mnbvcxz87 said:
Again showing why morality is subjective. If we cannot agree as to what is moral, and we can agree that neither party is omnscienient, then by defintiion any morality derived by either party is subjective.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
mnbvcxz87 said:Empiric we'll have to agree to disagree, to me the pinnacle of morality is altruism. And someone whose morality allows them to steal or even kill to make their way, even though acceptable to them, has a lower morality.
Rats aren't digested alive. Constricting snakes kill their prey before they start swallowing (they actually squeeze their prey hard enough to stop their prey's heart beating). But while it may be death for the prey, it is life for the predator.Yes but a bat being eaten alive by a hawk or a rat being digested alive by a snake is bad, and that is suffering.
Oh, morality is highly subjective. No matter how objective you may believe your own moral code may be, if you define your moral code, I guarantee you that it will be quite easy to come up with ambiguous situations.Opcode I don't see it as subjective. I see better and worse moralities, but the question still is that if you take that a power...a god created the universe, why was there billions of years of suffering and pain? That's a question I've never seen answered by science or any religion or any philosophy ever.
mnbvcxz87 said:I appreciate that but I'm thinking of morality from a different perspective. Not having derived from our minds, and not from a individual view. I'm sure theres a word for this (wish I knew it!) that existence isn't just as the individual perceives, it takes place with a billion individual perceptions within it.
So in that sense, and I do believe that a power is responsible for the universe, there is a morality that goes beyond our invention of it.
Maybe morality isn't even the right word, it's all semantics, just the idea of there not having to be inevitable suffering, and altruism.
Chalnoth said:I feel very, very sorry for you. With an outlook like that, how can you ever hope to be happy?
Yeah, same here. I should have known better.I decided to do my part by helping educate theists about the Theory of Evolution. I was convinced that, once they understood what a scientific theory was and how sound the Theory of Evolution is, unfounded belief would once again give way to reason. How naïve I was.
Once involved in the debate I began to realize that, while it was true that those in opposition to the Theory of Evolution didn’t understand what a scientific theory was let alone understand the Theory of Evolution, these people didn’t want to know. Their stance on the subject wasn’t based on reason. Because of this, no amount of reasoning could dissuade them from their belief.
Agreed. As an aside, it's sort of embarrassing that Crevogetics even exists - that anti-evolution sentiment is seen as piety, that ignorance is seen as faith.In fact, it seemed that the sole purpose of their involvement was to evangelize in the hopes to bolster their ranks. They called themselves soldiers of God™ and gleefully dawned armor of God™ while perpetuating age old scare tactics about lakes of fire and promises of eternal bliss. This wasn’t a scientific debate at all. This was a clash of ideologies.
I hope so, but America isn't out of the woods yet. Science education still seems to be in bad shape, so it doesn't matter how many court cases creationism/ID loses, if we keep getting generation after generation of people ignorant on basic scientific principles, let alone evolution, we're going to end up right back where we started, with ignorant pawns fed misinformation by those with a political agenda into thinking that science is evil and a threat to religion and therefore, must be suppressed.I was witnessing the latent death throws of those who opposed the age of reason in favor of superstition.
Yes.Were there really enough religious zealots to make inroads toward a theocracy here in the United States of America?
I agree. It's the old modernist-fundamentalist controversy again. From their perspective, it looks like science is driving away religious belief; that scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are displacing traditional Christian tenets. Yet plenty of people have no trouble at all reconcilling their faith with modern science. So why the controversy?One thing is for sure. While I don’t yet have the answers to all of my questions, I am now certain that this is not a legitimate debate about the science of the Theory of Evolution but a throwback to the dark ages. What we are seeing here is a world power reluctant to loose any more mindshare (or tithing) to the enlightenment of the age of reason.
Imo, this has already happened, but old ideas have a habit of sticking around for long after their apparent demise. People still believe in astrology, ghosts, alien abductions, ESP, etc.Like the heliocentric solar system the real truth will prevail and creationism will be relegated to antiquity.
It's possible, but I doubt it'd happen in my lifetime. Fear is a powerful emotion, it'd take a large social change for mankind to move past being exploited by fear for political crusades.My only hope now is that those seeking power by controlling the minds of its “soldiers” through fear and inculcation will one day be a thing of the past too.
Gratz.I am now proud to call myself an atheist and freethinker. My mind is my own, not a tool for your antiquated power struggle.
I never said it was immpossible. But you cannot change the universe. Just our little part of it. You seem to rail against the entirity of existence as being unfair and in some sense evil, and expect it to change because you want it to, or even because humanity as a whole wants it to. That cannot and will not happen. We are not gods.'Well regardless as to wether it is right or wrong, it IS how it is. You can say theres a higher morality that deems this wrong all you want, but if such a morality does exist, and still allows the world to be the way it is, then such a morallity is not used by any being, wether that be god or not. You are basically arguing that god as you define he/she/it is an immoral being.
Wishing for things never changes anything. Sometimes you have to accept reality, and learn how to work with it to improve it.'
But isn't it crazy that everyone has this aspiration but then, they lose it because it seems impossible. Lennon said the same thing and that song is an all time classic, religion works because it tells people they can live out this utopian aspiration when they die.
If so many people have the same aspiration of a better existence what makes it impossible? The systems of control that people have put in place? If they can never be broken I'll never become a part of this system. I would rather face my worst fear and die if just to inspire some people to try and make this world better.
By the way about morality and invidual, I don't believe in a higher power I believe in the concept of pantheism, and that the problems aren't for any god to solve but humanism.
Since when do we look to science for moral guidance? That doesn't even make sense.If your open minded enough I'll throw out a different perspective. I wont speak for religion because I don't go in for it but I go on philosophy rather than science as the core reason for being (for moral reasons and such).
My problem with evolution isn't that it doesn't make sense scientifically although there are some aspects about life science knows almost nothing about. It's that accepting science as the reason for everything doesn't deal with moral questions.
If you don't care about moral questions then fine this isn't even worth thinking about.
No, what I call teen angst is your naive belief that by making every human become a vegetarian, stopping all war and violence, essentially living in harmony with each other in peace and love, you will miraculously stop all animals from eating each other, change every life process on the planet so it no longer requires the sacrifice of another lifeform to proceed, or stop the inherent violence that takes place in our universe. The seeming belief of a young girl who wants everyone to be soft and cuddly like her stuffed animals were when she was young. When everyone loved each other, and would never think to hurt anyone. The naive belief that you can cause all of this change in a lifetime, when the reality is it will take many generations to adopt world wide vegetraianism, and will be a llong and protracted battle, becausly to be perefectly meat tastes good, and many of us would like to keep eating it.Opcode that's the whole point of my philosophy, it's a reasoning which makes sense to me why these things exist and how we can change them, on this planet. They don't have to exist forever just because they do now, regardless of science saying that they do.
Until we find life somewhere else in the universe we should assume we're it imo.
Maybe what you call getting over teen angst is letting your convictions be corrupted by the immorality which surrounds you. On this point hitler is inspirational in that, he could from his convictions (although they were wrong) manage to impose them on millions, on half of europe.
If convictions that wrong can come to life why couldn't convictions so good?
Not guidance, certainly. But we should all look to science for information from which to draw moral conclusions. I still think that the example I gave previously of homosexuality is very good, where we have learned that there is a significant biological component to homosexuality (for example, third sons from the same mother are vastly more likely to become homosexual than first sons...and yes, this has been uncorrelated with social factors relating to having older brothers).Since when do we look to science for moral guidance? That doesn't even make sense.
Not guidance, certainly. But we should all look to science for information from which to draw moral conclusions. I still think that the example I gave previously of homosexuality is very good, where we have learned that there is a significant biological component to homosexuality (for example, third sons from the same mother are vastly more likely to become homosexual than first sons...and yes, this has been uncorrelated with social factors relating to having older brothers).
This scientific information definitely has bearing as to the moral question of homosexuality.
Thief of time said:Lobsang, sitting cross-legged on the stones, carefully turned the yellowing pages on the ancient notebook on which was written, in faded ink, "The way of Mrs Cosmopilite".
"Well?" said Lu-Tze.
"The Way has an answer for everything, does it?"
"Yes."
"Then..." Lobsang nodded at the little volcano, which was gently smoking, "how does that work? It's on a saucer!"
Lu-Tze stared straight ahead, his lips moving. "Page seventy-six, I think" he said.
Lobsang turned to the page. " 'Because,' " he read.
"Good answer," said Lu-Tze, gently caressing a minute crag with a camel-hair brush.
"Just 'Because', Sweeper? No reason?"
"Reason? What reason can a mountain have? And, as you accumulate years, you will learn that most answers boil down, eventually, to 'Because'."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?