The Relevance of the Concept of God
- Thread starter Syne
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Syne:"So god is equivalent to religion, even though some religions do not include a concept of god? There is even a real world example, in Buddhism."
Caught in another lie...oops!
Caught in another lie...oops!
I hope you can see that God is not what Buddhism is about... Suffering is... And if you want to believe in God, as some Buddhists do, I suppose it's OK. But, Buddhist's don't believe God can end suffering. Only the teaching's of the Buddha can help us end suffering through wisdom and the activity of compassion. - http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html
Why not do just a little research yourself? You know, to "learn another pov". You do not seem to know anything about Buddhism beyond what you need to confirm your bias.
Here: http://bit.ly/17moyKC
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Nice try. You specifically said Buddhism doesn't include the concept of god. Clearly it does, regardless of how Buddhists regard such entities.
That's just more claims that God serves as an objective measure for believers without religion. You still haven't supported them with arguments. How does anyone develop their conscience via God-measure without any religion?
Oh, so all of a sudden you are willing to countenance different concepts of god (as opposed to the Abrahamic creation god), when it serves your purpose. Remember what thread inspired this one? Hint, yours.
And Balerion was making the specific argument that the "application of God is equivalent to religion", which is not the case in any Buddhist conception of gods.
What, not intellectually honest enough to apologize for, or at least admit, your glaring mistake and subsequent erroneous gloating? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ncept-of-God&p=3125395&viewfull=1#post3125395
Not God, concept of god. You do know what an abstract concept is, right? And since I specifically assumed a god does not exist, how do you think believers figure into it?
If you can postulate that there is potential viewpoint that is both completely objective and fully aware of all your actions, then you can strive to cultivate that perspective of yourself. I know, completely alien thinking to you.
I specifically assumed a god does not exist.
I see my mistake. My apologies. It's better than you deserve, considering how much of an intellectually-dishonest and condescending prick you are, but honesty is one of the glaring differences between us, so there it is.
If you assume a god does not exist, then you cannot postulate that there is a viewpoint that is both completely objective and fully aware of all your actions. Postulate means to assume the truth of something, so you can't not believe in something you postulate.
And I should add, (though I'm sure I have already said this before, and I know others have) conscience is not cultivated by an outside, objective viewpoint. It's basically your morality gauge--it lets you know when you're doing right and when you're doing wrong. Because of this, it is inextricable from morality. It is your moral judgment. And we all know that morality is not cultivated by fearing or respecting the all-seeing eye.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Nice attempt at changing the subject. Just admit it. You were wrong about Buddhism not including the concept of God. Why is this so hard for you? Are you like 14 or something?
Seems like you are the one who needed some "peer pressure" to bother to both verify the facts of your character-assassination and own up to it. Like I said earlier, "it is just your usual, lazy antipathy."
pos·tu·late
: to suggest (something, such as an idea or theory) especially in order to start a discussion
pos·tu·late
1. suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
con·cept
1. an abstract idea; a general notion.
: to suggest (something, such as an idea or theory) especially in order to start a discussion
pos·tu·late
1. suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
con·cept
1. an abstract idea; a general notion.
Since I did not assume the existence of a god, and always specified the concept of god, it should have been very clear that I was making the suggestion of an abstract idea as a basis for reasoning. That really should not be that difficult to grasp.
What is "outside" about an internalized concept?
Conscience is the personal sense of right and wrong that informs the socially-oriented morality. You seem to have the same trouble conflating these as you do god and religion.
While I never said conscience was "cultivated by fearing or respecting the all-seeing eye", conscience does develop, can be stunted in that development, and thus can be cultivated.
Hey, if taking my comments completely out of context makes you feel any better, so be it.
And so it goes. "I never said" and "You are conflating."
It's a broken record. No honesty whatsoever.
Yeah, just argue a strawman so you can play this "never said" card. The only broken record is the frequency with which you substitute strawman arguments for those I actually make. Do you really expect me to defend any old strawman argument you erect?
Forbid the thought of actually trying to understand...even just once.
i will reply on the problems i see in relativism etc later, i have no time at all, but i had a couple minutes to look through the last couple pages of bickering. Just fyi, to try to show that all religions incorporate a god-being is not going to work, it would behoove anyone not to try to show that, just in case anyone is trying to say that.
Edit - Satanism is a pretty glaring example of a religion without belief in God, for those that aren't happy with talking about buddhism. The "real satanists" don't worship satan or believe in God at all.
Edit - Satanism is a pretty glaring example of a religion without belief in God, for those that aren't happy with talking about buddhism. The "real satanists" don't worship satan or believe in God at all.
which is exactly the point regarding buddhism's lack of God that people sometimes seem to not get, i.e. that there isn't much, if any, buddhism that includes worship of a being - rather it is that the being can open one's eyes to one's own enlightenment. The "Pure land" sect of buddhism, however, does seem like worship to me, "If you wish to come and be born in my realm, you must always call me to mind again and again, you must always keep this thought in mind without letting up, and thus you will succeed in coming to be born in my realm." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism
the point of this is not whether i am moral a certain way, or you are moral a certain way, because, obviously, some people aren't compassionate, as we have already discussed. Are we talking about Morality, or my morality? I thought we were talking about Morality as a thing humanity has, i.e. inclusive of all humans. We can talk about my morality and methods, I have already explained myself multiple times here on that subject, but I thought we were trying to discuss how people are moral and immoral. If we are talking about my morality, we don't need to talk about biology and sociopaths and all that, or commands. (you still don't seem to understand my point that commands can be broken and are broken all the time, so they offer much more freedom and responsibility than an actual instinct would, and as much freedom as a "drive" or "impulse" would.)
and the only reason they are considered responsible is that an authority says they should act in a way that goes against what their lack of empathy tells them to do. If nobody told the sociopath not to act that way, they might not even know they caused another person to suffer, and they certainly wouldn't care.
it isn't like i am not intimately familiar with those biological ideas, and what you posted affirms my idea as much as it could any of yours. Science isn't going to prove to you how to be moral, unless you claim biological survival as the utilitarian ethic morality is based upon, at which point it seems to me our survival morality is no more noble than the lion or wolf's survival morality. It is just considered relatively more moral at that point because it is our own survival.
i agree with you, and the deontologists, as opposed to the consequentialists, that intention is a part of morality, not just the result. This is part of why i keep protesting that obedience from fear is a lower morality, although you keep bringing up this whole command thing, when i am merely talking about guidance, since modern post-existentialist humans must make CHOICES. Obedience from love however could be seen in a different way. The christian ethic is quite often portrayed in this manner, i.e., "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" John 14:15. My personal favorite for devotional examples is Hanuman, the hindu god that loves his master/friend so much in the mahabharata. (i have to say though, i am barely familiar with that teaching, so it could just be my personal IDEA of Hanuman in which hanuman is so great.)
yet they can't really be called "instincts", because people choose to ignore everything in your list all throughout the day.
i am going to stick with the psychologists, i.e "experts" on human behavioral science, on this particular point, and say human's instincts are certainly not as much "in play" as in an animal. Fear of falling off a building is as much what you call "instinct" as empathy, but people jump out of planes for fun. I agree we have an "instinctive level", it is just not capable of being called morality, nor is it as important for survival as an animal's.
definitely not. A baby sucking it's mother's breast is instinctive. Humans can't even figure out whether we should mate heterosexually or not, and many humans choose not to mate at all. HUmans are very good at taking natural preferences and fears and flipping them on their heads, so that they are no longer discernible as instinct at all. Maybe the action of grouping together in a social group instead of all of us being anti-social is instinct. This is not morality though, and if empathy is simply a tool for grouping together, i wouldn't call that morality either. The predator's separating the weak from the herds also a tool, and i wouldn't call that immoral, even if the wolf pack were conscious of what it was doing, and could choose not to do it.
i think it is a mistake to attach reason to empathy or a conscience, reason is its own animal. Unless you want to say reason is a tool by which people can show each other how to think, and therefore group better, and therefore fulfill their empathic desires, but it is just as easy to say reason is a tool to be used to oppress and control. I would prefer not to give reason a moral weighting.
this sounds very non-relativist, if it is the case. I am not a relativist, but i do obviously feel that different behavior is good for different times, and places, and people. It isn't moral relativism for someone to ask a teen role-model not to show their drug use on their twitter feed, and then not care if a regular college student does it. Because the regular college student "isn't hurting anybody".
i am just confused as to how people with deficient empathic capacity are not "amoral" under your system. I am also confused as to how we can be partly relativist, although perhaps you seem to think it possible. Pure Democracy is "partly relativist" in its function, because it takes a bunch of relative views and grinds them up and spits them out as an authoritative view. I feel you are asking for something similar from morality, but I fail to see how 80% of people deciding something is "good" actually makes it "good", contrasted with a pure democracy where it is simply, 80% say do this, so that is what we will do, right or wrong. 80% of certain historical populations thought slavery was "good", but we don't say "it was good back then and now it is bad". It is just "bad", for THEM, back then.
Yes, that was my point bringing in the word anaerobic. It is just how things are on earth, that religion and spirituality was part of our society as it became the society we are in now, but I am perfectly willing to say those religious foundations are like what you call instinct, and the modern psychologists call drives, and can be over-ridden or can contradict themselves, leaving us in a position where we modern people need to CHOOSE to be religious or not, CHOOSE to be moral or not, because we are more outside the box than a 15th century european for example - so there is no need to say, "religion MUST be used to decide a morality", in modern times.
I am not sure how it is possible for you not to be if there is no objective "good". Whose "reason", guided by whose "instinctive" empathy is the "ultimate authority"? The sociopath's, or yours, or mine? You are saying the sociopath needs to follow your authority, or be judged immoral right? But the morals don't exist objectively. I am confused by that. Or if you say the sociopath has his own morality by which he is judged, then aren't you a relativist?
Is eating meat ok or not ok? I personally don't know in modern times if it is moral or immoral, because i am not a relativist. I see a difference between, "ok based on my reason and compassion", and "actually ok". Do you understand my point in that?
1 - how can a being that is worshipped be supplanted by non-worship?
2 - Also, that page you linked has this - "Satanists do not believe in the supernatural, in neither God nor the Devil. To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. "
i think the philosophical satanist's concept of god is pretty directly in line with other materialists and relativists. They say, "do whatever you want, except follow these rules". I guess "partly relativist" exists, it is right there in satanism apparently.