credible. The blind man's conclusion about the dynamics of sight and beauty are not credible because he can not see.
This is comparable to humans coming up with conclusions about the origin of the universe. We are the man, our mind is 'blind' to the supernatural, so to speak. I use this as one of the bases for my personal beliefs on conventional atheism / theism.
As for my beliefs in forces working outside of what we know as the natural world, I use the way the 'natural world' works as a bases. Some of the most complex things we know of are the direct result of natural causes. Life for example, an entire bone structure, eye balls, a working brain. All the work of natural selection, all the work of the unaided universe.
you know what I mean guys? Ah, i'm sorry, exuse my dumb **** random blathering on and on..
back to NS..
I don't believe it's impossible to know where there is a deity, but rather, impossible to understand how a form of a deity works. As a human being, I understand my mind does have limits to what it can and can't understand/comprehend/fathom. Knowing that, I refuse to simply believe in a "supreme being." The word being is my objection.
This is why I believe true atheism is just as bad as true Christianity. They both only accept one possibility, which stays with in the boundaries of human understanding. This is something very little (possibly no one) people take into account when formulating a belief in how the universe was "created" - that the concept of creation is commonly accepted because it does not escape the realm of human understanding.
People typically don't accept or believe what they can't understand. That's the fallacy of religion and atheism.
I do believe there is some form of a deity, a force. I don't call it a "God" or "being" but just, an entity, an entity that works outside of what we know as the natural world. I don't believe this entity interacts with the universe. The majestic ways nature works is my reasoning. Again, this definition does not quite fit me because it describes a deist as "One who believes in the existence of God"
I believe the origin of life was through natural processes. Abiogenesis
The amino acids and proteins that were a result of abiogenesis, somehow mutated into single cell organisms. With the help of low levels of radiation from cosmic rays and the sun, are then mutated to form the skill of 'self-replication.' Over billions of years, evolved into multi celled organisms. Or something like that
And you know heaven and hell? I think the very notion of a heaven and hell is ridiculous. I believe the concept of heaven and hell, or any after life for that matter is a man made idea, and is a direct result of the conflict of limited understanding. As I said before, our mind does have limits. For example, we can't fathom true nothingness, something coming from nothing, what a 5th or 6th dimension would look/feel like, and to simply stop existing. I have talked to many people about death, many people just fear the idea of death more so than the cause of death. The idea of just turning off is scary and troubling to most people. Naturally people come up with theories of what happens after death.
The strange thing is, although people have trouble accepting losing conscious thought for ever, they lose it all the time. When you sleep, or pass out it's lost. Though your physical self is still alive, awareness and consciousness are gone. Another thing people do not take into account when trying to fathom death is that you were didn't exist before you were born. So if you truly can't imagine not existing, well you already have.
I personally believe it's naive for a person to simply choose atheism or theism, and dismiss anything else. As I mentioned above, the human mind is only evolved to fit it's needs for survival, not explore the origins of the universe. Understanding this limitation, it's hard to faithfully believe you have the answers to the questions you weren't designed to answer.
To try and put this into perspective. Imagine a man who was born blind, his entire life he only hears about the concept of sight, color, and beauty, but never experiences them. The man has a limited understanding of sight and color, so any speculation by the man on how sight and color works is not credible. The blind man's conclusion about the dynamics of sight and beauty are not credible because he can not see.
This is comparable to humans coming up with conclusions about the origin of the universe. We are the man, our mind is 'blind' to the supernatural, so to speak. I use this as one of the bases for my personal beliefs on conventional atheism / theism.
As for my beliefs in forces working outside of what we know as the natural world, I use the way the 'natural world' works as a bases. Some of the most complex things we know of are the direct result of natural causes. Life for example, an entire bone structure, eye balls, a working brain. All the work of natural selection, all the work of the unaided universe.
you know what I mean guys? Ah, i'm sorry, exuse my dumb **** random blathering on and on..
back to NS..
Comments
Being: To exist in actuality; have life or reality: <i>I think, therefore I am.</i>
So your force is still a being (assuming that it is sentient).
Personaly, I am a theist, I believe that there are other beings, though I subscribe to no set religion.
I am also the son of 2 people with doctorates in Psychology (I was raised with no religion, and was always tought to look at everything scientificly)
My few points on your post:
What is wrong with Athiesm or Christianity.
You say that both are extreames that refuse to admit the other is even partialy right.
However you give them both good reasons to:
You Say that you thing there is another entity, and it is the reason why nature works in such amasing ways.
Well, And Athiest can't detect said entity in any way, and can explain nature as random chance. Space is believed to be infinatly large, so by that defenition there has to also be an infanitly large number of habital planets, we just hapen to be on one of em.
Now Christians on the other hand are jsut to broad a group to explain away like that. Some believe that God did create the world in 7 days, and you want explenations? "Well, god works in mysterious ways". There is nothing to prove them wrong either. And Omnipotent being can do what ever it wants.
Others however believe something more like what you stated (that god is the cause for Nature's amazing ways).
To skip to sometihng else, Death:
You liken it to sleep, well the flaw there is that most of us go to sleep KNOWING we will wkae up in the morning (or when we gotta pee). We are designed to fear death (it is a geneticly GOOD trait, it keeps yah alive to procreate).
And you know what the past tense of Fear is? Regret. You can't fear something that already happened, but you can regret it.
Personaly I regret never gettingto see The beatles in consert, or to watch a Joust etc etc.
All these things that I never got to see/experiance, and when I die there will be millions of more things I will never get to see/experiance (be it space travel or just being with loved ones).
And For Me, That is enugh reason to Fear Death.
Oh, and there is a good chance of this getting locked for Science Vs Religion, though intruth you are playing a 3rd side (though I refuse to view it as a side <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
Being: To exist in actuality; have life or reality: <i>I think, therefore I am.</i>
So your force is still a being (assuming that it is sentient).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I refuse to simply believe in a "supreme being." The word being is my objection.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I talk about death, I'm talking about being in the state of sleep, 'knowing' we will wake, is consciousness thought.
And the reason why we don't fear sleep is that we know we will wake up from it.
With death we know we will not.
And as for your entity, it isn't sentient?
The "posibility" that Christians accept is very much outside the realm of human understanding.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People typically don't accept or believe what they can't understand. That's the fallacy of religion and atheism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don';t think you would fine any Christian (live or dead) that fully understands God, yet they accept him so much that they are prepared to die for him. Where is this "fallacy"?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think the very notion of a heaven and hell is ridiculous. I believe the concept of heaven and hell, or any after life for that matter is a man made idea...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so maybe the afterlife was invented to give the pre-historic caveman some comfort after his child died in asabre tooth tigre attack, but answer this: Why the hell would he invent an afterlife and belief system based on a pure and righteous God, who will judge him perfectly justly on his deeds, and send him to hell if he is found to be unclean, and, on top of that, lets pretend that this "God" has said that no-one is perfect! What comfort is that to the grieving father? "Yeah, your son suffered awfully in the last few hours of his life, from the numerous wounds and broken limbs, but don't worry! That's nothing like how he is going to suffer for the rest of eternity because he didn't say please and thankyou."
And another question. Where did this idea of beauty come from? We are just the result of a big comsic accident, so everything we do is equally accidental. Hang on... if we are just one big accident, things thrown together by random chance, how do we know that that statement is true? It is, afterall, the product of a random chance. Can random chances have truth or fiction? beauty or ugliness? right or wrong?
beauty ugliness all have connections with our sexuality. Almost anything that is beneficial to our survival tastes, feels, or looks 'good' - Men are attracted to woman with big boobs because, in a survival perspective, big breasts are more likely to give more milk; raises the chance of the Childs survival. Extremely slim woman turn most of us off, and extremely fat woman turn most of us off. We're simply attracted to what's healthier. But what about beauty in things that art female? How does that work if finding a sunset beautiful beneficial to our survival, well specifically I'm not sure, but I do believe it has connection with our sexuality.
Morality I believe comes natural. Things we don't like done to us, we perceive as 'wrong' things we enjoy, we perceive as 'right' - I believe it all starts before we can even speak. If Sally slaps John, she won't understand that his reaction 'crying' is negative, until John slaps her back. After being slapped, she has a new understanding of right and wrong. The basic foundation of morality is through that process, i believe anyway.
Most people really don't think about what is right and wrong though, they just allow themselves to be spoon fed by their religion, or by society what is right and wrong.
Example: A few nights ago at a friends house, for dinner was fried chicken. I went into the chicken, and my friends mother said "want some?" With out saying a word, I took a piece and started to eat. My friend then said "David, wait until we are all at the dinner table, <b>that's disrespectful</b>. So, I asked everyone in the room if anyone felt disrespected, they all said no. My friend then replied "It's still disrespectful, don't eat anymore"
Now, it's clear that the <i>reason</i> people see eating before others disrespectful, is because commonly people get disrespected! So, if no one in the house was disrespected, eating before others <b>is perfectly fine</b> - the <i>reason</i> isnt in place.
My friend doesn't actually understand <i>why</i> something is disrespectful or not, it's just what he's told. The same principle (society molding minds) is found everywhere! In almost everything!
I hope I answered ur questions, and didnt go too far out there lol.
Now, into the subject.
In recent months, I've gotten very much into some "New Age" ideas, and have tested some of those things. Having come from a Christian background, I can add those perspectives in with the current ones, so that I can get multiple views of one experience, almost like "triangulating" a position.
Well, basically, I stumbled across a <a href='http://www.astralpulse.com/' target='_blank'>fantastic website</a> that dealt with all kinds of spirituality. As I studied the pages it contained, I became intrigued by the variety of Christian and Bhuddist elements scattered about the pages. It was like some of his ideals were the best parts of the major world religions, combined with some New Age tenets.
Now, you'll probably go to the link, laugh, call it crap, and then respond. Well, try some of the things out. I was working on some energy techniques and going into a trance the other night, and my entire body felt like I was touching an electric fence. It felt alive like never before. I've had other experiences that were simply too unusual to laugh about, such as laying down, resting my mind, and then all of the sudden feeling myself being whipped around the room, but knowing that the whole time I was completely on the ground.
There is most definitely an element of "soul" and "spirit" in the world, which is proof in itself that there is some sort of presence. I believe that it is a passive presence, something everyone is a part of. Check out a Mandelbrot Set sometime, and then realize that the equation that made that Set came from something in the real world, like stock prices, weather, crowds, turbulence, etc.
Chaos Theory is wonderful <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Another example. If you read up on hypnotism, you'll discover that for one to be successfully hypnotized, <b>The subject must believe he or she can be hypnotized.</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<img src='http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/hypnosis-technique-1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Hypnotists' methods vary, but they all depend on a few basic prerequisites:
The subject must want to be hypnotized.
The subject must believe he or she can be hypnotized.
The subject must eventually feel comfortable and relaxed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, This wonder brings upon a speculation as to whether the mind has enough power to 'create' a 'fantasy' into reality.
I am on that website right now, maybe I'll dip into this subject, seems interesting, thanks <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I will list there here again for you
<ul><li>The "fallacy of religion", people not believing in things they don't understand, yet many millions of Christians do so on a daily basis. What is that all about, and where is the fallacy?</li><li>The concept of Heaven and Hell being invented for comfort, yet with them the requirement to lead a perfectly sinless life ad the added catch that such a life is impossible. How is that any comfort?</li></ul>
1) Heaven And Hell:
Mostly used by the church to controll people.
2) Human Base Desires (food, reproduciton, and shelter) are no longer the only motivations.
Video games, puzzles, painting etc. None of these things have to do with our base desires, yet we like them alot, that is (in part) b/c the human braine is much more advanced then normal animal brains. Our brains have more parts then an animal brain does.
As for morality? Comming naturaly? Nope.
Morality comes from society.
Ok, I am about to do something I hate, and that is bringing up Developmental Psychology (one of the worst fields in Psychology), specificly the stages of development from Piaget and Erikson.
Piaget's Stages of Development:
<a href='http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/piaget.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/piaget.shtml</a>
Eriksons':
<a href='http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa091500a.htm' target='_blank'>http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa091500a.htm</a>
NOTE: Take everything these 2 men have said with a VERY LARGE grain of salt, alot of it has been proven to be incorect, or over stated. (yet people still swear by the junk)
Basicaly, most humans can't even think about other peoples benefit untill late in development, and the only reason why they do is b/c they are taught that these things are wrong.
Note: Teaching can come from anywhere in your environment, If you simply exposed a child to virus formus of violence and nothingelse they would think that violence is ok.
3) Your Fried Chiken 'experiment':
It could have been disrespectful, however, most people are to nice to dicipline their kid's friend. I am willing to bet that his family (like mine) waits to eat till every one is sitting down and has food, or untill the scragler (usualy the person serving) says 'go a head and don't wait for me'.
As for the point you try to make with this:
YES SOCIETY MOLDS OUR MINDS.
The purpose of society is to suport the moral beliefes of the largest/strongest group of people. Govn't is simply a codified version of this. In the US the suposed rulling party is "The People", though this is not compleatly true we can use it for the example.
England is another example of this, where the laws are made by elected representatives, thus enforcing the will of the largest group of people.
In other countries, say The USSR, the rulling party was a small group that had the power to enforce their will.
The only way to have people NOT molded by society is true anarchy, but then again that can never happen b/c one person will always have a stick and decide that their way is right.
OH well, try and respond to a few of Bog's or my points mate.
BTW, for the original poster, you do realize that radiation has, in scientific testing, never managed to positively affect any organism's growth or health. And that evolution's founders have done nothing except struggle to prove even the most basic tenets of the theories of Natural Selection. In fact, by the 1900's, the top evolutionist scientists were coming up with all sorts of fantasy-based ideas for possible ways to explain evolution, most of which you'd cry of laughter if you bothered to read about them.
I hate this culture war crap that is going on in today's world. It's black and white, and neither side has it entirely right, but since they're too busy fighting it out, we can't find the truth in the gray. It makes me sad. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It is some where around 50/50
yes, there are genetioce predispositions to things, however, those can also be over writen by your environment. (this is laying aside certain nurological problems that are literaly imbalances and can not be cured aside from drugs)
And yes, there are still some people that calim it is all one ore the other, then again people still take Frued, Piaget, and Erikson at face value (all 3 are laughable)
1) Heaven And Hell:
Mostly used by the church to controll people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats one hell, if you'll pardon the pun, of a statement. Got any proof of that? Behind that statement is the a priori denial that any of it could have any factual validity.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for morality? Comming naturaly? Nope.
Morality comes from society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I cant accept morals from society. Nem had a theory a while back that I could kinda accept - but I cant rationally believe in morals coming only from society. Morals from society 200 years ago told us that slavery was okay. Morals from societies other than ours would evoke extreme revulsion if practised in our society - what makes you so sure that our cultural morality is correct?
Society as a moral arbiter is completely unreliable. For an act to be morally correct, it has to be correct today, yesterday, and in a hundred years from now. Societies morals shift so often, and vary at any one given time, that I cant accept them as a decent base.
To put it another way - if an act can be morally good now, but morally wrong in a hundred years time, then whose to say a morally bad act now actually IS bad, heck in a 100 years time you could be considered a hero. History consistently records and applauds people who buck the current social morality to defy things like slavery and the clutches of the Catholic church etc. If you lived back then, would you be trying to put the smack down on Galilao, Martin Luther King and friends?
go back and look at Feaudal Europe. Yah, I forgot to put in a was, I ment to put in a was there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And as for denying that heaven/hell exist? Well as I said, Iam a Theist, I don't realy believe any set religion. I don't feel like getting into a discussion about Heaven/hell because you can't have one, it is a mater of beliefe, something that can not be proved, unless you can some how let me visit them both and then come back.
And as for Morality?
umm, morals are not an absolout, they change. As you said, some thing that is moraly or ethicly correct now could be wrong latter, and visa versa.
what is 'correct' is defined by the society we live in. I can't think of a single action that would always be moraly correct or moraly incorrect.
Even the killing of another human being who has done no wrong.
Take this society:
We (the people of the world) have not mastered space flight, or the colonisation of other worlds, or space stations (ie we are stuck here). Our population growth has continued exponentially. We are facing over crowding every where, our natural recources are almost gone, people are starving every where. Our only options left are enforced contraception, abortion, and thinning of the population (much as is used with deer).
Now what?
Morals change with the situation, in a Hindu culture it is moraly wrong to kill a cow (this actualy partialy comes from the fact that all of the recources you can gain from a cow with out killing it out weigh the meat, thus a cow was worth more alive then dead, thus why kill it?)
To say it agian: Morals are not absoloute, they are set by the society, thus why something can be moraly wrong one place, and correct some where/when else.
umm, morals are not an absolout, they change. As you said, some thing that is moraly or ethicly correct now could be wrong latter, and visa versa.
what is 'correct' is defined by the society we live in. I can't think of a single action that would always be moraly correct or moraly incorrect.
Even the killing of another human being who has done no wrong.
Take this society:
We (the people of the world) have not mastered space flight, or the colonisation of other worlds, or space stations (ie we are stuck here). Our population growth has continued exponentially. We are facing over crowding every where, our natural recources are almost gone, people are starving every where. Our only options left are enforced contraception, abortion, and thinning of the population (much as is used with deer).
Now what?
Morals change with the situation, in a Hindu culture it is moraly wrong to kill a cow (this actualy partialy comes from the fact that all of the recources you can gain from a cow with out killing it out weigh the meat, thus a cow was worth more alive then dead, thus why kill it?)
To say it agian: Morals are not absoloute, they are set by the society, thus why something can be moraly wrong one place, and correct some where/when else. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not raring for a fight over heaven or hell either, it just struck me as weird that the church gets tar brushed for the actions of corrupt Catholics a couple of hundred years ago.
As for the morality stance - ouch. Surely one could then argue that Nuremburg was a farce, trying Nazi's for crimes against humanity when the society set up by Hitler fully endorsed their actions. And to not be able to condemn honor killings/torture and a whole raft of other actions just because they occur in another culture surely must go against the grain. If you are to be truely consistent with your position, you are going to have to accept that the slave trade was not morally wrong back in the 18th century. Those people acted within the confines of their societies rules, and as such are judged morally good and wholesome.
I dont doubt you have heard the statement "doing what is popular is not always right, and doing what is right is not always popular". From what you said, it would seem you disagree. To fit with your position, that would have to be changed to "what is popular is right".
I wouldnt start thinning the population. I considering unlawful killing wrong, and to start making arbitary judgements on who gets to live or die in a society is just bad news.
If a moral isnt absolute, then its little more than opinion. Two opposing morals like "murder is ok" "murder is wrong" cannot both be right, and geography certainly cant make it so.
Look, what I am trying to say is that morals are not absolouts, they are mutable, what I tihnk is is moraly acceptable differs from what you tihnk is moraly acceptable.
However, both of our sets of morals are influenced (And basicaly created by) our environment.
And what happens when 2 sets of morals cross? You get disagrements (or eventualy wars).
The Nuremburg trials, well yah, they thought it was moraly/ethicaly correct to kill the jews (and gypsies, homosexuals, political enemies etc etc). We (most of the rest of the world) however , thought what they did was wrong. there for the strongest members of society (aka the victors of WWII) Imposed their morals on the Nazis.
What I am trying to get at is that Morals, by defenition, are not an absolout.
My family is from the south (way back when), however, my family's morals has always been that slavery was wrong and that blacks were equal human beings (family farm was a stop on the underground railroad etc etc).
In this case their morals conflicted with society, HOWEVER, they must have gotten said morals from somewhere (they were not born with the idea that blacks were equal, if for no other reason then they didn't know what a white person was, let alone a black, when they were born).
If people created their morals simply off of the idea that doing tihngs to others that you didn't want to be done to your self was true, then there would be no fighting among rational human beings (and yes, the Nazis were rational, they knew they were doing something to millions of other people that they didn't want to have done to them selfs).
And yes, Morals Are Opinions. Nuff Said.
Do you think that it is moraly correct to have multiple partners?
Well, if you do then I know a good number of people who think you are wrong.
And if you think it is OK, then let me introduce you to some other people.
Morals are relative, there are no absolouts.
If you wana bring up the socalled inaliable rights, remember, there is a time when those rights can be removed (when they diminish others rights).
oh, and quick note:
(I am playing around here <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
Godwin's Law:
<a href='http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html' target='_blank'>http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html</a>
The Nuremburg trials, well yah, they thought it was moraly/ethicaly correct to kill the jews (and gypsies, homosexuals, political enemies etc etc). We (most of the rest of the world) however , thought what they did was wrong. there for the strongest members of society (aka the victors of WWII) Imposed their morals on the Nazis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So might makes right basically? The rest of the world gets to decide that the nazis were wrong because they hade the bigger guns and the better trained solders. They had the resources to pour into the battles to make sure they came out on top. What you are saying is that the richest countries are right. All the time, because nobody can challenge them and win. What if the Nazis had won WWII (which they nearly did). Would the massacre of milions of jews have been justified then? Honestly? Can you bring yourself to say that if they had won, they they were right? Chucking babies and small children into the gutters of burning human fat while they were still alive because it was a waste of time gassing them first? Do those actions suddenly become fully justified because the country won the war? Seriously?
[[ninja]edit]
And on that note, was america right to invade Iraq, simply because they won? They were the more powerful country, so they had the right to impose their morals on Iraq. What if they had lost, like in Veitnam. Does that mean that veitnam ahs the right to impose it's morals on the whole of america, considereing that they beat them in combat, so they must be more powerful, and therefore, according to you, right. Carrying on with that idea, the war against terrorism. It appears to me that American isn't exactly winning the war, so that means that the 9/11 attacks where fully justified and morally right - the group that carried the attacks out is winning the war and is therefore right.
That just doesn't sit at all right with me, and I don't think it does with you either.
Then, Hitler was right, Stalin was right, and mass killings of inocents is OK - might is right, bigger guns dictate morality.
That is why I chose to believe in God, absolute truth (morality), the Bible (my source outside myself to base my morality on), Heaven and Hell, and that society is not moral.
This is a fairly black and white issue. Rejection of one naturally leads to an acceptance of the other. As an individual, you may say "I am a moral person, but don't belive in god" - well, that is fine, but by definition then, your morals are a product of society, and hence fluxuate with "might is right" or other influences. Like what was stated - all the Germans doing the atrocities - they were rational people - but their society told them it was morally right to kill Jews.
If that is as good as sociatal morals can get, I don't want it.
BTW, for the original poster, you do realize that radiation has, in scientific testing, never managed to positively affect any organism's growth or health. And that evolution's founders have done nothing except struggle to prove even the most basic tenets of the theories of Natural Selection. In fact, by the 1900's, the top evolutionist scientists were coming up with all sorts of fantasy-based ideas for possible ways to explain evolution, most of which you'd cry of laughter if you bothered to read about them.
I hate this culture war crap that is going on in today's world. It's black and white, and neither side has it entirely right, but since they're too busy fighting it out, we can't find the truth in the gray. It makes me sad. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
Nitpick:
We didn't come from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Herin lies the problem. In order to be "scientific" you have to explain everything "scientifically" (read without God).
Creationism thrives on the base that there is a God and that some things happen / happened that can not be explained "scientifically" (matter out of nothing for example). As a result, anything submitted would be deemed "unscientific" and unworthy of publication in the magazine.
No, there is plenty of creationist material out there, you are looking in the wrong place. If you go to the "scientific" community for the material, they will say it doensn't exist. You have to go to the "religious" community to find it (which I suppose makes it completely non-scientific in your mind).
In short, creationism isn't scientific enough for the scientists who would rather cling to problematic theories and pass them off as "fact" to the public.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To draw a parallel here, a study of Socialist literature, film and pamphlets has shown that the Right Wing capitalists are on the run, and that Communist sympathy is on the rise. There is nearly no evidence of Right-Wing authors submitting any information to be published on World Socialist Network, www.marxisthebomb.com, or numerous other reputable Communist sites.
This clearly demonstrates that the Right Wing cannot forumlate a decent arguement, and as such should no longer be taken seriously.
The Nuremburg trials, well yah, they thought it was moraly/ethicaly correct to kill the jews (and gypsies, homosexuals, political enemies etc etc). We (most of the rest of the world) however , thought what they did was wrong. there for the strongest members of society (aka the victors of WWII) Imposed their morals on the Nazis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So might makes right basically? The rest of the world gets to decide that the nazis were wrong because they hade the bigger guns and the better trained solders. They had the resources to pour into the battles to make sure they came out on top. What you are saying is that the richest countries are right. All the time, because nobody can challenge them and win. What if the Nazis had won WWII (which they nearly did). Would the massacre of milions of jews have been justified then? Honestly? Can you bring yourself to say that if they had won, they they were right? Chucking babies and small children into the gutters of burning human fat while they were still alive because it was a waste of time gassing them first? Do those actions suddenly become fully justified because the country won the war? Seriously?
[[ninja]edit]
And on that note, was america right to invade Iraq, simply because they won? They were the more powerful country, so they had the right to impose their morals on Iraq. What if they had lost, like in Veitnam. Does that mean that veitnam ahs the right to impose it's morals on the whole of america, considereing that they beat them in combat, so they must be more powerful, and therefore, according to you, right. Carrying on with that idea, the war against terrorism. It appears to me that American isn't exactly winning the war, so that means that the 9/11 attacks where fully justified and morally right - the group that carried the attacks out is winning the war and is therefore right.
That just doesn't sit at all right with me, and I don't think it does with you either. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The victors write the history books.
If the Nazis had won WWII we would probably be speaking German, The Jews would all be dead, and any one who thought that the 5th Reich was wrong would be dead.
Thus, Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies would be the monsters that society named them (As there would be no one left to refute that). So society would name the heroes, and the saviors. And life would suck.
So yes, Might Makes Right, if for no other reason then the fact that (again) the victors write the history books.
However, Every time I have said the strongest members of society. You must remember, that the person with the biggest guns is not necessarily the person with the most power. Right now there are a few countries that could cripple any one they felt like with a simple embargo
EX:
So Japan has created the death ray, and decided to go for world domination.
We (the rest of the world) decides that they no longer have any food (remember, Japan is NOT self sufficient in terms of food).
Who has more power there?
For your specifics:
Was invading Iraq correct? I donno. I think we did a good thing (getting rid os Saddam was a good thing, and don't try to contradict that). Again, I will nto debate Iraq b/c I don't know enugh facts.
I already explained that power is not just weapons and armies.
And as for Vietnam, we failed an invasion, we didn't get our entire army trounced and our own homes invaded, thus Vietnam and its backers did not provide enugh force (of any kind) to present their morals as correct. However, we did not present enugh force to place OUR morals as correct either.
For The war on terror. They have won nothing. We still stand as one country. And you know what, to them thier morals are clear and strong.
And yes, this is not a pretty picture. But yah know what? It is basically true.
Now, to address Pepe_Muffassa.
Don't Put Words In My Mouth.
Don't Compare Me To Hitler Or Stalin.
Capiche?
Now for the rest of what you said.
Christianity IS A SOCIETY!
Thus your morals are influenced by your society.
So is Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, etc etc etc.
What sect of Christianity are you?
Cus, if your RC then you must believe that homosexuality is wrong.
However, if you are from a few sects of Protestants, then you should believe that Homosexuality is OK (If you want me to go and get a couple of pastures I know....).
So, Would you say that your moral beliefs on Homosexuality is not effected by your society?
I would.
As for my views on religion?
Well I think it is a very god thing actually. It provides those who need it with a community where they share common interests and beliefs. It provides people with something to stand on or lean against during bad times. It is a wonderful wonderful thing.
I just don't need it. Instead of religion I use friends and family. It is simply the way I was raised. I don't feel that I need god's support, I need something much more tangible.
NOTE: I am not bashing religion, or religious people, I am simply saying that I don't have a use for it.
yah.
and don't make me bring up Godwin's Law again <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The Nuremburg trials, well yah, they thought it was moraly/ethicaly correct to kill the jews (and gypsies, homosexuals, political enemies etc etc). We (most of the rest of the world) however , thought what they did was wrong. there for the strongest members of society (aka the victors of WWII) Imposed their morals on the Nazis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So might makes right basically? The rest of the world gets to decide that the nazis were wrong because they hade the bigger guns and the better trained solders.
...
It appears to me that American isn't exactly winning the war, so that means that the 9/11 attacks where fully justified and morally right - the group that carried the attacks out is winning the war and is therefore right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Hmm turned out a bit longer than I expected ... but it's a good read i promise.)
Well yes, basically... Although it might be better to say Might makes Commonly Accepted Practice (that isn't very catchy). As far as aligning commonly accepted practice with morality? You be the judge. Merriam Webster defines morality as "the quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the accepted standard of right." The crux in this thread is obviously <i>who is doing the accepting?</i>
You and Marine seem to want to claim that it is God who accepts the standard. Thansal et al are claiming that society is the standard. If you ask me, you're all creating a false dilemma here, and a solution lies in a third alternative.
Of course, the real problem is that one set of people is describing how people act ("If the Nazis won, we would probably be speaking German") where as the second set is trying to enforce how people act ("I can't rationally believe morals coming from society... 200 years ago slavery was ok"). What I think is that you can agree with the basic fact of the former -- commonly accepted practice varies from group to group and from time to time -- and <i>also</i> agree with the basic fact of the latter -- if morality isn't absolute, it's a waste of time. If you consider this from the perspective of the individual, I think you won't find any conflict.
When you consider individual actions, the most effective way of judging them is to reason how useful that particular action is to that particular individual. Then you can say: Was that action very useful? Then that was a very good action. This is pretty easy when you're talking basic things like eating, getting gas, etc, but more difficult when you consider complicated situations. I think there are general patterns, though, which can be easily applied to morals. One general pattern which I reference a lot I like to call the "My Friends" principle.
Say there are two people. Person A is a generally nice guy, always tries to keep his friends points of view in mind, and he's very weak. Over the course of his life, a lot of people admire the fact that he is so friendly and so they become his friend. Person B is generally a jerk, never thinks about his friends and occasionally hurts the people near him, mostly out of thoughtlessness, sometimes because it amuses him. Person A and B get in an argument and it becomes violent. All of their friends are there. Only, Person B just has two flunkies and a weak toadie that he bosses around. Person A has 50 close friends, 100 associates that wouldn't mind taking a punch for him and thousands of fans cheering him on. Who do you think is going to win? Even if in the beginning of the fight, A really gets roughed up and pushed around, don't you think that because he was a generally nice guy to a lot of people, they will eventually rise to the occasion?
I think the My Friends pattern can be easily applied to morals. An individual that is consistently moral will be seen as trustworthy, hence will be trusted, hence will be given more oppurtunities and chances to succeed. A person who is amoral will be seen as sketchy, hence will not be trusted and given oppurtunities.
Further, I think that this pattern can be seen in world politics as well. Before and during the onset of the Iraq war, there was a lot of anti-American protesting. A lot of pundits quickly asked the question "why do they hate us? we think we're pretty decent." Which the world quickly responded to: "we don't hate you, please vote Bush out of office." My point is that no matter what deep and grevious wounds our foreign policy wants to inflict on other people, they want to be on our side because America represents a set of morals that they feel has their interests at heart.
The group that carried out the 9/11 attacks clearly sees that, otherwise they would be trying to drive a tank down Main St, not sneakily attacking any weak point they find. And it should be clear that their espousal of jihad and martyrism is trying to counter-act the reality that My Friends pattern illustrates. The nice guy always wins.
...
Anyway, the above is just a tiny slice of morality, which is a very active field of knowledge and which you could consider Law to be it's profession.
So might makes right basically? The rest of the world gets to decide that the nazis were wrong because they hade the bigger guns and the better trained solders. They had the resources to pour into the battles to make sure they came out on top. What you are saying is that the richest countries are right. All the time, because nobody can challenge them and win. What if the Nazis had won WWII (which they nearly did). Would the massacre of milions of jews have been justified then? Honestly? Can you bring yourself to say that if they had won, they they were right? Chucking babies and small children into the gutters of burning human fat while they were still alive because it was a waste of time gassing them first? Do those actions suddenly become fully justified because the country won the war? Seriously?
[[ninja]edit]
And on that note, was america right to invade Iraq, simply because they won? They were the more powerful country, so they had the right to impose their morals on Iraq. What if they had lost, like in Veitnam. Does that mean that veitnam ahs the right to impose it's morals on the whole of america, considereing that they beat them in combat, so they must be more powerful, and therefore, according to you, right. Carrying on with that idea, the war against terrorism. It appears to me that American isn't exactly winning the war, so that means that the 9/11 attacks where fully justified and morally right - the group that carried the attacks out is winning the war and is therefore right.
That just doesn't sit at all right with me, and I don't think it does with you either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The victors write the history books.
If the Nazis had won WWII we would probably be speaking German, The Jews would all be dead, and any one who thought that the 5th Reich was wrong would be dead.
Thus, Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies would be the monsters that society named them (As there would be no one left to refute that). So society would name the heroes, and the saviors. And life would suck.
So yes, Might Makes Right, if for no other reason then the fact that (again) the victors write the history books.
However, Every time I have said the strongest members of society. You must remember, that the person with the biggest guns is not necessarily the person with the most power. Right now there are a few countries that could cripple any one they felt like with a simple embargo
EX:
So Japan has created the death ray, and decided to go for world domination.
We (the rest of the world) decides that they no longer have any food (remember, Japan is NOT self sufficient in terms of food).
Who has more power there?
For your specifics:
Was invading Iraq correct? I donno. I think we did a good thing (getting rid os Saddam was a good thing, and don't try to contradict that). Again, I will nto debate Iraq b/c I don't know enugh facts.
I already explained that power is not just weapons and armies.
And as for Vietnam, we failed an invasion, we didn't get our entire army trounced and our own homes invaded, thus Vietnam and its backers did not provide enugh force (of any kind) to present their morals as correct. However, we did not present enugh force to place OUR morals as correct either.
For The war on terror. They have won nothing. We still stand as one country. And you know what, to them thier morals are clear and strong.
And yes, this is not a pretty picture. But yah know what? It is basically true.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Congratulations. You would make a very good politician. You have a great way of completely avoiding all of the questions I asked you in my post, and yet, appeared to answer them. Well done.
Yes, the victors write the history books. But how do we know the victors were right? When the British sailed across to america and started massacring the Native Americans, forcing them out of their homeland to live in cramped, unfertile reservations, they wrote the history books. They described the Native Americans and savages, disrupting the progress of technology, yet they were the true savages. Forcing the indegenous people out of their homes, where they had lived for countless generations, murdering the men and raping the women. But it's alright though, they won. they must have been right.
If the Nazis had won WWII, the atrceties they had commited on the jews would be just as wrong as if they had lost. The difference between my beliefs and yours is that mine entitle me to say that, yet you would be forced to agree that what the Nazis did to the jews was the best thing since sliced bread. They won the war afterall.
I never said that power was limited to the biggest guns. In your Japan example, the rest of the world can cut them off from food. So what? Japan would just use it's death ray on major cities until the rest of the world was forced into giving them food. If they had to, Japan would destroy every other county in the world, then go and live in America, with all the food they could ever possibly need. In your example, Japan is the stronger country. If they have a death ray, you don't force someone in submission by cutting off their food, you do whatever the hell the want.
If getting rid of saddam was a good thing, maybe you should also get rid of all the soliders and their commanding officers who commited the atrocities towards the Iraqui prisoners. You cannot say that what Saddam did was bad, and then let your own soldiers get away with similar offences.
Vietnam: Point conceeded. However, what gave you the right to be over there in the first place?
The War on Terror: But who's morals are right? Who has the right to enforce their morals on the other? America is never going to win the war on terror; for every terrorist they kill, there are 10 more waiting to take his place. So, do you still have the right to go over to the middle east and bomb the heck out of the mountains and villages, trying to kill one man?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, to address Pepe_Muffassa.
Don't Put Words In My Mouth.
Don't Compare Me To Hitler Or Stalin.
Capiche?
Now for the rest of what you said.
Christianity IS A SOCIETY!
Thus your morals are influenced by your society.
So is Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, etc etc etc.
What sect of Christianity are you?
Cus, if your RC then you must believe that homosexuality is wrong.
However, if you are from a few sects of Protestants, then you should believe that Homosexuality is OK (If you want me to go and get a couple of pastures I know....).
So, Would you say that your moral beliefs on Homosexuality is not effected by your society?
I would.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why shouldn't we compare you to Hitler or Stalin? You all belived that morals based on society are the right ones, and then you use that idea to justify your actions.
You call Christianity a society. I call if a group of people who belive the same thing. The difference is that your society idea means that Christianity has decided it's own set of relatvistic morals. My idea means that Christians believe (however rightly or wrongly) that their morals and absolutle and come from the Perfect Creator, God.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->An individual that is consistently moral will be seen as trustworthy, hence will be trusted, hence will be given more oppurtunities and chances to succeed. A person who is amoral will be seen as sketchy, hence will not be trusted and given oppurtunities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Consistently moral. You said it yourself, Morals are relative "it depends on who is doing the accepting". So there we go. Person A would be consistently moral according to one set of people, and he would get 50 close friends, a 100 aquaintences and 1000 people cheering him on. Person B would be consistenyl amoral according to person A's group of friends, yet person B still manages to get 50 close friends, a 100 aquaintences and 1000 people cheering him on. Why? Because all the time he was being consistently amoral towards person A, he was being consistenly moral towards another group of people. When it came down to a fight between the two groups, they would be perfectly matched. No-one would win. Who's morals were right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The group that carried out the 9/11 attacks clearly sees that, otherwise they would be trying to drive a tank down Main St, not sneakily attacking any weak point they find. And it should be clear that their espousal of jihad and martyrism is trying to counter-act the reality that My Friends pattern illustrates. The nice guy always wins.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would the 9/11 group want to drive a tank down main street. That would be stupid. Are you trying to say that because they used their heads and planned a devastating attack that was perfect in every way, that they must be immoral? Like it or not, sneaky tactics are just as much a part of mordern combat as frontlines are.
[edit] I think there is a quote that is perfectly suitable to this discussion:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wars don't decide who is right, only who is left.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another point that needs clarifying - we dont doubt society has an impact on morals, that much is exceedingly obvious. We just reject the notion that morals are based within society, and change with them. If it changes from day to day, and country to country, then its an opinion, not a moral, at least in my definition.
First up, don't compare me to Hitler or Stalin because that is a personal attack.
Second up, don't compare me because I think what they did was horrible.
And why do I think that? Because I was brought up to believe that.
Now, If I was raised by Hitler, I probably would think that what they did was a great thing, however, I wasn't and thus I don't.
If Hitler had won, almost all of religion would have been removed (it wasn't just Jews he labeled as the enemy, it was all religions). You wouldn't have been brought up with your beliefs, you would have been brought up differently (if at all).
I probably would never have been alive, as my grandfather would have probably eventually been drafted (instead of making Radar tubes), and thus their morals would not have been passed down to be.
FORTUNATELY, most of the world believes in the 'inalienable rights', and thus Slavery and random killing are basically gone from most countries.
If you want to see where my morals stand (instead of putting words in my mouth) go and look at the Jail thread.
I never said that by, my morals, what anyone does is right or wrong, I just say that the morals created by society, will be dictated by the group that controls society. If RCs controlled society then homosexuality would be morally incorrect by every one who is influenced by said society.
Oh well, I think I might just have to bow out of this simply because neither side CAN be influenced (as this has turned into science vs religion).
If you want me to answer specific questions, state them clearly and an number them, I will then reply to each (as I don't think I dodged a singe question).
And please lay off the personal attacks.
[Ninja Edit@Marine]
Ok, I bow out of the argument on baises of it is arguing semantics, you say that morals have one defenition, I say they have another. There is no further point that can be argued
And for semantics
<!--QuoteBegin-(e)kent+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((e)kent)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Merriam Webster defines morality as "the quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the accepted standard of right." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I prefer that defenition, the conformity of an act to the accepted standard of right.
Who defines what is accepted, well socities do.
Deff of Society:
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
Thus, the society of christians have one set of morals, Islamics have another, my Family has a third, My country has a 4th, your family has a 5th, and yes there are infinate amounts of them, thus why I say morals are derived from societys, because societies decide what is accepted.
I am sorry if what I wrote came off as a personal attack - I didn't mean it that way.
Here is my point though - A person holding the position that says society dictates morals CAN NOT say that mass murder is wrong - and here is why.
If the Nazi's had won the war then Society would have said the mass murder was OK. Therefore, that individuals morals on the subject would also say it was OK (being a member of that society).
In order to be able to say things like "murder is wrong" or "rape is wrong" or "stealing is wrong" you have to point to something outside of soceity as a base for that statement. If the Nazi's had won, then you would have to say "murder against Jews is right" - not because you believe it is right, but because Society says it is right - and the morals come from society.
In my mind, sociteys morals fluxuate with popular opinion, might, perceived danger, advertizing, corruption, acceptance ... the list goes on and on. All these factors influence morality. Yes, they get rid of bad things (slavery) but they also introduce bad things (homosexuality).
Now as a Christian (not RC) I stand on the Bible for the source of my morality. I know that Thansal mentioned he knows "christians" who accept homosexuality - that particular position doesn't have very good Biblical support, and in religous circles is often seen as an errant view. Therefore, as a Christian (member of the Christian faith) I have the right to call them on it and tell them that it is not a Biblical view - nor does it express the view of "Christians" world wide.
My point is this: morality doens't change - there is a constant. Societies views on morality changes all the time, with each change condemning the previous for being either not moral enough, or to moral "hollier than thou".
Then, Hitler was right, Stalin was right, and mass killings of inocents is OK - might is right, bigger guns dictate morality.
That is why I chose to believe in God, absolute truth (morality), the Bible (my source outside myself to base my morality on), Heaven and Hell, and that society is not moral.
This is a fairly black and white issue. Rejection of one naturally leads to an acceptance of the other. As an individual, you may say "I am a moral person, but don't belive in god" - well, that is fine, but by definition then, your morals are a product of society, and hence fluxuate with "might is right" or other influences. Like what was stated - all the Germans doing the atrocities - they were rational people - but their society told them it was morally right to kill Jews.
If that is as good as sociatal morals can get, I don't want it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do find myself having to point some things out here.
What makes God right from a Christian perspective ? The fact that he is <b>almighty</b> i.e. greater than the individual. So frankly Christianity is no stranger "to might makes right".
Then we move onto the idea of 'absolute' morality. You say because you adopt a god's morality that renders you automatically immune from any fluctuation in your morality.
Two points here:
i) If God were to hand down new commandment's tomorrow, what would you do ? Abandon your old morality and there goes your absolute argument.
ii) There are instances in the bible where quite frankly God allows Israelites to do some pretty scary things. So the idea of "thou shalt not kill" contradicts alot of stuff out there in the old Testament. Again, no absolute morality here.
So, as a non-Christian, what gives me the right to say Hitler was "wrong" ? Well, as a living human being it is my birthright - as it is all of ours - to have an opinion on the actions of any other human being.
1 samuel 30:7-8 and 17 KJV:
7 And David said to Abiathar the priest, Ahimelech's son, I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David.
8 And David enquired at the LORD, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? shall I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely overtake them, and without fail recover all.
...
17 And David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled.
Ezekiel 9 4-5 KJV:
4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity
<i> Everbody likes a good smiting ... or is that smoting ? </i>
Very well put.
And would you read what I am writing?
Societies create morals, however, I am not part of any society that condones slaughter of the innocent.
Look, PePe, if you were raised by Hitler, in Nazi Germany. Do you think you would have Christian morals? No you wouldn't, you would have Nazi Morals. Sorta a creepy thought ain't it?
The reason why I can condemn Hitler's morals is because I grew up in a society that say what he did was wrong. I can also condemn your morals (though I chose not to) because I was brought up in a society that thinks Homosexuals have done nothing wrong.
Oh, and if you want to see arguments that state that the bible says nothing about "committed monogamous same-sex relationships" here, have a web site:
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm</a>
It presents both sides of the argument very nicely. I will not argue it as I am not a theologist, and know only enough about the bible to understand various arguments, however, not to make them my self.
oh, and for those who want to laugh, here are some quotes on homosexuality:
<a href='http://www.quotegarden.com/homosexuality.html' target='_blank'>http://www.quotegarden.com/homosexuality.html</a>
However, I really don't want to bring this down to a religion vs science debate, or a homosexuality debate.
I simply want to explain that just because I think that a society creates its own morals (via the definitions of the words society and morals), does not mean that I think that all morals are correct.
Think about this:
Your god told the Jews (your predecessors):
I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
(or if you wana go by the king James)
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(or for the set taken from Exodus 34)
Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
So, there are other gods?
Not any more. Originally those words referred to the other gods of Egypt (that The Lord fought and vanquished in many cases). Now it is interpreted (generally) to mean that there are no other gods.
How the bible is interpreted changes, thus Catholic morals change.
oh well, have fun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What makes God right from a Christian perspective ? The fact that he is <b>almighty</b> i.e. greater than the individual. So frankly Christianity is no stranger "to might makes right".
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The things that makes God right is the fact that he is the perfect, righteous creator. The fact that he can smite you all to hell if you don't do what he says is irrelevant. So much for the "might makes right". If you are going to persist on that, I am going to say that Gods might is perfect, and,being the creator, he has every right to enforce his morals on us. Unlike huimans, he is not trying to enforce one set of flawed morals on another set of flawed morals. However, God doesn't use his power to enforce his morals, just reinforce them. When Adam and Eve sinned, God didn't strike them down with almighty wrath, he did what he said he would do - punish them. From Abraham, he chose the people of Israel. He didn't force Abraham to love him and follow him, and it was only when he could see that Abraham was ready that he promised millions of decendents. When the people of Israel strayed, he sent them prophets and leaders to get them back on track.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then we move onto the idea of 'absolute' morality. You say because you adopt a god's morality that renders you automatically immune from any fluctuation in your morality.
Two points here:
i) If God were to hand down new commandment's tomorrow, what would you do ? Abandon your old morality and there goes your absolute argument.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because He is God. But that's not going to happen (for the same reason. God is unchanging). Therefore, our position of moral absolutes is unchanged.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ii) There are instances in the bible where quite frankly God allows Israelites to do some pretty scary things. So the idea of "thou shalt not kill" contradicts alot of stuff out there in the old Testament. Again, no absolute morality here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 10 commandments actually say "do not murder". Murdering is diferent from killing. Murder is unlawful, unjustified killing. In a war, you are not going to find every christian becoming a pacifist because of the 10 commandments. Unfortunately, killing is necessary.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, as a non-Christian, what gives me the right to say Hitler was "wrong" ? Well, as a living human being it is my birthright - as it is all of ours - to have an opinion on the actions of any other human being.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, you can say whatever you want, but what gives you the right to enoforce your views on someone else? Their opinion is just as valid as yours, and the fact that you have a bigger gun isn't going to change that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1 samuel 30:7-8 and 17 KJV:
7 And David said to Abiathar the priest, Ahimelech's son, I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David.
8 And David enquired at the LORD, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? shall I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely overtake them, and without fail recover all.
...
17 And David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They were killing, not murdering. Killing in a war is justified.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ezekiel 9 4-5 KJV:
4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can I give you a suggestion. Don't use the KJV in arguments, its about 640 years out of date.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ezekiel 9:4-10 (NIV)+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ezekiel 9:4-10 (NIV))</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4 "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."
5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion.
6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary."
7 Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!" So they went out and began killing throughout the city.
8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD ! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"
9 He answered me, "The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, 'The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.'
10 So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said earlier, God is not using his power to enforce his morals, but to reinforce them. The people of Israel knew the rules and the laws, and yet people still broke them. They defiled God's temple, going into the inner temple, where only the high priest is allowed to go and started worshipping the sun. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The Israelites knew that law, and yet they broke it. If they had been allowed to carry on, the nation of Israel would have torn itself apart. They had to be stopped. Notvie that even in his anger, God was still merciful on the people who wept for the acts commited in the temple. He could have just slaughtered every last one of them, yet he didn't.
----
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Societies create morals, however, I am not part of any society that condones slaughter of the innocent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Never said you were. But both you and Hitler based their morals on a society, societies that are/were equally valid. Society A had no right to enforce their morals on society B (and vice-versa)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason why I can condemn Hitler's morals is because I grew up in a society that say what he did was wrong. I can also condemn your morals (though I chose not to) because I was brought up in a society that thinks Homosexuals have done nothing wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can condem all you want, but you cannot force your morals on anyone else, even if what they are doing is wrong, because their morals are based on society just as much as yours, and both those societies are equally valid.