Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-26-2005, 12:26 AM
bluesbassman bluesbassman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 25
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

[ QUOTE ]

My method is a logical proof (a correct one I hope and claim. I've made the arguments as explicit as I can so that others can find any flaws) but does not touch religons which demand too much from the evidence but are not morally repugnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every religion of which I am aware is not only morally repugnant, but describes a "god" who is, to the extent that his description can be understood, the personification of evil.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-26-2005, 12:35 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

If you are arguing for yourself then it is ok or even only for all of us who think we have morals. If you are arguing a universal logic then I see complications.

Here is where I can see running into problems. What is morally right or wrong is not an agreed upon thing. I have my own moral compass and it comes from my religion, philosophies I have read, parents, teachers, etc.

Now, if I suddenly chose to be atheist, I can if, I wanted to, throw all right and wrong out the window. Before I go any further let me state this unequivocally, before I get bombarded by other posters - I AM NOT SAYING ALL OR EVEN ANY ATHEIST HAS NO MORALS. I am saying if I chose to become atheist, I can throw all my morals out the window and I think I can defend my new amoral position rationally.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-26-2005, 12:47 AM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

[ QUOTE ]
If you are arguing for yourself then it is ok or even only for all of us who think we have morals. If you are arguing a universal logic then I see complications.

Here is where I can see running into problems. What is morally right or wrong is not an agreed upon thing. I have my own moral compass and it comes from my religion, philosophies I have read, parents, teachers, etc.

Now, if I suddenly chose to be atheist, I can if, I wanted to, throw all right and wrong out the window. Before I go any further let me state this unequivocally, before I get bombarded by other posters - I AM NOT SAYING ALL OR EVEN ANY ATHEIST HAS NO MORALS. I am saying if I chose to become atheist, I can throw all my morals out the window and I think I can defend my new amoral position rationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead right, the theory is personal

'No rational person who is morally repulsed by an MPE religon can accept that religon.'

If someone isn't morally repulsed then it doesn't apply.

I don't know how big an issue it is as anecdotally it seems that many people have the same sort of moral feelings. The post where you talked about heaven and hell illustrates the point. You offered a more just description of heaven/hell and the moral indignation of others dissipated. (I still want to see the small print)

chez
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-26-2005, 12:54 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

chez,

Good job then, bud. I think it is ready for review by those more learned.

RJT
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-26-2005, 01:03 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

[ QUOTE ]

Here is where I can see running into problems. What is morally right or wrong is not an agreed upon thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go to any law library near you. All those books you see are filled with agreed upon moral codes. They usually come from elected reps., not God.

[ QUOTE ]
I have my own moral compass and it comes from my religion, philosophies I have read, parents, teachers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Super. But you dont necassarily need those things for a moral system and you still better make sure you follow your societies moral system lest you end up in jail.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if I suddenly chose to be atheist, I can if, I wanted to, throw all right and wrong out the window.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where would you be allowed to live?

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying if I chose to become atheist, I can throw all my morals out the window and I think I can defend my new amoral position rationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humor us and assume your an athiest with your new found amorality. Please defend it rationally.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-26-2005, 01:51 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: A problem with some religous views. Conclusion

1) Go to any law library near you. All those books you see are filled with agreed upon moral codes. They usually come from elected reps., not God.

I agree. That is why I asked chez, if his proof was meant universally or for those of us who say we have morals.

You are correct. The laws are filled with things that we who agree to abide by them agree are the morals of our society. I agree with the morals (majority of them) and I sign the contract to abide by all of them by living where I do. Had I no morals I would still sign the contract in order to live somewhere. Doesnít mean I then have morals.

2) Super. But you donít necessarily need those things for a moral system and you still better make sure you follow your societies moral system lest you end up in jail.

I was only telling chez and the reader where mine came from - I wasnít limiting where I received my morals from to those listed either. Others have their own sources for their morals.

3) Really? Where would you be allowed to live?

I would be allowed to live any where I chose. If I had no morals, it doesnít necessarily mean I would break any laws. It would be harder in certain places than in others depending on how my life style might change.

But, I could think of places easier than the U.S if that is what you are asking. In the U.S. perhaps Vegas -if it really lives up to its slogan.

4) Humor us and assume your an atheist with your new found amorality. Please defend it rationally.

I will give this answer for now (and btw, I am not positive I can defend it totally, never really thought about it in depth, but I think I can) but I am going to bed soon.

So for now, let me say this. Agreed upon morals assist us in the society we live in. It is for mostly social structure that morals work. Did you see the Seinfeld episode when Jerry didnít want his picture up in the apartment building? The neighbors got mad at him when he didnĎt want to kiss hello and stuff. Well his society broke down for him. He then wanted to be part of it because he needed for example the handyman to fix his shower. So he agreed to abide by the rules of kissing hello, so he could be a member of his neighbors and partake in the benefits. He still did not have the moral that kissing hello was good, but he agreed to it for his own benefit.

Morals make society function better. But morals in and of themselves are like innate objects.

Let me give you another example of what I am thinking. Ok, now I am amoral. And now I choose not to care about the environment. I have no children and I donít care what goes on after I die. Must I care about the environment. I donít care about anyone else who survives me. If Antarctica melts because of global warming and floods the earth I donít care if I was partly to cause of it with my fuel emissions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.