That is the actual state so what happens is what is currently happening.
Don't you know???
If the "soul" is what's important why do you care if I kill you?
It doesn't work well.
Can Morality Exist Without God?
- Thread starter fiicere
- Start date
That is the actual state so what happens is what is currently happening.
Don't you know???
If the "soul" is what's important why do you care if I kill you?
It doesn't work well.
Sure, good is what works well for every one involved.
No. Does it bother you? It must. Why else pretend "god" cares.
Ummm. OK. What is the justification we use for what is happening now?
I know what I believe. I don't know what you do. Unless you are implying by that question that morality is built into the human psyche and that we both believe in the same good. Which I wouldn't agree with.
Obviously because that would prevent me from helping other's souls and my own.
If you are a collection of atoms no more significant than any other cluster, what difference would a couple ounces of steel through the middle of your head make?
Really? I though survival of the fittest was supposed to be excellent at improving a species.
What happens if two goods collide? For example, if there is a shortage of natural resource. Is war then the product of your "good"
I contest that your definition of good fails Kant's First Formulation.
You got me. I don't like the idea of all my work being wasted. What's your motivation? Why do you like to pretend your life is objectively meaningless?
How would that be objective?
Are our moral objective for rats because we are a higher perspective?
Read it yes. Understood it? Obviously not.
Nope.
What's wrong with these "evolutionary impulses?"
Wel except it isn't. By positing "god" as the indesputible "answer" to all the tough questions, religion is actually inhibiting the search for truth.
You realize you are delusional?
Its not a matter of belief.
So will you. Helping him now is important now, not 100 years from now. Also feeding him and teaching him aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both.
Oh, you have to be kidding! There are remminants of Rome all over the place. Ever heard of July and August? You see these Roman letters? Roman grammar? I bet you can't go 10' in any direction and not hit something touched by Rome. Roads, sanitaion, laws, plumbing, ... you need to work on your history.
All compounded things are imperminant.
Being deluded doesn't change your imperminence.
You do know that is false?
So if you were given a choice of doing god's will or doing what is right, which would you choose?
Actually there is enough fuel just in this solar system to keep us nice and toasty for at least through the possibility of proton decay in 3.3 trillion years. That seems a pretty good run if we can figure out how to do it.
FYI immortality is not a blessing. It is a curse. Being omniscient is to be damned.
False dilemma. There is no reason to believe any good god would prefer the company of some one willing to subourn their integrity for the possibility of a reward over some one willing to stand by their convictions even faced with a threat. Only if your god is both petty and evil would the wager apply and even then I'd rather not spend eternity with a petty evil god like yours.
Yes you are delusional, we know.
Yet that is precisely what you are currently doing.
Your justification seems to be your fantasy "god."
There you go then.
You already aren't helping them so what is the dif?
Ah, but I am more significant.
That isn't survival of the fittest. Individual suboptimization degrades the species' performance as a whole for humans. It is part of us being a social species.
Also "fit" is as in "fit for a purpose" not "fit" as in "physically fit" or some other personal fitness.
Finally there isn't any goal to evolution. A species improving or not improving is an incidental side effect either of which is a legitimate outcome.
Just because good is what works well for every one involved, that doesn't mean all out comes are good. War is obviously a non good outcome, which I think is something pretty much every one is coming to understand except the religious and the greedy.
As long as it is resolved in a manner which works well for everyone, then there is a good outcome. Again. Not every outcome is a good one.
Here are two simple rules to facilitate a good outcome in such circumstances:
Every one gets a first helping before any one gets a second helping.
The one who devides the resource chooses last.
Every one takes a turn at each role.
Hmm, do I care about Kant??? Checking....No. I don't seem to care about Kant.
I enjoy doing what I do in and of itself, for its own sake. Try it some time.
Don't need to. That sort of thing has never bothered me. Talk about empty boog-a-boos. MEEEAANINGLESSSSS!!!! OOOOooooo.....
Are you scared yet?
Last edited by a moderator:
OK then, prove it.
Obviously. You, however, cannot.
Heh. Do they make our lives any better, having months named July and August? Are you so naive to believe that we would never have developed letters had it not been for the Romans? Plumbing was not a roman invention, the Indus Valley had it long before the Romans. And while, yes, the Romans built lots of roads, they did not invent them.
But this is besides the point. I said JULIUS CAESAR. Unless you're referring to the great Julius Caesar the Plumber (who, I must admit, I've never heard of), your point is moot. Obviously an entire race of people can make more contribution to the universe than a single one. But even then, you didn't know that the indus valley had plumbing before the romans. Even whole civilizations are forgotten over time.
I'd like to see some evidence that I'm deluded, and that anything I'm saying is false. For people who claim to be intelligent, rational beings, you guys certainly do throw about a whole lot of unsupported claims.
False Dilemma. They are the same.
They fail Kant's First Formulation
YAWN. You don't read too well, do you? I've already answered this question (several times). If you're not even going to read the responses, stop wasting my (and everyone else's) time by posting the same thing over and over.
Whereas, you are searching for truth how? By posting "you're clearly delusional" after every post? Oh, wait, never mind, clearly you are offering a really profound argument here with lots of evidence to back it up. I can't seem to find any, perhaps you'd like to repost it? Or do you think your response "there is no god" is being treated any more indisputably in your mind?
Go talk to Stranger, I'm sure the two of you will get along just fine, and I will be able to manage a discussion which is mostly governed by good logic, evidence, and open minds in your absence. Discussions of your mindless hate of beliefs you don't understand are nonproductive and a waste of my time.
fiicere,
But you still feel that you will still be you when you die, despite all your memories and ability to think, and emote, all gone because your physical brain holds all of that. It is all of these things that make us what we are, our experiences, our knowledge, our relationships with others, our developed sense of morality, etc, all gone when you die. What then will you be? Asserting it is metaphysical says absolutely nothing other than it is indistingishable from the more honest term of "fantasy".
For this to be true then omniscience cannot be possible, and that is one major property of an omnipotent god. Without beng able to see everything then omnipotence becomes impossible. What is left is, no God.
The issue of the soul is essential to resolve since this is the primary entity in an afterlife. If souls are just the fantasy I suspect then there is no afterlife and since that is the "spiritual" realm of gods then whether there is a god or not becomes quite irrelevant. The concept of soul came from "air" or "breath" and it seems was the conclusion of early peoples when they observed that dead people had no breath, i.e. their breath was their vital life essence and it had left the body. They had no concept of what a brain could do. Interesting that early Egyptions thought the heart was the key to life and they preserved that quite carefully during mummifycation, and at the same time they destroyed all the brain matter.
The soul concept orginates from very ignorant times and there is nothing now that indicates one might exist or is even needed. The brain accounts for everything we ever applied to a soul. Continuing to pursue this ignorant idea seems entirely futile. But religions are all dependent on it because without a soul and an afterlife they would be unable to promise an answer to man's most desireable wish - to not die - the driving basis of every religion.
NO, no, quite the reverse. Why do you think I pointed you at the Imortaility Institute. This is scientists trying very hard to solve real difficult problems, and they are making headway. In the same way that science and technology have been gradually improving and enhancing the way we live for the past few centuries. It is the very reason that religious beliefs are so damaging to the human race. It is religious beliefs that say man can't solve the real problems, so let's invent a fantasy so we can feel good about ourselves and ultimate fate. It is that absolute defeatism that I find so annoying about religious activity. Religions have traditonally stood in the way of scientific development and still do so today. Our survival as a species very likely depends totally on our science and technology to prevent our extinction the next time an asteroid hits the planet, for example, which is inevitable. Praying it won't happen ensures our extinction.
Yes, I understand, and that is what is known as personal satisfaction and personal happiness. The essential object in every sentence there is "I". You are the same as me, you do what makes you happy.
But you don't know it isn't a fantasy and you could well be wasting your time. I play a great deal of online poker, when the odds are against me I fold my hand. I see no evidence that a soul might exist to warrant even limping in with a small bet.
Then why do we have such a complex structure in our head called a brain? I've estimated this to be some 20,000 times more powerful than the most powerful computer man has yet developed. If the soul is the essence of life and is an image of god why does it need an incredibly complex brain to be alive on this planet? Why in fact if it can exist in an afterlife does God even bother with a before life?
But you still feel that you will still be you when you die, despite all your memories and ability to think, and emote, all gone because your physical brain holds all of that. It is all of these things that make us what we are, our experiences, our knowledge, our relationships with others, our developed sense of morality, etc, all gone when you die. What then will you be? Asserting it is metaphysical says absolutely nothing other than it is indistingishable from the more honest term of "fantasy".
Only whle you are alive and with a brain that enables you to think, but after death, what then?
None of which supports the existence of a soul over the normal functioning of a brain that we know exists.
Or feel, or think, or be able to remember. I don't see any role for a soul, it appears from all you said to be no more than a benign parasite. Harmless but useless.
This still depends on what states a soul can maintain independent of a brain, nothing you have said yet indicates that the soul can do anything independently.
If a god can see all of time at the same instant (omniscience) then every action throughout enternity is fixed and predetermined. That you will be good or bad, will suffer in a hell, or not, or whatever, is already known and at the instant of creation. What you feel are your desires now are quite futile in this scenario. Our only hope for real freedom and free will is that omniscience does not exist, that the future is unknown and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, and that there is no ultimate plan for us. I find the idea that my ultimate fate has already been determined even before I was born to be very distasteful.
For this to be true then omniscience cannot be possible, and that is one major property of an omnipotent god. Without beng able to see everything then omnipotence becomes impossible. What is left is, no God.
You are very welcome.
The issue of the soul is essential to resolve since this is the primary entity in an afterlife. If souls are just the fantasy I suspect then there is no afterlife and since that is the "spiritual" realm of gods then whether there is a god or not becomes quite irrelevant. The concept of soul came from "air" or "breath" and it seems was the conclusion of early peoples when they observed that dead people had no breath, i.e. their breath was their vital life essence and it had left the body. They had no concept of what a brain could do. Interesting that early Egyptions thought the heart was the key to life and they preserved that quite carefully during mummifycation, and at the same time they destroyed all the brain matter.
The soul concept orginates from very ignorant times and there is nothing now that indicates one might exist or is even needed. The brain accounts for everything we ever applied to a soul. Continuing to pursue this ignorant idea seems entirely futile. But religions are all dependent on it because without a soul and an afterlife they would be unable to promise an answer to man's most desireable wish - to not die - the driving basis of every religion.
I'm saying everything once was one. Everything is now a part of what once was one. I can see how the superforce that is everything that once was one could be perceived as God. Everything was created from that one.
No religion is trying to unite the world. The problem is if individuals don't believe in the religion, the believers always think they are right. It doesn't matter what religion it is, believers don't see nonbelievers as equals, plain and simple. They only try to unite other believers, they never try to unite the world. 2 disagreeing doesn't have to resort to violence, however when many disagree about strong beliefs violence has historically been a constant.
I have many problems with religion, but I'm not gonna get to deep into them. I will say Blind faith is very dangerous, just as Blind pride can be. Blind faith and blind pride are the 2 easiest ways to create soldiers that don't ask any political questions!
What does God have to do with our moral standards? Everything that makes us who we are is learned. We learn morals based on our experiences and how we perceive them. God has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, if I called everything that once was one God, my version of God would be quite different then everyone elses, so I needed to specify a few things
.The way I see it, if the world is ever gonna be unified, we need to look for common goals, and put those universal common goals ahead of our individual desires. There is a simple question that can lead to common goals that might also help with your moral code. What is best for the whole world?
It is tough to answer the question when the whole world isn't on the same page, and when we don't accurately know the amount of resources in the world, but it is a simple question to ask nonetheless.
We generally learn right and wrong from our parents or guardians. Everyone has slightly different versions of right and wrong. I am more interested in understanding why rather than judging what I think is right or wrong.
I'm saying everything once was one. Everything is now a part of what once was one. I can see how the superforce that is everything that once was one could be perceived as God. Everything was created from that one.
Gotcha. Interesting.
Yes. How does that promote conflict.
I broke this section up, but, in essence, do your homework next time. Actually reading some of these books you're talking about might help.
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” Philippians 2:3
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Matthew 28:19
OK, but that's not an argument against religion. As some members of this forum demonstrate quite well, it's not just religious fanatics that are abroad in the world and are intolerant of other's views.
You assume faith is blind. It's not.
This is really not a complicated concept. Without God, there is no objective moral value. Agree or disagree? If you Disagree, please explain. If you agree, please answer this question: Minus objective morals, is there any system of morals which both make sense and satisfy Kant's first formulation?What does God have to do with our moral standards? Everything that makes us who we are is learned. We learn morals based on our experiences and how we perceive them. God has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, if I called everything that once was one God, my version of God would be quite different then everyone elses, so I needed to specify a few things
OK, so do you believe we can get humanity to all agree on one system?
That people die hardly seems to need proving. Go to a hospice. Volunteer. See people die.
Why do you think I can't help some one who has both immediate needs and long term needs over come both? Do you think you have abilities others somehow lack?
I suppose you think I can't help some one better their "soul," but even there you are mistaken. I've done just that in the past and I'm sure the opportunity will come again.
Your education seems to lack the breadth to understand the significance of calendars which don't work well.
The fact of the matter is we didn't and written language is far more thorny an issue than you give credit and it peaked with the Romans to a degree which is virtually unchanged to this day.
Many things do not absolutely originate with the Romans, but they take the idea and bring it to a level which rivals the current day. No other civilization used plumbing to the degree and scale which the Romans did until the 19th century. Hot and cold running water. "Flush" toilets. Extensive aqueducts systems running up to a hundred miles to bring water to the city. Running water for the rich and poor.
The same can be said for such things as extensive use of concrete for construction projects, including concrete which hardens under water.
Lots of people had local "roads." The Romans had network of paved, drained and graded highways from Persia to German. Their paving is still usable today on many of those roads. Just find an abandoned road today and see if our roads will be around in 2000 years. They also built the super tankers of the day for hauling grain about.
Julius Caesar's commentaries on the Gaulic wars are still required reading in any military college. He greatly expanded the empire, centralized and reformed the government setting the next 500 years of empire. The French speak French because of him. He reformed the calendar and gave us the Julian calender and the month of July. I supposed I could go on but your ignorance seems well studied.
And therefore didn't have the impact of those which are so easily remembered. The plumbing of the Indus valley is very primitive.
No you wouldn't. You just brush aside anything which challenges your delusion without even breaking stride for a moment. Nothing we present will have the least effect on you because your "reasoning" is irrational and you make up and accept imaginary "evidence" if it reinforces your delusion.
They are not the same as people like you prove over and over and over.
Do you choose your god or what is right when there is a conflict?
Its an easy question to answer. Go ahead and give it a try.
Please learn what Kant's First Formulation is: "The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) of the moral imperative "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature""
Your inability to use it correctly is annoying.
Then meditate on the fact that I don't hold Kant as a moral authority until rainbows stream from all your orifices.
I suppose false answers are still answers.
Pascal's wager assumes a petty and evil god who prefers conniving cowards over people of integrity. Simple enough for you?
By observing reality as it is. Making use of reason to understand what I see. Drawing on the accumulated understanding of those who also employ such means to verify and expand my reach. Pretty boring compared to fantasies of god, but real.
Oh, posting that you're clearly delusional is just a public service. I doubt you'll shake your delusion any time soon, but there is always hope. Unfortunately no simply reasonable argument can penetrate the fortress of delusion you are trying to protect yourself with against the reality of death.
"Mostly" isn't good enough and don't flatter yourself that you all so typical beliefs are worthy of much note.
Ok fiicere , I'll try to answer some of it again.
Almost all beliefs are blind. We believe we know when so much remains unknown. Having a strong belief in something unknown is blind. I don't care if you don't think your faith is blind, if it is not proven, that's exactly what it is.
Religion is just one of many that have strong beliefs in unknowns. Religion is not the only problem. But generally with religion, these beliefs are so strong, that believers will never even look at anything possible that contradicts their beliefs.
And your quotes from the bible are irrelevant.
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” Philippians 2:3
I see wars being fought over differing religious points of view on a regular basis. This quote is seldom followed. And you could have similuar 'morals' without the need for any religion.
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Matthew 28:19
And damn, this one sounds like they want to take over the world!! Make and enforce rules is what I get outta that.
When I said, No religion is trying to unite the world. The problem is if individuals don't believe in the religion, the believers always think they are right.
You responded, Yes. How does that promote conflict.
It promotes conflict because we are talking about strong beliefs. If someone strongly believes and someone else strongly does not believe, neither know, but both think they know, and conflict begins. Now imagine it's not just 1 believer and 1 non believer. But millions of believers and millions of non believers - now do you see how conflict is almost inevitable if we believe too strongly in unknowns.
So do I think humanity could ever agree on one system? Not if it's a belief. It would have to be something tested and proven, and it would still take a very long time to convert people from beliefs to facts. But before we can even begin, we need more facts!
I look for what is possible, but my beliefs are not strong because I know too much remains unknown. I keep many doors open, that way if one of my possibilities gets proven wrong, I have no problem with that. I'd actually be happy to be eliminating one of the possible answers.
However when people only have one door open, they put everything into that 1 and only possibility. If facts proved those beliefs wrong, the believers would avoid the facts. No amount of logic can make someone give up a strong belief if the believer sees nothing else possible.
Almost all beliefs are blind. We believe we know when so much remains unknown. Having a strong belief in something unknown is blind. I don't care if you don't think your faith is blind, if it is not proven, that's exactly what it is.
Religion is just one of many that have strong beliefs in unknowns. Religion is not the only problem. But generally with religion, these beliefs are so strong, that believers will never even look at anything possible that contradicts their beliefs.
And your quotes from the bible are irrelevant.
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” Philippians 2:3
I see wars being fought over differing religious points of view on a regular basis. This quote is seldom followed. And you could have similuar 'morals' without the need for any religion.
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Matthew 28:19
And damn, this one sounds like they want to take over the world!! Make and enforce rules is what I get outta that.
When I said, No religion is trying to unite the world. The problem is if individuals don't believe in the religion, the believers always think they are right.
You responded, Yes. How does that promote conflict.
It promotes conflict because we are talking about strong beliefs. If someone strongly believes and someone else strongly does not believe, neither know, but both think they know, and conflict begins. Now imagine it's not just 1 believer and 1 non believer. But millions of believers and millions of non believers - now do you see how conflict is almost inevitable if we believe too strongly in unknowns.
So do I think humanity could ever agree on one system? Not if it's a belief. It would have to be something tested and proven, and it would still take a very long time to convert people from beliefs to facts. But before we can even begin, we need more facts!
I look for what is possible, but my beliefs are not strong because I know too much remains unknown. I keep many doors open, that way if one of my possibilities gets proven wrong, I have no problem with that. I'd actually be happy to be eliminating one of the possible answers.
However when people only have one door open, they put everything into that 1 and only possibility. If facts proved those beliefs wrong, the believers would avoid the facts. No amount of logic can make someone give up a strong belief if the believer sees nothing else possible.
-=-
Can morality exist with gods?
Can morality exist with gods?
You are assuming the two are mutually exclusive. Since when has it become physically impossible to pray about the future and to develop it at the same time?
1) I'd hardly call it wasting my time. I follow the religion I do because its tenets match most closely to the morals I hold to be true.
2) You are neglecting to take odds into account.
LOL. Fun fact of the day: The most powerful computer on earth is actually more powerful than the human brain, in terms of memory, processing ability, etc etc. It's actually our lack of programming ability which has been keeping computers behind humans when it comes to more complex tasks. The beauty of the human brain is its ability to recognize patterns and to categorize data.
If you are asking me to prove that the soul exists, I can point you to some tests they did. But if you're honestly hoping for an answer, I'd say that one of our major purposes of being here is to understand our own nature, and to shape that nature.
Stop arguing and start thinking. If I smash my laptop right now, does my portable hard drive which stores all my data terminate? Of course, I can't prove there is a portable hard drive attached to the computer, but the fact that you didn't think of such an obvious solution to your query shows that you are trying to pick a fight and not to learn.
Unless it has the ability to outlive me.
Indeed. I don't think a soul really "does" anything, in the traditional sense. I mean, if you are dead, then you don't need to make the petty decisions anymore (what to wear, what to eat, who to talk to).
And yet you believe that you are merely a collection of atoms following a set course determined by the laws of physics? Forgive me if I find that just as distasteful as you do. In a funny way, the soul (a metaphysical entity) is the ONLY thing capable of making decisions in a physical universe.
But, to answer your tacit question, I don't believe time exists in the sense we perceive it. To be honest, linear time never made any sense at all in an infinite sense. Just thinking about it makes my head hurt. We've traversed an infinite amount of events to arrive at this one? At a linear rate?
Except you ignore the fact that a brain cannot actually make decisions. A soul, perhaps, can.
Wait. So, what determines proof? It's an old saying that only mathematicians can prove things, and frankly, I'm not even sure they can.
So, do you have blind faith that we're not living in the Matrix?
Is it called blind faith to believe that Gravity is a universal law, rather than a temporary coincidence?
It works both ways, friend.
We agree then. I was pointing out that it's not religion which makes man selfish. It's a part of human nature.
I take it you retract your statement "no religion is trying to unify the world"
Unfortunately, religion is not the only source of strong beliefs. Take an open, unbiased look at this very forum and you'll find a great many people with strong beliefs. You should also notice two things
1) Not all of the people with strong beliefs are religious
2) We haven't gotten into "conflict" yet. There have been disagreements, but most of us try to discuss them rationally.
I'm getting tired of saying this, but a great many people have been trotting out science as if it can "prove" things. It can't. It is based on the huge assumption that trends we have seen in the past can be extrapolated to the future, and trends exhibited in certain objects can be extrapolated to similar objects.
If that is what you are discouraging, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Nowadays: Yes, humanity has evolved, does not need a god to tell it right from wrong.
Thousands of years ago: perhaps not, people were killing each other, abuse, slavery, and wars everywhere were the rule. Humanity was more primitive then, and perhaps religions were needed then just to give limits, otherwise we humans might have destroyed ourselves.
Yes. To name a few:
1) Increase the duration of your life.
2) Increase the quality of your life.
3) Increase your control.
4) Increase your security.
5) Increase your resources.
6) Increase your dominance over those with poor moral standards.
7) Increase the quality of your offspring's life.
8) Decrease your stress.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
That is like saying God did it, is it not?
REF POST 6
This is pure arrogance and non-sensical.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Having a good moral standard doesn't mean you will live longer.
The people with the worst moral standards seem to have a better quality of life.
Control of what?
Home security?
????
Not likely.
Who knows, they could become serial killers...
Rubbish.