What is God?
- Thread starter baumgarten
- Start date
Is it really any different to what it has been before? The west has made progress in the last couple of hundred years it seems... particularly in the last 50 years. This coincides with the falling grip religion had on the west. Don't you agree that this is what the Middle East needs?
The way I understood it was that you definitely cannot not uninclude them in the non non group perticipation in something or other.samcdkey said:
samcdkey:
"But without laws at all what criteria would you use to differentiate right from wrong? e.g. a pedophile thinks its alright to have sex with a child. In the absence of any legal system, what determines who is right and who is wrong? And what determines the definition of the system of ethics? "
As a philosopher, I must affirm that either the definition of a system of ethics is to be found ins ome objective basis - I.E. enmeshed within the reality of something - or is to not be found at all. What I proclaim determines a system of ethics is the inescapable process of rational beings seeking the best, though they may be confused in what the best really is.
What determines right or wrong is the above system. Laws allow for a society to enforce certain edicts which may or may not conflict with this system and in thea absence of them, yes, many people would seek out things which we may find either evil or unpalatable, but the moral content of their actions would remain the same. That is to say, a pedophile - if pedophilia is morally wrong, which depends on a lot of circumstances - would be commiting evil acts no matter if he was in a system of law or not.
"Then you support terrorists and suicide bombers?"
Yes. I see nothing morally objectionable about attacking one's enemies with terrorist and suicide bombing tactics. They should just expect annihilation in return. Also, I ask whether it serves utility to strike primarily civilian targets, as in general, guerilla actions are best brought to bear against governmental and military targets, as was demonstrated by the failure of the luftwaffe to siege Britain following its abandoning of military targets for the sheer terror of assaulting residential areas.
"Murder is not a sin in Islam under two conditions:
1. when in self-defense
2. when the death of the person is required for the preservation of society (as a terrorist or oppressive dictator)"
Yes, but murder is a sin otherwise. If God determined this, he could also determine that it wasn't anymore, and that anyone could murder anyone without guilt.
"Not everything is good or bad except when taken out of context.
There may be good reasons for lying, stealing, murder etc."
I am not suggesting that any act is rigidly moral or immoral in the sense that there cannot be a time when to kill a man, or to steal from him, is in fact the morally -superior- thing to do, but only that there the whims of a creator are not morality, but simply that, whims.
"We act based on our reasoning; it is not infallible.
We are still accountable for our actions, based on our motives."
Can a man seek evil?
"But without laws at all what criteria would you use to differentiate right from wrong? e.g. a pedophile thinks its alright to have sex with a child. In the absence of any legal system, what determines who is right and who is wrong? And what determines the definition of the system of ethics? "
As a philosopher, I must affirm that either the definition of a system of ethics is to be found ins ome objective basis - I.E. enmeshed within the reality of something - or is to not be found at all. What I proclaim determines a system of ethics is the inescapable process of rational beings seeking the best, though they may be confused in what the best really is.
What determines right or wrong is the above system. Laws allow for a society to enforce certain edicts which may or may not conflict with this system and in thea absence of them, yes, many people would seek out things which we may find either evil or unpalatable, but the moral content of their actions would remain the same. That is to say, a pedophile - if pedophilia is morally wrong, which depends on a lot of circumstances - would be commiting evil acts no matter if he was in a system of law or not.
"Then you support terrorists and suicide bombers?"
Yes. I see nothing morally objectionable about attacking one's enemies with terrorist and suicide bombing tactics. They should just expect annihilation in return. Also, I ask whether it serves utility to strike primarily civilian targets, as in general, guerilla actions are best brought to bear against governmental and military targets, as was demonstrated by the failure of the luftwaffe to siege Britain following its abandoning of military targets for the sheer terror of assaulting residential areas.
"Murder is not a sin in Islam under two conditions:
1. when in self-defense
2. when the death of the person is required for the preservation of society (as a terrorist or oppressive dictator)"
Yes, but murder is a sin otherwise. If God determined this, he could also determine that it wasn't anymore, and that anyone could murder anyone without guilt.
"Not everything is good or bad except when taken out of context.
There may be good reasons for lying, stealing, murder etc."
I am not suggesting that any act is rigidly moral or immoral in the sense that there cannot be a time when to kill a man, or to steal from him, is in fact the morally -superior- thing to do, but only that there the whims of a creator are not morality, but simply that, whims.
"We act based on our reasoning; it is not infallible.
We are still accountable for our actions, based on our motives."
Can a man seek evil?
Prince_James said:
And who determines what is rational? And what if groups of people have different ideas of ethics based on their view of what is rational? What if someone decides it is irrational to keep feeding the starving children in the Third World as they will never amount to anything. That it would be more rational to euthanise them?
I don't agree, laws and morality are fluid concepts; at one time, monarchies were legal and rational, as was slavery, as was incest. So what determines a common idea of ethics? Or does everyone develop their own idea of personal ethics? I believe you are a proponent of anarchy, are you not?
Good I agree with that. What about imperialism and taking of limited natural resources by force? Surely when resources are limited, it is rational to make sure you get as much of it under your control as possible, since this gives you bargaining power over others?
He has not changed it in the last 1400 years, so the supposition is irrelevant. And you cannot presume what God would or would not do. But if you look around, people however have changed their morality continuously in the same period of time and can be expected to keep on changing it in the future. e.g. before World War 1, civilians were never involved in wars. Today they are the major casualties of war.
No the morality as defined by God is just that, defined. Since the scriptures remain constant the concept of morality remains within the boundaries defined. Though they may adapt to changes in society, they do not completely morph. The laws and people's interpretations of laws however are subject to whims and self-interest.
It gets higher ratings on television. What does that tell you?
samcdkey said:
You clearly know nothing about legislature.
See response above.
And nothing about economics, either.
You appear to have much to learn about life.
No, I decide that.
See economics response above.
That would include more things you know nothing about.
So, now that you've shown us your lack of knowledge, how does the government control my destiny?
Nah it would rattle around too much
Very funny. Well, not really, but you certainly got a rise out of ToR, which shows (2) things, she is easily entertained with kindergarten humor, and she only understood that one thing from the entire thread.
What's really funny though, is when ToR attempts to talk like someone who is really smart.
(Q) said:
so you support the current government bill against stem cell research?
see response above
so you support the current vast gulf in the distribution of wealth
And the current ban on gay marriage.
well I hope the IRS doesn't find out.
No it seems our versions of rationality are based on different operating systems
Obviously it doesn't. You live on an island.
No she has a sense of humor, which is an irrational thing that some human beings enjoy.
Amazing, too that she can do so without being condescending or patronising.
Last edited:
(Q) said:
You are so full of it.
so I'm guessing you are not a weak atheist then?
are you an utilitarian? Seems to me you subscribe to Mill's view who "believed that all violence and suffering was caused by sexual desire, and dreamt of a day when all human beings would no longer be infantilised by the need for sexual gratification, and an alternative way would be found to reproduce the human species."
Only you've substituted sex with religion!
Last edited:
samcdkey:
"And who determines what is rational? And what if groups of people have different ideas of ethics based on their view of what is rational? What if someone decides it is irrational to keep feeding the starving children in the Third World as they will never amount to anything. That it would be more rational to euthanise them?"
By a rational being, I meant a creature endowed with a conscious mind, I.E., any creature whatsoever that is alive, but specifically human beings, as we can relate to them most, and which we mostly regulate discussions of morality to. It is rather silly to, in general, discuss the morality of dogs, although I am sure such could be said of them, also, as well as even of ants and cockroaches, and various wee little beasties and the like.
And yes, I certainly imagine that such ethical considerations would have various controversies, but that being said, with an objective foundation of ethics - I.E. seeking the best, the superior - would allow us to at least speak of it on some form of rational level, that would exclude religious and denominational squabblings, as well as political differences.
But yes, it might be found that it is ill befitting superior men and women to continuing funneling their funds to the third world to support the denizens of such lands. I do not know. I have not analyzed that ethically fully.
"I don't agree, laws and morality are fluid concepts; at one time, monarchies were legal and rational, as was slavery, as was incest. So what determines a common idea of ethics? Or does everyone develop their own idea of personal ethics? I believe you are a proponent of anarchy, are you not? "
No, I am a proponent of meritocracy. Anarchy is absurd for human society. And you actually demonstrate what I mean by the fluidity of laws: Monarchy was viewed as acceptable, as was slavery, was incest. If any of these things be immoral, I postulate, they have always been such, rather than were acceptable in one age and now different in another. But no, the common idea of ethics, as I noted, must either be found on objective foundations are none at all. I postulate, as I noted before, that such is to be found either in the inescapable seeking of "the superior", or nothing at all.
For instance: When seeking food, do not we seek the object which best fits our hunger and tastes as much as can be found? That is seeking the superior in food and, though we may be tricked, such if the apple we pick turns rotten, it was at least our intent to seek the best.
"Good I agree with that. What about imperialism and taking of limited natural resources by force? Surely when resources are limited, it is rational to make sure you get as much of it under your control as possible, since this gives you bargaining power over others?"
Imperialism often encourages the material, emotional, and spiritual standings of peoples in the foundation of a higher level of civilization, viz. Roman Europe, British Imperial Africa and India, American pseudo-empire from the Atlantic to Pacific, et cetera. In that way, I would say that such civilization is morally superior than the squalor of barbarism or savagery which prevailed before. Or if not barbarism and savagery, at least a lesser civilization.
And as to the limited natural resources. Yes, a nation ought to look out for its own interests - just as human beings should do so - and at times, it may indeed be necessary to secure limited resources by force, lest one come to ruin as a nation. However, it would seem that in so far as it can be done, that a superior course would be in peaceful means to secure such, although war may well within the sovereign right of a nation and without moral blame even in this circumstance.
"He has not changed it in the last 1400 years, so the supposition is irrelevant. And you cannot presume what God would or would not do. But if you look around, people however have changed their morality continuously in the same period of time and can be expected to keep on changing it in the future. e.g. before World War 1, civilians were never involved in wars. Today they are the major casualties of war."
The major casualties of war? We have went to great lengths to prevent the death and injury of civilians.
But as it stands, yes, it may be irrelevant, in that God has not, but if God can, then morality is worthless. It becomes again, the arbitrary whims of a cosmic individual, and that is all. A sort of tyranny of the whimsies of a divine moralist, upon which can be rested no sure and sound advice, because as noted, that God could simply will it different, changing the definitions as he sees fit.
"No the morality as defined by God is just that, defined. Since the scriptures remain constant the concept of morality remains within the boundaries defined. Though they may adapt to changes in society, they do not completely morph. The laws and people's interpretations of laws however are subject to whims and self-interest."
Yet as you have said, God has defined them. God can redefine them, can he not?
"It gets higher ratings on television. What does that tell you? "
A man may indeed seek what we conceive to be evil in popular medias and in real life, but is he seeking evil for himself? Assuredly not, no? He thinks it best. Even if a masochist seeks pain, he seeks not the pain for pain's sake, but for the attainment of the value he placed on it, and really, the pleasure there is to be found. So it is rather impossible, is it not, to seek evil for the sake of evil, and not for the good?
"And who determines what is rational? And what if groups of people have different ideas of ethics based on their view of what is rational? What if someone decides it is irrational to keep feeding the starving children in the Third World as they will never amount to anything. That it would be more rational to euthanise them?"
By a rational being, I meant a creature endowed with a conscious mind, I.E., any creature whatsoever that is alive, but specifically human beings, as we can relate to them most, and which we mostly regulate discussions of morality to. It is rather silly to, in general, discuss the morality of dogs, although I am sure such could be said of them, also, as well as even of ants and cockroaches, and various wee little beasties and the like.
And yes, I certainly imagine that such ethical considerations would have various controversies, but that being said, with an objective foundation of ethics - I.E. seeking the best, the superior - would allow us to at least speak of it on some form of rational level, that would exclude religious and denominational squabblings, as well as political differences.
But yes, it might be found that it is ill befitting superior men and women to continuing funneling their funds to the third world to support the denizens of such lands. I do not know. I have not analyzed that ethically fully.
"I don't agree, laws and morality are fluid concepts; at one time, monarchies were legal and rational, as was slavery, as was incest. So what determines a common idea of ethics? Or does everyone develop their own idea of personal ethics? I believe you are a proponent of anarchy, are you not? "
No, I am a proponent of meritocracy. Anarchy is absurd for human society. And you actually demonstrate what I mean by the fluidity of laws: Monarchy was viewed as acceptable, as was slavery, was incest. If any of these things be immoral, I postulate, they have always been such, rather than were acceptable in one age and now different in another. But no, the common idea of ethics, as I noted, must either be found on objective foundations are none at all. I postulate, as I noted before, that such is to be found either in the inescapable seeking of "the superior", or nothing at all.
For instance: When seeking food, do not we seek the object which best fits our hunger and tastes as much as can be found? That is seeking the superior in food and, though we may be tricked, such if the apple we pick turns rotten, it was at least our intent to seek the best.
"Good I agree with that. What about imperialism and taking of limited natural resources by force? Surely when resources are limited, it is rational to make sure you get as much of it under your control as possible, since this gives you bargaining power over others?"
Imperialism often encourages the material, emotional, and spiritual standings of peoples in the foundation of a higher level of civilization, viz. Roman Europe, British Imperial Africa and India, American pseudo-empire from the Atlantic to Pacific, et cetera. In that way, I would say that such civilization is morally superior than the squalor of barbarism or savagery which prevailed before. Or if not barbarism and savagery, at least a lesser civilization.
And as to the limited natural resources. Yes, a nation ought to look out for its own interests - just as human beings should do so - and at times, it may indeed be necessary to secure limited resources by force, lest one come to ruin as a nation. However, it would seem that in so far as it can be done, that a superior course would be in peaceful means to secure such, although war may well within the sovereign right of a nation and without moral blame even in this circumstance.
"He has not changed it in the last 1400 years, so the supposition is irrelevant. And you cannot presume what God would or would not do. But if you look around, people however have changed their morality continuously in the same period of time and can be expected to keep on changing it in the future. e.g. before World War 1, civilians were never involved in wars. Today they are the major casualties of war."
The major casualties of war? We have went to great lengths to prevent the death and injury of civilians.
But as it stands, yes, it may be irrelevant, in that God has not, but if God can, then morality is worthless. It becomes again, the arbitrary whims of a cosmic individual, and that is all. A sort of tyranny of the whimsies of a divine moralist, upon which can be rested no sure and sound advice, because as noted, that God could simply will it different, changing the definitions as he sees fit.
"No the morality as defined by God is just that, defined. Since the scriptures remain constant the concept of morality remains within the boundaries defined. Though they may adapt to changes in society, they do not completely morph. The laws and people's interpretations of laws however are subject to whims and self-interest."
Yet as you have said, God has defined them. God can redefine them, can he not?
"It gets higher ratings on television. What does that tell you? "
A man may indeed seek what we conceive to be evil in popular medias and in real life, but is he seeking evil for himself? Assuredly not, no? He thinks it best. Even if a masochist seeks pain, he seeks not the pain for pain's sake, but for the attainment of the value he placed on it, and really, the pleasure there is to be found. So it is rather impossible, is it not, to seek evil for the sake of evil, and not for the good?
Prince_James said:
I am obviously an anachronism.
Ah the sweet smell of rational secularism.
I encourage you to go ahead full speed.
It's like what I say about gay marriage- let them go ahead and do it, why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?
Last edited:
Samcdkey:
"I am obviously an anachronism."
I also consider myself such in many instances, so at least you have good company, if I might be so arrogant?
But I am grateful for your encouragement, though, and shall indeed do so. Moreover, do yourself enjoy a continuation of your views. I am sure your sincerity shall guide you well, specifically as you take a rather sane, well thought out approach to Islam, compared to many others.
"I am obviously an anachronism."
I also consider myself such in many instances, so at least you have good company, if I might be so arrogant?
But I am grateful for your encouragement, though, and shall indeed do so. Moreover, do yourself enjoy a continuation of your views. I am sure your sincerity shall guide you well, specifically as you take a rather sane, well thought out approach to Islam, compared to many others.
Prince James said:
Is that really clear cut? For example if someone belonging to the IRA were to kill hundreds of people in the US using a bomb, would the United States come over and bomb the hell out of Northern Ireland?
No, of course they wouldn't, so it can't be clear cut. What situations would annihilition be used?
KennyJC:
"Is that really clear cut? For example if someone belonging to the IRA were to kill hundreds of people in the US using a bomb, would the United States come over and bomb the hell out of Northern Ireland?"
I would certainly hope so. Alongside Great Britain, I'd imagine. Although I would certainly hope such a scenario never comes to fruition, as I currently stand on the fence on which side I spiritually support in regards to the IRA and their struggles, being both of Irish and British ancestry.
"No, of course they wouldn't, so it can't be clear cut. What situations would annihilition be used? "
I would most assuredly suggest that America attack the IRA if ever she were attacked by her. But by "annihilation", I had meant an utter destruction of the organization, not necessarily the countries they are hiding in. But no, any situation where struck with terrorists deserves swift and ruthless reprisal, up to, and including, slaughtering every single one of the terrorists and their supporters. It is the only rational response to violence directed against one's nation.
Godless:
"Prince the us went to war on false pretence. WHERE ARE THE WMD'S? see false pretence. We were lied to, we were deceived, and Americans loss their balls to empeach this assinigne admnistration! "
First off: Americans never have had the power to impeach any of their representatives. That is a power invested in the legislature.
Secondly: Failure of intelligence does not equate to lying about anything. Are you suggesting that espionage can be 100 percent accurate? Or that the world is not better off disposing of a vicious and brutal despot?
"Is that really clear cut? For example if someone belonging to the IRA were to kill hundreds of people in the US using a bomb, would the United States come over and bomb the hell out of Northern Ireland?"
I would certainly hope so. Alongside Great Britain, I'd imagine. Although I would certainly hope such a scenario never comes to fruition, as I currently stand on the fence on which side I spiritually support in regards to the IRA and their struggles, being both of Irish and British ancestry.
"No, of course they wouldn't, so it can't be clear cut. What situations would annihilition be used? "
I would most assuredly suggest that America attack the IRA if ever she were attacked by her. But by "annihilation", I had meant an utter destruction of the organization, not necessarily the countries they are hiding in. But no, any situation where struck with terrorists deserves swift and ruthless reprisal, up to, and including, slaughtering every single one of the terrorists and their supporters. It is the only rational response to violence directed against one's nation.
Godless:
"Prince the us went to war on false pretence. WHERE ARE THE WMD'S? see false pretence. We were lied to, we were deceived, and Americans loss their balls to empeach this assinigne admnistration! "
First off: Americans never have had the power to impeach any of their representatives. That is a power invested in the legislature.
Secondly: Failure of intelligence does not equate to lying about anything. Are you suggesting that espionage can be 100 percent accurate? Or that the world is not better off disposing of a vicious and brutal despot?