PDA

View Full Version : May I be a skeptic?



powerkoala
06-15-2007, 12:42 AM
Mohammed's and Jesus's claims that they were God/Allah or heard God/Allah, are unsubstantiated.

Someone claimed to have read an Islamic word in a Kiwi fruit once, years ago. When you look at the clouds you see shapes, it's just imagination.

One test would be to get two people who hear God, keep them seperate, and see if they corroborate each other's claims. You would have to be VERY careful to check for hearing devices, or transmitters.

The rooms could be shielded for conventional radio signals. If they did corroborate, (A MIRACLE), then I would look for someother means as to how they communicated.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Muezzin
06-15-2007, 03:32 PM
A member here, PurestAmbrosia, has a nice quote in her signature. It goes something like:

'For the sceptic, no amount of proof is enough. For the believer, no amount of proof is necessary'
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-15-2007, 03:34 PM
hey

during the time of the prophet muhammad peace be upon him, the kaafirs witnessed many miracles and they passed them all off as sorcery.l

you will pass it off as tricks, another group may call it deceipt of another form.

forget all that, just think if its possible to exist without a creator, that thought should be enough...
Reply

Umar001
06-15-2007, 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by powerkoala
Mohammed's and Jesus's claims that they were God/Allah or heard God/Allah, are unsubstantiated.

Someone claimed to have read an Islamic word in a Kiwi fruit once, years ago. When you look at the clouds you see shapes, it's just imagination.

One test would be to get two people who hear God, keep them seperate, and see if they corroborate each other's claims. You would have to be VERY careful to check for hearing devices, or transmitters.

The rooms could be shielded for conventional radio signals. If they did corroborate, (A MIRACLE), then I would look for someother means as to how they communicated.
Well what if they did not both speak right? Would it mean they are both wrong no, one could be right and the other wrong or both wrong and so forth.

The core seems to be whether it is possible that what Muslims claim is true, and whether it is more than possible and actually totally right.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Muezzin
06-15-2007, 03:40 PM
This brings up a good point though. Non-religious people are not convinced of the validity of other religions because the followers of those religions only provide their own, biased proofs that their religions are right. It's like:

Bob: Hey, I don't agree with you there, mate.

John: Well, you have to agree with me.

Bob: Why?

John: Because I'm right.

Bob: What makes you think that?

John: I do.

Bob: So you're right because... you say you're right?

John: Right.

See what I mean? On the other hand, you can get sceptics who are just as narrow-mindedly dogmatic.

John: Hey, it's raining.

Bob: No it isn't.

John: Yes it is. I can see it outside.

Bob: I can't.

John: But you're hiding under the table, setting a mouse trap.

Bob: So? I'd still be able to hear it.

John: You're wearing your iPod!

Bob: What?

John: Never mind.

Bob: Heh. Admit it. I'm right, you're wrong. If it was raining, I'd be able to see it, feel it and hear it. I can't, therefore it's not raining. Okay?

John:... It's still raining.

Bob: And we're all being presided over by an intergalactic spaghetti monster.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-15-2007, 04:00 PM
Originally Posted by powerkoala
If they did corroborate, (A MIRACLE), then I would look for someother means as to how they communicated.
The height of your openmindness is astounding. Good thing you have determined the integrity of the results before the experiment.

You create your own scenario where what you yourself describe as "A MIRACLE" occurs, and still you would refuse to believe it. Skeptism is one thing, but you are NOT a skeptic. You are a dyed-in-the-wool believer in nothing.
Reply

barney
06-15-2007, 04:06 PM
Superb Muezzin!

Very much like that.

This is one of my favortite agnostic works:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come cheer hank with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to cheer him?"

John: "If you cheer hank, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the snot out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you cheer."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little cheer?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come cheer hank with us."

Me: "Do you cheer hank often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the snot out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who cheered Hank, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother cheered for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't cheer hank He'll kick the snot out of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you cheer?"

John: "Sometimes we just wave our arms, and think of him. Other times we cheer Karl and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about cheering hank. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to cheer him, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl
Cheer hank and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the snot out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Cheer hank or He'll kick the snot out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the snot out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears.” I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary: She faints.

John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll cheer hank for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Reply

Philosopher
06-15-2007, 04:20 PM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

-- Carl Sagan
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-15-2007, 04:40 PM
I just want to know if it is the same John in both stories?
Reply

barney
06-15-2007, 05:01 PM
Nahh. Coincidence......


......perhaps!
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-15-2007, 05:05 PM
in reply to the very funny agnostic argument by barney, if hank doesnt own the town then someone must right? :p
Reply

August
06-15-2007, 05:14 PM
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis has one of my favorite arguments in favor of belief. I won't go to deep into it here, as this is an Islamic board. Lewis first point in the book is that a God of some kind must exist. He looks at the standard code of morality that nearly every culture in existence as subscribed to in some form. This he sees as proof of the supernatural, we all have an instinct which moves us away from our instinct towards self preservation and pushes us to do right even if it is not to our benefit. This universal standard of morality can't come from human beings, or else everything would merely be a matter of our own perspective.

I think that's a pretty good argument, but you'd have to have read the book to really get what Lewis was trying to say. I think that there is proof, logical, historical and supernatural that supports my religion, but you won't find absolute proof. The problem for many atheist/agnostics is that, like me during my atheist days, they look for absolute proof before they have any belief at all. I began to believe a little before being really convinced of the evidence. My study enhanced my faith, and my faith has enhanced my study of religion.

So can you be a skeptic? Of course! We have been granted free will, nothing will force you to believe. I would merely ask that you not dismiss all evidence contrary to your beliefs. (skepticism is a form of belief for many people)
Reply

Umar001
06-15-2007, 05:25 PM
August, a mere question, I find it within the realms of Christians I have spoken to that they use the world around them and so forth to derive their belief in God, and then forget their logic or views and have just faith without reason in Christianity.

Like step one believeing in God, they get to that belief by contemplating and using their mind.

Then step two, they seem to just pick christianity without the same contemplation and use of mind but rather emotions and personal feelings.

Not all but alot of those I came across.
Reply

August
06-15-2007, 05:35 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Then step two, they seem to just pick christianity without the same contemplation and use of mind but rather emotions and personal feelings.
That happens with a lot of religions. That's the danger of religious belief, the willingness to base theological decisions on your emotions. My Catholicism came about because after step one of believing in God, I next decided that Christianity was the most rational and logical monotheistic religion, then I studied the Catholic Church and realized that only it had the whole truth. I came to this due to study. I have a lot of reasons why I feel that Islam is wrong, but I don't think I should go into them right now.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-15-2007, 06:58 PM
Originally Posted by August
That happens with a lot of religions. That's the danger of religious belief, the willingness to base theological decisions on your emotions. My Catholicism came about because after step one of believing in God, I next decided that Christianity was the most rational and logical monotheistic religion, then I studied the Catholic Church and realized that only it had the whole truth. I came to this due to study. I have a lot of reasons why I feel that Islam is wrong, but I don't think I should go into them right now.

Now I'm a skeptic. Not in the same sense that the original poster is, but I am a skeptic that any of us human beings, even if in possession of perfect revelation, have the whole truth. Our very humanness keeps us from being able to fully or clearly perceive even that portion which has been revealed to us, and I think that once in heaven we will find that there is more revelation yet to come. So, none of us have the whole truth nor should we claim to have it.
Reply

Umar001
06-15-2007, 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by August
That happens with a lot of religions. That's the danger of religious belief, the willingness to base theological decisions on your emotions. My Catholicism came about because after step one of believing in God, I next decided that Christianity was the most rational and logical monotheistic religion, then I studied the Catholic Church and realized that only it had the whole truth. I came to this due to study. I have a lot of reasons why I feel that Islam is wrong, but I don't think I should go into them right now.
Well you see this is the first time, I have heard someone say this, I have met very diverse Christians from ones who condem using your 'carnal' five sense to others who don't.

Would be interesting to see how you derived such a view.

Maybe a different thread would be more appropiate.
Reply

August
06-15-2007, 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Now I'm a skeptic. Not in the same sense that the original poster is, but I am a skeptic that any of us human beings, even if in possession of perfect revelation, have the whole truth. Our very humanness keeps us from being able to fully or clearly perceive even that portion which has been revealed to us, and I think that once in heaven we will find that there is more revelation yet to come. So, none of us have the whole truth nor should we claim to have it.
When I talk about the whole truth, I am using the term in terms of what we as humans can know. If you aren't Catholic, I understand, but this isn't the place to discuss denominational differences.
Reply

barney
06-15-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
in reply to the very funny agnostic argument by barney, if hank doesnt own the town then someone must right? :p
Absolutley.

It's my assertion that we should direct our thoughts and appreciation towards this guy/gal/thing, and occassionally say thanks to it.

We should also not muck everything up for each other whilst we are in town, nor waste the time we are here cheering.

Mayby Hank likes being cheered. Mayby he's not that fussed.
Reply

wilberhum
06-15-2007, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by August
When I talk about the whole truth, I am using the term in terms of what we as humans can know. If you aren't Catholic, I understand, but this isn't the place to discuss denominational differences.
Since I was a Catholic for 40+ years, I know exact ally what you mean. :thumbs_up
You mean the same thing that every religion means.
I'm right you’re wrong. We have the perfect religion of god and every one else is false. :?
And I can prove it. :skeleton: :skeleton: :skeleton:
Reply

barney
06-15-2007, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Since I was a Catholic for 40+ years,
Just interested Wilbs, thats a long time in the club to lose faith. If it's OK, I'd be interested in knowing what was the tipping point that made you lose faith.
If thats personal, thats fine. I'm just interested.
Reply

wilberhum
06-15-2007, 09:58 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Just interested Wilbs, thats a long time in the club to lose faith. If it's OK, I'd be interested in knowing what was the tipping point that made you lose faith.
If thats personal, thats fine. I'm just interested.
No problem. I have told my story before. I will PM you.
Reply

barney
06-15-2007, 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
No problem. I have told my story before. I will PM you.
Thanks! :)
Peace.
Reply

Philosopher
06-15-2007, 10:40 PM
40 years of being brainwashed is WAY too long.
Reply

barney
06-15-2007, 10:46 PM
Philly, I'm assuming you were "Christian" before you became agnostic?

Same here. I was there 22 years old,fairly intelligent, a thinker not a acter, getting married in the sight of god and it all seemed OK.
It's what I had been taught since nursery school.

It takes a leap of faith to lose the faith, because what then have you got?
If someone takes 40 years to break from indoctrination, thats not a indicement of them. It just shows how powerful the concepts of organised religion are!

Peace
Reply

wilberhum
06-15-2007, 10:47 PM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
40 years of being brainwashed is WAY too long.
That's why re-education is taking so long. :D
But yes it is WAY too long. :thumbs_up
Reply

Philosopher
06-15-2007, 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
That's why re-education is taking so long. :D
But yes it is WAY too long. :thumbs_up
Yeah dude. Life is short, and there is no afterlife. Enjoy it while you can. Dont let religion (a virus of the mind) ruin it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-15-2007, 11:20 PM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
Yeah dude. Life is short, and there is no afterlife. Enjoy it while you can. Dont let religion (a virus of the mind) ruin it.
Sure, go out and play. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die.


I'm not a Christian to get into heaven, but because in finding abudant life in Jesus I have been able to avoid the type of hell you keep describing for me to accept here on earth. There really is more to this life than living and dying and trying to make it through the night.

Link Removed.

More To This Life
by Stephen Curtis Chapman

Today I watched in silence
As people passed me by.
And I strained to see if
There was something hidden
In their eyes.
But they all looked back
At me as if to say,
"Life just goes on"
The old familiar story,
Told in different ways.
Make the most of your own journey
From the cradle to the grave.
Dream your dreams tomorrow
Because today life must go on.

(Chorus:)
But there's more to this life
Than livin' and dyin',
More than just tryin'
To make it through the day.
More to this life,
More than these eyes alone can see,
And there's more than this
Life alone can be.

Tonight he lies in silence
Staring into space
And looks for ways to make
Tomorrow better than today.
But in the morning light
It looks the same.
Life just goes on.
He takes care of his family,
He takes care of his work.
And every Sunday morning
He takes his place at the church.
And somehow he still feels
A need to search.
But life just goes on.

(Chorus)

So where do we start
To find every part
Of what makes this life complete
If we turn our eyes to Jesus we'll find
Life's true beginning is there
At the cross where He died,
He died to bring us


Reply

barney
06-15-2007, 11:23 PM
thats a lovely song, and very true.

It still holds true if you take out the last 6 lines.:D

But we each find our own way in life and need different things from it to make sense.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-15-2007, 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by barney
thats a lovely song, and very true.

It still holds true if you take out the last 6 lines.:D

But we each find our own way in life and need different things from it to make sense.

You know, if a skeptic remains a skeptic his whole life and never becomes a Christian, but is always open to looking and searching recognizing that there might be more to discover beyond our immediate 5 senses I'm cool with that.

Conversely, when someone says that they will not believe because they are skeptical and just know that nothing can be true that they are incapable of knowing through their own powers of observation and logic. I am thoroughly unimpressed. That person is not a doubter. They are a convinced and fully converted anti-theist. I just ask that they not lie by also claiming to be open-minded, for they have closed their mind to even admit the possibility of God.
Reply

Keltoi
06-15-2007, 11:39 PM
I understand the "life sucks and then you die" philopsophy, because that was my attitude for many years. I thought I was too intelligent and too rational to fall for any religious teaching. Now I consider myself too intelligent and too rational to fall for any athiest teaching. Life takes strange turns sometimes. :)
Reply

wilberhum
06-15-2007, 11:42 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I understand the "life sucks and then you die" philopsophy, because that was my attitude for many years. I thought I was too intelligent and too rational to fall for any religious teaching. Now I consider myself too intelligent and too rational to fall for any athiest teaching. Life takes strange turns sometimes. :)
As the old saying:
"One man's trash, is another man's treasure"
Reply

barney
06-15-2007, 11:46 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Conversely, when someone says that they will not believe because they are skeptical and just know that nothing can be true that they are incapable of knowing through their own powers of observation and logic. I am thoroughly unimpressed. That person is not a doubter. They are a convinced and fully converted anti-theist. I just ask that they not lie by also claiming to be open-minded, for they have closed their mind to even admit the possibility of God.
I admit the possibility of god, I'd argue for the likelyhood of it.
From my researches and investigations, I'm convinced (at the moment) that God has nothing to do with the Quran or Bible.
Reply

Philosopher
06-15-2007, 11:53 PM
Originally Posted by barney
I admit the possibility of god, I'd argue for the likelyhood of it.
From my researches and investigations, I'm convinced (at the moment) that God has nothing to do with the Quran or Bible.
Why one god? Why not many Gods? Why an immortal, omnipotent god??
Reply

ranma1/2
06-16-2007, 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
A member here, PurestAmbrosia, has a nice quote in her signature. It goes something like:

'For the sceptic, no amount of proof is enough. For the believer, no amount of proof is necessary'
for which shows PA mentality.
First there is no proof.

Evidence on the other hand does exists.

For the sceptic evidence is necessary, for the believer evidence is not.
Reply

ranma1/2
06-16-2007, 01:47 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Superb Muezzin!

Very much like that.

This is one of my favortite agnostic works:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come cheer hank with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to cheer him?"

John: "If you cheer hank, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the snot out of you."

.......

Cheers for kissing hanks bottom.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-16-2007, 04:07 AM
Originally Posted by August
This universal standard of morality can't come from human beings, or else everything would merely be a matter of our own perspective.
It can come from human beings and it is a matter of our own perspective. We just happen to share mostly the same perspectives on things.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Conversely, when someone says that they will not believe because they are skeptical and just know that nothing can be true that they are incapable of knowing through their own powers of observation and logic. I am thoroughly unimpressed. That person is not a doubter. They are a convinced and fully converted anti-theist. I just ask that they not lie by also claiming to be open-minded, for they have closed their mind to even admit the possibility of God.
Not really addressing your point at all, but a side note I'd like to make. Anti-Theist seems to have multiple meanings. I consider myself openminded and given evidence I'd likely come to believe in God (though I doubt I'd worship it even if it does exist). I however consider myself anti theist. Not because I'm 100% that there is no God, but because I'm against the idea of Gods and the ideologies that are attached to them.

Originally Posted by Keltoi
I understand the "life sucks and then you die" philopsophy, because that was my attitude for many years. I thought I was too intelligent and too rational to fall for any religious teaching. Now I consider myself too intelligent and too rational to fall for any athiest teaching. Life takes strange turns sometimes.
There are no atheist teachings.
Reply

evangel
06-16-2007, 04:08 AM
Much of the skeptism seems that the creator is judged by looking at the creation that he does not control (He has His hand in things).
It would be like me forming an opinion about someone because their car broke down or their dog just rolled in a pile of poop, both of which I think pretty aptly describe the human condition, busted and smelly.
Reply

barney
06-16-2007, 04:10 AM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
Why one god? Why not many Gods? Why an immortal, omnipotent god??
Meh, sure. No problems with that. i kinda like the old idea of the God of Mustard throwing a few laserbeams around at the God of Tomato Sauce for taking his followers.

However there is one point, The Goddess of Reality TV Shows needs to interceed seriously. Whats with Big Brother at the moment? Are people not reading her message correctly?
Thou shalt not putteth the Chav with the Yuppie? Have we forgotton that?
Reply

August
06-16-2007, 06:55 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It can come from human beings and it is a matter of our own perspective. We just happen to share mostly the same perspectives on things.
Then what you're describing isn't a universal standard of morality. You are talking about a moral code that is based on your own perspective. I think that that falls apart when you look at what happens when two differing moralities conflict. For example, when a religious wakko group starts killing people. Who are you to say that what they do is wrong? Their perspective is that their actions are perfectly moral. However, I'm sure you would say that their actions are morally wrong and must be stopped. You are appealing to a standard of morality that is outside of yourself. Now, you might call this an ethical principle that most cultures follow, but majority opinion does not determine right and wrong. It should be noted that this argument is not sufficient to prove the existence of God, but like Lewis, I think that recognizing this universal morality is the necessary first step.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-16-2007, 11:49 AM
Originally Posted by August
Then what you're describing isn't a universal standard of morality. You are talking about a moral code that is based on your own perspective.

Sentence B does not follow sentence A by necesity. You may very well be talking about a universal code of morality and still have it based on your perspective.

As I noted above, we just happen to share the same perspective on most moral issues.

And note, that we DON'T share the same perspective on everything... so moral senses vary from culture to culture on all but the most base points (ie murder, theft, etc). All of these base points derive from experiences all these cultures have in common.

There are no big surprises here.

I think that that falls apart when you look at what happens when two differing moralities conflict. For example, when a religious wakko group starts killing people. Who are you to say that what they do is wrong? Their perspective is that their actions are perfectly moral. However, I'm sure you would say that their actions are morally wrong and must be stopped. You are appealing to a standard of morality that is outside of yourself.
No I'm not. That standard of morality is entirely within myself. And the wakko religious killer group's twisted sense of moralit is entirely within themselves. And it didn't come naturally I bet. I bet it took a holy book and some charismatic leader to get them there.

Now, you might call this an ethical principle that most cultures follow, but majority opinion does not determine right and wrong.
As you noted above yourself, that depends entirely on perspective.

It should be noted that this argument is not sufficient to prove the existence of God
It isn't even relevant to the question. A universal code of ethics could come from any number of places other than god. Even could have been implanted or bred into us by aliens. Just as plausible.


I think that recognizing this universal morality is the necessary first step.
There is no _complete_ universal morality as you just noted above. There are points on which everybody seems to agree and others on which many of us disagree. The points on which we agree derive from common circumstance and condition. We are after all all human beings living with finite resources and aware of our own eventual demise.
Reply

ranma1/2
06-16-2007, 02:51 PM
and now for those interested

Kissing hanks bottum the movie.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ
Reply

August
06-16-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
No I'm not. That standard of morality is entirely within myself. And the wakko religious killer group's twisted sense of moralit is entirely within themselves. And it didn't come naturally I bet. I bet it took a holy book and some charismatic leader to get them there.
Then if both your standards of morality come from within yourselves, what right do you have to be angry with such a group? How do you know that you are in the right when you stop them from killing? If your code of morality is entirely within yourself, I just don't see how you can expect anyone else to abide by it. How about slavery? The majority of the cultures in the history of the world have practiced slavery. It would never have been outlawed until people appealed to a standard of morality that is outside of themselves and their culture.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-16-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by August
Then if both your standards of morality come from within yourselves, what right do you have to be angry with such a group?
I'm within my right to be angry with any group for any reason. My emotions and judgments are my own :D

How do you know that you are in the right when you stop them from killing?
Because that's my perception of right. I'm sure from their point of view I'm clearly in the wrong by stopping them from satisfying their God, etc.

If your code of morality is entirely within yourself, I just don't see how you can expect anyone else to abide by it.
Most others happen to abide by it because they come from similar culture and have similar views. We enact laws based on these common views and force it on anybody who for whatever reason disagrees with our joint perception of right and wrong. Likewise many things I consider perfectly ok my society deems wrong, and I have to abide by the resulting laws (ie, laws against prostitution, laws against public nudity, smoking marijuana etc - which I see nothing at all wrong with).

Sometimes we change our minds. Such as your slavery example. Sometimes what we consider right and just changes. It isn't some appeal to a "higher power" that does this. God as depicted in the Bible is quite ok with slavery (likely reflecting the view of the times). He doesn't say its bad at all. He even tells you how to properly beat your slaves.
Reply

wilberhum
06-16-2007, 07:35 PM
Has any one other than me notice that powerkoala just dropped in, dumped his crap, and has not come back?
Reply

evangel
06-16-2007, 09:59 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Has any one other than me notice that powerkoala just dropped in, dumped his crap, and has not come back?
Kinda like a monkey poop fight, first toss gets it all going!:D
Reply

جوري
06-16-2007, 10:11 PM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
for which shows PA mentality.
First there is no proof.

Evidence on the other hand does exists.



For the sceptic evidence is necessary, for the believer evidence is not.
Though I promised myself not to engage with some of the scatologists on the forum of which you are not only a club member but also a president, I must ask what proof have you exactly? And why can't you articulate yourself better than my 6 year old nephew?
Once you can not only read but translate to readers what you are trying to convey can you then come and pass judgement on other people's "mentality".. for starters I'd work on my grammar!...
I was offered a mod job today, which I respectfully declined, out of fear, I'd do some major house cleaning and oust some of you to kingdom come... take advantage of my not abusing a privilege offered by not talking about me or others in absentia!
Reply

barney
06-16-2007, 10:19 PM
There seems to be a selection of people who when presented with a problem, immediatly resort to some bon-hom attacks in leiu of dealing with the issue.

Postcounts dont make good debaters, they do make good spammers.

If someone cant answer a question or address a point in a reply, its a wasted post.

It's a good thing that the forum wont be turning into someones all singing-nondebating-ego house now.

I for one will definatly be modifying my posts to just agree wholeheartedly with Islam and not question anything for the fear of not waiting for someone to log on till i address a point.

Or something.
Reply

جوري
06-16-2007, 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by powerkoala
Mohammed's and Jesus's claims that they were God/Allah or heard God/Allah, are unsubstantiated.

Someone claimed to have read an Islamic word in a Kiwi fruit once, years ago. When you look at the clouds you see shapes, it's just imagination.

One test would be to get two people who hear God, keep them seperate, and see if they corroborate each other's claims. You would have to be VERY careful to check for hearing devices, or transmitters.

The rooms could be shielded for conventional radio signals. If they did corroborate, (A MIRACLE), then I would look for someother means as to how they communicated.
Hearing/ speaking dreaming, imagining are all nice and so very human. Anyone can claim a miracle.. not everyone can bring forth a miracle. Most messengers took their miracles with them to the grave and it can go into the realms of "mythology" Prophet Mohammed PBUH' miracle still lives on "The Quran"
In order for you to make this challenge, and I am not sure what the challenge is or if there is one? I'd start by keeping your end of the deal.. which is study the book (Quran) in original tongue, compare to the hadith, which are the sayings of the prophet and there are volumes, as well as other works and then come dispute them... enlighten us as to their origin. You have to meet that challenge, linguistically, stylistically, exegetically, historically, cover all aspects in the Quran from the rhyme of the lyrics, to the power of its language, to the message it conveys, to its transcendence, to space in time in which some ayas of some suras were revealed.
It is really as simple as all that, if you want to get into the psychology as to why Islam not only lives on in this day and age but continues to grow.
Peace!
Reply

evangel
06-16-2007, 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by barney
I for one will definatly be modifying my posts to just agree wholeheartedly with Islam and not question anything for the fear of not waiting for someone to log on till i address a point.

Or something.
Will that be the same day Shaitan starts an ice skate rental?
Reply

barney
06-16-2007, 10:29 PM
It's the day Westboro baptist church dress in leather hats and tutus and join the US Marine corps.
Reply

جوري
06-16-2007, 10:33 PM
barnacle likes to confabulate. I am not sure if he has deluded himself in some defensive grandiosity that he actually has a point which the posters have prudently circumvented out of deficiency in their ability to debate . Perhaps it is all a case of his huffy and puffy self blowing tons of hot air off the wrong end, and the rest of us just can't stay in the room long enough to stomach it!
Reply

barney
06-16-2007, 10:39 PM
Originally Posted by barney
There seems to be a selection of people who when presented with a problem, immediatly resort to some bon-hom attacks in leiu of dealing with the issue.

Postcounts dont make good debaters, they do make good spammers.

If someone cant answer a question or address a point in a reply, its a wasted post.

It's a good thing that the forum wont be turning into someones all singing-nondebating-ego house now.

I for one will definatly be modifying my posts to just agree wholeheartedly with Islam and not question anything for the fear of not waiting for someone to log on till i address a point.

Or something.
Heh!
Reply

جوري
06-16-2007, 10:42 PM
I gather the above is an exquisite debate and not at all a spam?-- strange world! :rollseyes
Reply

barney
06-16-2007, 10:46 PM
Just quoting myself in a response to yet another Bon-hom and lack of substance.

It was Irony, but i wasnt really expecting you to get that.

at risk of +1'ing, I''ll end here.
Reply

جوري
06-16-2007, 10:50 PM
Thank G-D for your presence here barnacle, what would we do without your enlightenment? you are indeed one of the proud the few the elitist intelligentsia. Yeah you should stop here!.. seems that though I have a banality filter, the rest of the forum doesn't!
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-17-2007, 02:58 AM
barney, just ignore Purest Ambrosia as the rest of us have learned to do. All he/she ever posts is personal attacks. Nothing of substance to the actual discussion. We had an interesting conversation going here. Don't feed the trolls.
Reply

جوري
06-17-2007, 03:18 AM
It is really funny since none of my posts have addressed you or your conjoined twin barnacle -- they were in fact a reply to one who felt so free to discuss my "mentality" in my absence and the original poster.. are you begging for a come reply back to me post? or is this an attempt to broom up your scattered thoughts? I am just beside myself... you and all three of your alter egos have really done me in.
In fact please go put me on your Ig list!
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-17-2007, 07:20 AM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
and now for those interested

Kissing hanks bottum the movie.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ
The story has been around for years, and its nice to see somebody doing such a nice job of adapting it to video.

I was impressed with their work on it. I especially thought it was funny that they gave the role of "Mary" to a man. lol.
Reply

August
06-17-2007, 07:50 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Sometimes we change our minds. Such as your slavery example. Sometimes what we consider right and just changes. It isn't some appeal to a "higher power" that does this. God as depicted in the Bible is quite ok with slavery (likely reflecting the view of the times). He doesn't say its bad at all. He even tells you how to properly beat your slaves.
No, the point isn't that only by appealing to God could slavery be ended, the point is that it was ended because people appealed to a standard of morality that is outside of themselves and overrides the cultural norms. I'm having a hard time believing that you believe in right and wrong at all, since everything is a matter of perspective.
Reply

barney
06-17-2007, 02:43 PM
Well we , (mostly) moved to a standard higher than "God". i use that term to describe the man-made gods of the worlds main religions.
I'm sure a creating force either has superior standards or no humanistic standards.

It's been a slow and hard won lesson, that we are still learning.
Hooray for progress and shedding dusty ancient standards of intolerance and brutality.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-17-2007, 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by August
I'm having a hard time believing that you believe in right and wrong at all, since everything is a matter of perspective.
This winds up being a matter of semantics. What means "right" and what means "wrong". Must there be universal moral absolutes that exist outside the human mind for there to be "right" and "wrong"? I don't think so. But if that is what you mean by those terms then you are correct that I don't believe in such a thing. For morality to exist somebody has to be judging it. It is created by the human (or in some cases nonhuman) mind.
Reply

evangel
06-18-2007, 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This winds up being a matter of semantics. What means "right" and what means "wrong". Must there be universal moral absolutes that exist outside the human mind for there to be "right" and "wrong"? I don't think so. But if that is what you mean by those terms then you are correct that I don't believe in such a thing. For morality to exist somebody has to be judging it. It is created by the human (or in some cases nonhuman) mind.
:? :? :? Huh??? :? :? :?
When I was young I used to write some really deep and mystifying stuff like the quote above. Then I got clean and now people understand me.
Reply

جوري
06-18-2007, 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by evangel
:? :? :? Huh??? :? :? :?
When I was young I used to write some really deep and mystifying stuff like the quote above. Then I got clean and now people understand me.
Though I'd hate to "pull an atheist" but that was brilliant! .. reps for you!-- well-- when I get my repping power that is!
peace!
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-18-2007, 01:51 AM
Originally Posted by evangel
:? :? :? Huh??? :? :? :?
When I was young I used to write some really deep and mystifying stuff like the quote above. Then I got clean and now people understand me.
Maybe it is hard for a God believer to conceptualize?

I believe that "Good" and "Evil" are constructs of the human mind, like beauty.

BTW, you say you "got clean". Are you calling me dirty? I had a shower today, I swear. heh.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-18-2007, 01:57 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This winds up being a matter of semantics. What means "right" and what means "wrong". Must there be universal moral absolutes that exist outside the human mind for there to be "right" and "wrong"? I don't think so. But if that is what you mean by those terms then you are correct that I don't believe in such a thing. For morality to exist somebody has to be judging it. It is created by the human (or in some cases nonhuman) mind.

So, there would be nothing "wrong" with someone just walking up to you and hitting you in the nose for no apparent reason other than that they enjoyed doing so. And though you might wish to reltaliate on an ever increasing scale till we had total mutual annihilation, there really would be nothing morally wrong with that either, at least not from a perspective that existed totally within the human mind.

That I think there is something wrong with it, tells me (by your own description above) that I get my morality from a source outside the human mind. With your permission, I'll call that source of internalized morality God.
Reply

evangel
06-18-2007, 02:09 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
BTW, you say you "got clean". Are you calling me dirty? I had a shower today, I swear. heh.
Sniff, sniff. Good from here.:D
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-18-2007, 02:56 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, there would be nothing "wrong" with someone just walking up to you and hitting you in the nose for no apparent reason other than that they enjoyed doing so.
I, and most of society would deem that wrong, so its wrong. Just because a concept exists within the human mind and not outside of it does not make the concept not exist. Beauty is a good comparison point. Just because your lover is beautiful to you and this all happens in your mind, does not make him/her in fact ugly.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-18-2007, 03:03 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I, and most of society would deem that wrong, so its wrong. Just because a concept exists within the human mind and not outside of it does not make the concept not exist. Beauty is a good comparison point. Just because your lover is beautiful to you and this all happens in your mind, does not make him/her in fact ugly.
And what you have just done is to make a comparison between beauty (which is in the eye of the beholder) and morality. So morality, by your way of thinking, is something conceived in the mind of the individual thinker.

There really is no such thing as beauty. There is at best a convergence of opinion. But if you really prefer "Dogs Playing Poker" over "The Mona Lisa", then by all means, put "Dogs Playing Poker" on your living room wall. Though others may disagree with you 6 billion to 1, that does not make them right and you wrong. It just means that the rest of us will not defer to you for selecting painting for our own living rooms.

By your standards, there really is no such thing as morality, no right and wrong. Thus, if I choose to hit you in the nose, you may not like it. And others may see me as dangerous, for fear that I might do the same to them. And the world might vote 6 billion to 1 to lock me up in prison and throw away the key. But that doesn't make my actions wrong, only unappreciated, just like your taste in art is unappreciated.
Reply

thirdwatch512
06-18-2007, 03:23 AM
oh wow! we should call this "kafir hangout" lol because there are sooo many non muslims posting ehre! in the past 4 pages, only one muslim has posted lol :)

concerning miracles.. they happen in Christiantiy all the time.

i, unlike half the agnostics here, am totally opposite.. i grew up in a neo atheist home, and ended up becomming religious Catholic! of course, although i became Chrsitian, i never lost my liberalness (I am the biggest anarcho socialist liberal on this board prolly lol)

one miracle in particular that I am astonished with, was Our Lady of Fatima.. this happened in Fatima portugal in 1907 when our Blessed Mother appeared to 70,000 people.. SEVENTY THOUSAND! She made 3 prophesies..
>> 1 . rise and fall of communism
>> 2. World War 2
>> 3. i don't remember lol

She also told us that if Portugal became religious again and prayed the Blessed Rosary daily, and went to Church, that Portugal would be saved from a huge sickness. Well, years after, a huge famine swept Spain, killing thousands.. but guess what? it never hit Portugal!

70,000 witnessess. pictures were also taken if someone wishes to find more on the story. Blind people were healed, the crippled could walk, etc. it was an amazing event!!

there is also a very miraculous event that happened at a Church in Egypt for an entire year! Thousands upon thousands of people converted to Christianity from this awesome event. it happened just a few years ago when our Blessed Mother appeared at the Church daily. blind people and disabled people were taken to the Church, and were healed.

and also, i think this is undenyable.. the Blessed Mother statues crying. it is just phenominal how thousands of Statues have cried.

also, there have been reports of the Eucharist turning into live blood and flesh. just google it.. some of the pictures are sort of disturbing lol seeing someone take blood, but it's a gift from God!

and, one thing really phenominal.. the Shroud of Turin. they did tests on it.. it came out as being real blood. AB blood actually. well, there was a statue of Jesus weeping Blood (because people are beginning to be unbelievers) and they tested the blood.. guess what? it's AB!

some great links of interest..

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucha.../lanciano.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...rystatue_x.htm
http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/...esandicons.htm

now this one is crazy.. this womans body has been preserved since 1879.. no joke!




>>>http://www.marypages.com/ - GREAT link :)
Reply

Philosopher
06-18-2007, 03:30 AM
I have refuted Thirdwatch512 before using this post, he ran away from the debate with his tail between his legs:

Thirdwatch,

I also forgot to mention that there were numerous Christians theologians who predicted the date for the end of the world but were wrong EVERY time. Their gathered their calculations from the Bible (hence the problem).

53 AD
Even before all the books of the Bible were written, there was talk that Christ's return had already taken place. The Thessalonians panicked on Paul when they heard a rumor that the day of the Lord was at hand, and they had missed the rapture.

500
A Roman priest living in the second century predicted Christ would return in 500 AD, based on the dimensions of Noah's ark.

1000
This year goes down as one of the most heightened periods of hysteria over the return of Christ. All members of society seemed affected by the prediction that Jesus was coming back at the start of the new millennium. None of the events required by the Bible were transpiring at that time; the magic of the number 1000 was the sole reason for the expectation. During concluding months of 999 AD, everyone was on his best behavior; worldly goods were sold and given to the poor; swarms of pilgrims headed east to meet the Lord at Jerusalem; buildings went unrepaired; crops were left unplanted; and criminals were set free from jails. When the year 999 AD turned into 1000 AD, nothing happened.

1033
This year was cited as the beginning of the millennium because it marked 1,000 years since Christ's crucifixion.

1186
The "Letter of Toledo" warned everyone to hide in the caves and mountains. The world was reportedly to be destroyed with only a few spared.

1420
The Taborites of Czechoslovakia predicted every city would be annihilated by fire. Only five mountain strongholds would be saved.

1524-1526
Muntzer, a leader of German peasants, announced that the return of Christ was near. After Muntzer and his men destroyed the high and mighty, the Lord would supposedly return. This belief led to an uneven battle against government troops. He was strategically outnumbered. Muntzer claimed to have had a vision from God in which the Lord promised that He would catch the cannonballs of the enemy in the sleeves of His cloak. The prediction within the vision turned out to be false when Muntzer and his followers were mowed down by cannon fire.

1534
A repeat of the Muntzer affair occurred a few years later. This time, Jan Matthys took over the city of Munster. The city was to be the only one spared from destruction. The inhabitants of Munster, chased out by Matthys and his men, regrouped and lay siege to the city. Within a year, everyone in the city was dead.

1650-1660
The Fifth Monarchy Men looked for Jesus to establish a theocracy. They took up arms and tried to seize England by force. The movement died when the British monarchy was restored in 1660.

1666
For the citizens of London, 1666 was not a banner year. A bubonic plague outbreak killed 100,000 and the Great Fire of London struck the same year. The world seemed at an end to most Londoners. The fact that the year ended with the Beast's number—666--didn't help matters.

1809
Mary Bateman, who specialized in fortune telling, had a magic chicken that laid eggs with end-time messages on them. One message said that Christ was coming. The uproar she created ended when an unannounced visitor caught her forcing an egg into the hen's oviduct. Mary later was hanged for poisoning a wealthy client. History does not record whether the offended chicken attended the hanging.

1814
Spiritualist Joanna Southcott made the startling claim that she, by virgin birth, would produce the second Jesus Christ. Her abdomen began to swell and so did the crowds of people around her. The time for the birth came and passed; she died soon after. An autopsy revealed she had experienced a false pregnancy.

1836
John Wesley wrote that "the time, times and half a time" of Revelation 12:14 were 1058*1836, "when Christ should come" (A. M. Morris, The Prophecies Unveiled, p. 361).

1843-1844

William Miller was the founder of an end-times movement that was so prominent it received its own name, Millerism. From his studies of the Bible, Miller determined that the second coming would happen sometime between 1843-1844. A spectacular meteor shower in 1833 gave the movement a good push forward. The buildup of anticipation continued until March 21, 1844, when Miller's one-year timetable ran out. Some followers set another date--Oct 22, 1844. This too failed, collapsing the movement. One follower described the days after the failed predictions: "The world made merry over the old Prophet's predicament. The taunts and jeers of the 'scoffers' were well-nigh unbearable."

1859
Rev. Thomas Parker, a Massachusetts minister, looked for the millennium to start about 1859.

1881
Someone called Mother Shipton had, 400 years earlier, claimed that the world would end in 1881. A controversy hangs over the Shipton writings as to whether or not publishers doctored the text. If the date was wrong, should it matter anyway?

1910
The revisit of Halley's comet was, for many, an indication of the Lord's second coming. The earth actually passed through the gaseous tail of the comet. One enterprising man sold comet pills to people for protection against the effects of the toxic gases.

1914
Charles Russell, after being exposed to the teachings of William Miller, founded his own organization that evolved into the Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1914, Russell predicted the return of Jesus Christ.

1918

In 1918, new math didn't help the Witnesses from striking out again.

1925

The Witnesses had no better luck in 1925. They already possessed the title of “Most Wrong Predictions.” They would expand upon it in the years to come.

1941
Once again, Jehovah's Witnesses beleived that Armageddon was due. Before the end of 1941, the end of all things was predicted.

1967
When the city of Jerusalem was reclaimed by the Jews in 1967, prophecy watchers declared that the "Time of the Gentiles" had come to an end.

1970
The True Light Church of Christ made its claim to fame by incorrectly forecasting the return of Jesus. A number of church members had quit their livelihoods ahead of the promised advent.

1973
A comet that turned out to be a visual disappointment nonetheless compelled one preacher to announce that it would be a sign of the Lord's return.

1975
The Jehovah's Witnesses were back at it in 1975. The failure of the forecast did not affect the growth of the movement. The Watchtower magazine, a major Witness periodical, has over 13 million subscribers.

1977
We all remember the killer bee scare of the late 1970's. One prophecy prognosticator linked the bees to Revelation 9:3-12. After 20 years of progression, the bees are still in Texas. I'm beginning to think of them as the killer snails.

1981
One author boldly declared that the rapture would occur before December 31, 1981, based on Christian prophecy, astronomy, and a dash of ecological fatalism. He pegged the date to Jesus' promised return to earth a generation after Israel's rebirth. He also made references to the "Jupiter Effect," a planetary alignment occurring every 179 years that supposedly could lead to earthquakes and nuclear plant meltdowns.

1982
It was all going to end in 1982, when the planets lined up and created magnetic forces that would bring Armageddon to the earth.

1982
A group called the Tara Centers placed full-page advertisements in many major newspapers for the weekend of April 24-25, 1982, announcing: "The Christ is Now Here!" They predicted that He was to make himself known "within the next two months." After the date passed, they said that the delay was only because the "consciousness of the human race was not quite right..." Boy, all these years and we're still not ready.

1984
The Jehovah's Witnesses made sure, in 1984, that no one else would be able to top their record of most wrong doomsday predictions. The Witnesses' record currently holds at nine. The years are: 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, and 1984. Lately, the JWs are claiming they're out of the prediction business, but it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. They'll be back.

1987
The Harmonic Convergence was planned for August 16-17, 1987, and several New Age events were also to occur at that time. The second coming of the serpent god of peace and the Hopi dance awakening were two examples.

1988
The book, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture is in 1988, came out only a few months before the event was to take place. What little time the book had, it used effectively. By the time the predicted dates, September 11-13, rolled around, whole churches were caught up in the excitement the book generated. I personally had friends who were measuring themselves for wings. In the dorm where we lived, my friends were also openly confronting all of the unsaved. It became my job to defuse situations. In one case, an accosted sinner was contemplating dispensary action against my now-distant friends. Finally, the days of destiny dawned and then set. No Jesus. The environment was not the same as Miller's 1844 failure. To my surprise, the taunting by the unsaved was very brief. I took it that people have very little understanding of the Bible, so they had nothing to taunt my friends with. I made one other interesting observation. Although the time for the rapture had been predicted to fall within a three-day window, September 11-13, my friends gave up hope on the morning of the 12th. I pointed out that they still had two days left, but they had been spooked, nonetheless

1989
After the passing of the deadline in 88 Reasons, the author, Edgar Whisenant, came out with a new book called 89 Reasons Why the Rapture is in 1989. This book sold only a fraction of the number of copies his prior release had sold.

1991
A group in Australia predicted Jesus would return through the Sydney Harbor at 9 a.m., March 31, 1991.

1991
Menachem Schneerson, a Russian-born rabbi, called for the Messiah to come by September 9, 1991, the start of the Jewish New Year.

1992
A Korean group called Mission for the Coming Days had the Korea Church an uproar in the fall of 1992. They foresaw October 28, 1992 as the date for the rapture. Numerology was the basis for the date. Several camera shots that left ghostly images on pictures were thought to be a supernatural confirmation of the date.

1993
If the year 2000 is the end of the 6,000-year cycle, then the rapture must take place in 1993, because you would need seven years of the tribulation. This was the thinking of a number of prophecy writers.

1994
In the book, 1994: The Year of Destiny , F. M. Riley foretold of God's plan to rapture His people. The name of his ministry is “The Last Call,” and he operates out of Missouri.

1994
Pastor John Hinkle of Christ Church in Los Angeles caused quite a stir when he announced he had received a vision from God that warned of apocalyptic event on June 9, 1994. Hinkle, quoting God, said, "On Thursday June the 9th, I will rip the evil out of this world." At the time, I knew Hinkle's vision didn't match up with Scripture. From a proper reading of Bible prophecy, the only thing that God could possibly rip from the earth would be the Christian Church, and I don't think God would refer to the Church as "evil." Some people tried to interpret Hinkle's unscriptural vision to mean that God would the rip evil out of our hearts when He raptured us. Well, the date came and went with no heart surgery or rapture.

1994
Harold Camping, in his book Are You Ready?, predicted the Lord would return in September 1994. The book was full of numerology that added up to 1994 as the date of Christ's return.

1994
After promising they would not make anymore end time predictions, the Jehovah's Witnesses fell off the wagon and proclaimed 1994 as the conclusion of an 80-year generation; the year 1914 was the starting point.

1996
This year had a special month, according to one author who foresaw September as the time for our Lord's return. The Church Age will last 2,000 years from the time of Christ's birth in 4 BC.

1996
California psychic Sheldon Nidle predicted the end would come with the convergence of 16 million space ships and a host of angels upon the earth on December 17, 1996. Nidle explained the passing of the date by claiming the angels placed us in a holographic projection to preserve us and give us a second chance.

1997
In regard to 1997, I received several e-mail messages that pointed to this as the year when Jesus would return for His church. Two of the more widely known time frames were Monte Judah's prediction that the tribulation would begin in February/March and another prediction based on numerology and the Psalms that targeted May 14 as the date of the rapture.

1997
When Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat signed their peace pact on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, some saw the events as the beginning of tribulation. With the signing of the peace agreement, Daniel's 1,260-day countdown was underway. By adding 1,260 days to September 1993, you arrive at February 24, 1997.

1997
Stan Johnson of the Prophecy Club saw a "90 percent" chance that the tribulation would start September 12, 1997. He based his conclusion on several end-time signs: that would be Jesus' 2,000th birthday and it would also be the Day of Atonement, although it wouldn’t be what is currently the Jewish Day of Atonement. Further supporting evidence came from Romanian pastor Dumitru Duduman. In several heavenly visions, Dumitru claimed to have seen the Book of Life. In one of his earlier visions, there were several pages yet to be completed. In his last vision, he noticed the Book of Life only had one page left. Doing some rough calculating, Johnson and friends figured the latest time frame for the completion of the book would have to be September 1997.

1998
Numerology: Because 666 times three equals 1998, some people point to this year as being prophetically significant. Someone called me long distance just so he could pass on to me this earth-shattering news.

1998
A Taiwanese cult operating out of Garland, Texas predicted Christ would return on March 31 of 1998. The group's leader, Heng-ming Chen, announced God would return and then invite the cult members aboard a UFO. The group abandoned their prediction when a precursor event failed to take place. The cult's leader had said that God would appear on every channel 18 of every TV in the world. Maybe God realized at the last minute, the Playboy Network was channel 18 on several cable systems, and He didn't want to have Christians watching a porn channel.

1998
On April 30, 1998, Israel was to turn 50 and many believed this birthday would mark the beginning of the tribulation. The reasoning behind this date has to do with God's age requirement for the priesthood, which is between 30-50.

1998
1998 Marilyn Agee, in her book, The End of the Age, had her sights set on May 31, 1998. This date was to conclude the 6,000-year cycle from the time of Adam. Agee looked for the rapture to take place on Pentecost, which is also known as “the Feast of Weeks.” Another indicator of this date was the fact that the Holy Spirit did not descend upon the apostles until 50 days after Christ's resurrection. Israel was born in 1948; add the 50 days as years and you come up with. After her May 31 rapture date failed, Agee, unable to face up to her error, continued her date setting by using various Scripture references to point to June 7, 14, 21 and about 10 other dates.

1999
Well, you can't call Marilyn Agee a quitter. After bombing out badly several time in 1998, Marilyn set a new date for the rapture: May 21 or 22 of this year.

1999
TV newscaster-turned-psychic Charles Criswell King had said in 1968 that the world as we know it would cease to exist on August 18, 1999.

1999
Philip Berg, a rabbi at the Kabbalah Learning Center in New York, proclaimed that the end might arrive on September 11, 1999, when "a ball of fire will descend . . . destroying almost all of mankind, all vegetation, all forms of life."

2000
Numerology: If you divide 2,000 by 3, you will get the devil's number: 666.66666666666667.
2000
The names of the people and organizations that called for the return of Christ at the turn of the century is too long to be listed here. I would say that if there were a day on which Christ could not return, it must have been January 1, 2000. To come at an unknown time means to come at an unknown time. I think January 2, 2000 would have been a more likely day for Him to call His Church home--right after the big let down.

2000
On May 5, 2000, all of the planets were supposed to have been in alignment. This was said to cause the earth to suffer earthquakes, volcanic eruption, and various other nasty stuff. A similar alignment occurred in 1982 and nothing happened. People failed to realize that the other nine planets only exert a very tiny gravitational pull on the earth. If you were to add up the gravitational force from the rest of the planets, the total would only amount to a fraction of the tug the moon has on the earth.

2000
According to Michael Rood, the end times have a prophetically complicated connection to Israel's spring barley harvest. The Day of the Lord began on May 5, 2000. Rood's fall feast calendar called for the Russian Gog-Magog invasion of Israel to take place at sundown on October 28, 2000.

2000-2001
Dr. Dale SumburËru looked for March 22, 1997 to be "the date when all the dramatic events leading through the tribulation to the return of Christ should begin" The actual date of Christ's return could be somewhere between July 2000 and March 2001. Dr. SumburËru is more general about the timing of Christ's second coming than most writers. He states, "The day the Lord returns is currently unknown because He said [Jesus] these days are cut short and it is not yet clear by how much and in what manner they are cut short. If the above assumptions are not correct, my margin of error would be in weeks, or perhaps months."

2002
Priests from Cuba's Afro-Caribbean Yoruba religion predicted a dramatic year of tragedy and crisis for the world in 2002, ranging from coups and war to disease and flooding.

2004
This date for Jesus' return is based upon psalmology, numerology, the biblical 360 days per year, Jewish holidays, and "biblical astronomy." To figure out this date, you'll need a calculator, a slide rule, and plenty of scratch paper.

2011-2018
For the past several decades, Jack Van Impe has hinted at nearly every year as being the time for the rapture. Normally, he has only gone out one or two years from the current calendar year. However, Jack's latest projection for the rapture goes out several years. His new math uses 51 years as the length of a generation. If you add 51 years to 1967, the year Israel recaptured Jerusalem, you get 2018. Once you subtract the seven-year tribulation period, you arrive at 2011.

2012
New Age writers cite Mayan and Aztec calendars that predict the end of the age on December 21, 2012.

2060
Sir Isaac Newton, Britain's greatest scientist, spent 50 years and wrote 4,500 pages trying to predict when the end of the world was coming. The most definitive date he set for the apocalypse, which he scribbled on a scrap of paper, was 2060.

Conclusion: The Bible is not symbolic, but rather factually inaccurate.
Reply

Philosopher
06-18-2007, 03:33 AM
Some excellent resources:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/prophecies.html
http://www.jraxis.com/archive/yahweh#prophecy

YouTube also has excellent videos exposing the "Buy bull."
Reply

thirdwatch512
06-18-2007, 03:34 AM
philosopher - ever thought that the reason i did not respond was because i didn't see it? i am not a regular on this site. i have been here for months, and have made very few posts!

and in response to you - the Bible says that we will not know when Jesus returns. so these days that you posted.. are just people trying to find ways to predict when Christ will return,when really it is a grave sin to do so. Jesus could come down today, or He could come down in a million years. only He knows. no one else. and the Bible says that.

so, there's my small, simple, refuation. sound slike the Bible has refuted you!
Reply

thirdwatch512
06-18-2007, 03:39 AM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
i have checked out these sites. thank you.

out of the thousands of prophesies of the Bible, those sites list like what, 10? i looked at commentary for a few of them, and they have been fulfilled.. just not in the way people think. like one that says "Damascus will no longer be a city" - this just means that it will be majorly damaged. and it was, just years later. or another about the Nile drying up - it's not literal. it's just saying that Egypt will be going through hard times.

you have to understand what these things mean.. they are not always so literal as many think. many just eggaterate to just show the devestatin that will be brought upon them :)
Reply

جوري
06-18-2007, 03:50 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512


>>>http://www.marypages.com/ - GREAT link :)
Ahahahhaha, what is this? the ghost of Christmas past? Where is the ball and the chains? ahahha.. sheesh!;D ;D ;D
Reply

جوري
06-18-2007, 03:55 AM
I love the Arabic bit akh-- "atyef anowrani ltajli asayda al3athr'a "Maryam" fawf qibab kaneesa alqdees morqus be asyoot kama swart'ho 7ilmi bishara" (5 Am) when no one is looking ahahahha ;D ;D ;D
Ah man! (Ambrosia wiping tears of laughter from her eyes)-- I thought this was a serious forum with some decent debates?... I think the time has come upon us to move on...
Thanks again though I truly needed the chuckle!
peace!
Reply

thirdwatch512
06-18-2007, 03:58 AM
you laugh at that, but i'm sure you wouldn't be laughing when you saw a line 1500 people getting Baptized in that Church in ONE DAY!! that means that 1500 people converted to Chrisitanity in ONE DAY! :)

yup, in ONE DAY.. 1500 people got in a line to be Baptized :)
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-18-2007, 03:58 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I love the Arabic bit akh-- "atyef anowrani ltajli asayda al3athr'a "Maryam" fawf qibab kaneesa alqdees morqus be asyoot kama swart'ho 7ilmi bishara" (5 Am) when no one is looking ahahahha ;D ;D ;D
Ah man! (Ambrosia wiping tears of laughter from her eyes)-- I thought this was a serious forum with some decent debates?... I think the time has come upon us to move on...
Thanks again though I truly needed the chuckle!
peace!

You have the advantage over those of us who can't read Arabic. Can you provide a translation?


As far as the "Ghost of Christmas Past" idea goes, perhaps it is the ghost of Marley come to tell us about 3 future visitors -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? :D
Reply

جوري
06-18-2007, 04:18 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
you laugh at that, but i'm sure you wouldn't be laughing when you saw a line 1500 people getting Baptized in that Church in ONE DAY!! that means that 1500 people converted to Chrisitanity in ONE DAY! :)

yup, in ONE DAY.. 1500 people got in a line to be Baptized :)
I promise you if I were the last Muslim in a world full of Christian converts it wouldn't phase me one bit. Prophet Abraham PBUH and his Nephew Lot were the only two theists in villages full of skeptics. Abraham's father used to make the statues that the town's people worshipped, and they threw him in the fire for opposing them.
He who has G-D in his heart, doesn't need silly camera apparitions.. I must say schemes like this really tarnish the image of Christianity... and there are Christians out there that have my respect, this is just too ridiculous. Anyhow I am happy you found your niche I sincerely mean that!

peace!
Reply

جوري
06-18-2007, 04:23 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You have the advantage over those of us who can't read Arabic. Can you provide a translation?


As far as the "Ghost of Christmas Past" idea goes, perhaps it is the ghost of Marley come to tell us about 3 future visitors -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? :D
yes one in far left says and still the lights above the domes of Marqus's church in Asyoot, that is a province in Egypt.. I am actually very familiar with this and will only limit myself to the translation of written statements.

the one of the apparition, states ( an apparition of the lady (saiida) is a respectful name to call someone (the "virgin Mary") above the domes of Marqus's church, in asyoot, as the pictures were taken by "Hilmy Bisharah" << the gentleman's name who took the pix at 5 AM sept 16th of 2000..

peace!
Reply

Philosopher
06-18-2007, 04:39 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
philosopher - ever thought that the reason i did not respond was because i didn't see it? i am not a regular on this site. i have been here for months, and have made very few posts!

and in response to you - the Bible says that we will not know when Jesus returns. so these days that you posted.. are just people trying to find ways to predict when Christ will return,when really it is a grave sin to do so. Jesus could come down today, or He could come down in a million years. only He knows. no one else. and the Bible says that.

so, there's my small, simple, refuation. sound slike the Bible has refuted you!
The Bible says many things. It talks about unicorns, four legged spiders, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and evil spirits from God. The only think miraculous about the "buy bull" is it backwardness and contradictions. Your have provided no refutation. It is Christian logic to hide away when they are wrong, but boast when some vague passage mildly implies a foretelling. Maybe you should bow down to Nostradamus if you love prophecies so much.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Reply

جوري
06-18-2007, 04:40 AM
Addendum:
I just thought I'd add that, the Egyptian church is a Coptic one, and they believe Catholics to be heretics, thus leading me to believe that if the "Virgin Mary" made her presence known over the Coptic church of Morqus she would want you to follow the Coptic way of life... so all I can say is instead of toot toot 3a Beirut toot toot 3la Asyoot ... get cracking there is an EgyptAir flight leaving tomorrow @ 6--I'd check it out in a hurry!

peace!
Reply

Philosopher
06-18-2007, 04:42 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
It's a miracle! I saw Jesus. I'm converting to Christianity right away!

Angus MacDougall is a three-year-old terrier mix that has recently been blessed with the revered and holy image of Jesus Christ on his hindquarters. Is this manifestation of The Prince of Peace a coincidence or a bona fide miracle? One thing is for certain, this apparition of the Son of God is sure to inspire controversy. Not much if any true scientific or theological inquiry has been made into the nature of this sign to date, but "seeing is believing" as little Angus' terrier-tush is obviously marked by the likeness of Christ. Click on the image below to witness His astonishing appearance, first hand then be sure to visit the links above to learn more about Angus and his sacred derriere extraordinaire. We hope you enjoy your visit!

Edit:
I deleted the last three pictures, since it is offensive to some, I'm sure you don't mind and that the messages comes across well with out those pictures to
Reply

Philosopher
06-18-2007, 04:45 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
i have checked out these sites. thank you.

out of the thousands of prophesies of the Bible, those sites list like what, 10? i looked at commentary for a few of them, and they have been fulfilled.. just not in the way people think. like one that says "Damascus will no longer be a city" - this just means that it will be majorly damaged. and it was, just years later. or another about the Nile drying up - it's not literal. it's just saying that Egypt will be going through hard times.

you have to understand what these things mean.. they are not always so literal as many think. many just eggaterate to just show the devestatin that will be brought upon them :)
Thousands of prophecies?? LMAO. More like thousands of contradictions! You do not need to disprove a thousand prophecies to debunk the Bible. Onlu one is sufficient.

Here are more good sites:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
http://bs4a.blogspot.cpm (Excellent Biblical commentary)
Reply

evangel
06-18-2007, 04:46 AM
Originally Posted by Philosopher
I have refuted Thirdwatch512 before using this post, he ran away from the debate with his tail between his legs:
Do you read your own posts or do you just puke up junk that is unfit for human consumption? Most of the dates you have shown were predicted using science or pseudo-sciences. Other examples, like the whole Mayan calender thing and the space ships, to show the errors of the Bible would be like me trying to disprove evolution and referencing Mother Goose, even my friends would ask me to get a cat scan(something you should think about, cause something's misfiring). Then you show that the Bible is wrong by using Jehovah's Witnesses predictions. JW's aren't Christians, I think they believe Jesus was an angel, they rewrote the Bible because they believed it was erroneous. You can't really be serious about the things you post can you? C'mon you can tell me, you were hired by the forum for comic relief weren't you. It's either that or your doing the whole thousand monkees on typewriters and every time a sentence or two comes through you post it.
In the words of Jesus, "Are you so thick?"
He also said to not concern ourselves with the when but believe it would happen.
Proverbs speaks much about you:
Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 10:14
Wise people store up knowledge, But the mouth of the foolish is near destruction.
Proverbs 10:18
Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, And whoever spreads slander is a fool.
Proverbs 13:16
Every prudent man acts with knowledge, But a fool lays open his folly.
Proverbs 13:20
He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will be destroyed.

This last one speaks to me
Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
Reply

Philosopher
06-18-2007, 04:47 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
you laugh at that, but i'm sure you wouldn't be laughing when you saw a line 1500 people getting Baptized in that Church in ONE DAY!! that means that 1500 people converted to Chrisitanity in ONE DAY! :)

yup, in ONE DAY.. 1500 people got in a line to be Baptized :)
Yes, and a 6 year old Nigerian kid converted 1000 Nigerians to Islam.

The world has its share of idiots.
Reply

Philosopher
06-18-2007, 04:51 AM
Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 10:14
Wise people store up knowledge, But the mouth of the foolish is near destruction.
Proverbs 10:18
Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, And whoever spreads slander is a fool.
Proverbs 13:16
Every prudent man acts with knowledge, But a fool lays open his folly.
Proverbs 13:20
He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will be destroyed.

This last one speaks to me
Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
This is a video just for those quotes:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

Since you love to quote the Bible so much, maybe I should try too:

Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7


Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13


Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5
I like these too:

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33
Reply

thirdwatch512
06-18-2007, 04:54 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Addendum:
I just thought I'd add that, the Egyptian church is a Coptic one, and they believe Catholics to be heretics, thus leading me to believe that if the "Virgin Mary" made her presence known over the Coptic church of Morqus she would want you to follow the Coptic way of life... so all I can say is instead of toot toot 3a Beirut toot toot 3la Asyoot ... get cracking there is an EgyptAir flight leaving tomorrow @ 6--I'd check it out in a hurry!

peace!
the Blessed Mother has made Her appearence at almost every Apostolic denomination i know. Apostilic is Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc.

there's a common hadith in bukhari i think that says that there will be 73 different sects, and 72 of them, the followers will be in hell (because they supposingly won't following true islam.)

Christianity isn't like that. in fact, in 1 Timothy it speaks of Christians being together and such. and although there might be different sects, it doesn't mean that only one is true and the other are false. Christianity just simply isn't like that :)
Reply

جوري
06-18-2007, 05:11 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
the Blessed Mother has made Her appearence at almost every Apostolic denomination i know. Apostilic is Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc.

there's a common hadith in bukhari i think that says that there will be 73 different sects, and 72 of them, the followers will be in hell (because they supposingly won't following true islam.)

Christianity isn't like that. in fact, in 1 Timothy it speaks of Christians being together and such. and although there might be different sects, it doesn't mean that only one is true and the other are false. Christianity just simply isn't like that :)
cool, and good for you... blessings as you skip and hop down the primrose path...I am glad for you that Christianity is so allowing.. unfortunately, I keep reading, and the crescendo soars leading me to some climactic moment which is dashed to pieces, by the silliness of heaven paved for those that believe Jesus paid for their sins in advance, and that he G-D came down to give glad tiding to a woman, whom he impregnated with himself!
By the way just to add you can't really take a hadith and apply the parts you like and dismiss those you don't.. if Islam is false to you, you shouldn't be quoting its ahadith, if you are going to quote them, then please complete them since the same hadith states
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 40, Number 4579:
Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects.
from each only one is whom on the right path and the rest heretics-- so stop being a hypocrite, it is unbecoming!

peace!
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-18-2007, 09:42 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
By your standards, there really is no such thing as morality, no right and wrong.
Again, that depends on how you define morality. I believe that there is no such thing as objective morality independent of a thinking mind.

Thus, if I choose to hit you in the nose, you may not like it. And others may see me as dangerous, for fear that I might do the same to them. And the world might vote 6 billion to 1 to lock me up in prison and throw away the key. But that doesn't make my actions wrong, only unappreciated, just like your taste in art is unappreciated.
Semantics. To me and the 6 billion others it is wrong.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-18-2007, 11:45 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Again, that depends on how you define morality. I believe that there is no such thing as objective morality independent of a thinking mind.



Semantics. To me and the 6 billion others it is wrong.
But that is just subjective morality. Remember, "there is not objective morality independent of a thinking mind". You did not say a consensus of thinking minds, you said a thinking mind (singular). I agree with you. So, shall it be your mind, my mind, or God's mind? You vote out God, I vote out you. And without a God around left to vote, I guess that means there is no thinking mind left to determine objective morality, and we are back to morality being a matter of subjective opinion. Better watch out for your nose.
Reply

ranma1/2
06-19-2007, 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
the Blessed Mother has made Her appearence at almost every Apostolic denomination i know. Apostilic is Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc.

there's a common hadith in bukhari i think that says that there will be 73 different sects, and 72 of them, the followers will be in hell (because they supposingly won't following true islam.)

Christianity isn't like that. in fact, in 1 Timothy it speaks of Christians being together and such. and although there might be different sects, it doesn't mean that only one is true and the other are false. Christianity just simply isn't like that :)
Perhaps your view of christianity, however i know many that say catholics, presbitarians, etc.. "fill in what ever form of christianity they arent" are not christians.
Reply

barney
06-19-2007, 12:45 AM
Originally Posted by powerkoala

Someone claimed to have read an Islamic word in a Kiwi fruit once, years ago. When you look at the clouds you see shapes, it's just imagination.
.


Or Ice Cream Wrappers
Reply

August
06-19-2007, 01:17 AM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Perhaps your view of christianity, however i know many that say catholics, presbitarians, etc.. "fill in what ever form of christianity they arent" are not christians.
I have generally found that to be a minority view. Many Evangelical fundamentalists would not consider Catholics, Orthodox etc Christians, however a lot of conservative Evangelicals do consider them to be Christian. When I as a Catholic look out at the other denominations, I see many grave errors, but they are still Christians. They are our "separated brethren" not united with Rome, but still fellow Christians.
Reply

Keltoi
06-19-2007, 02:10 AM
Originally Posted by August
I have generally found that to be a minority view. Many Evangelical fundamentalists would not consider Catholics, Orthodox etc Christians, however a lot of conservative Evangelicals do consider them to be Christian. When I as a Catholic look out at the other denominations, I see many grave errors, but they are still Christians. They are our "separated brethren" not united with Rome, but still fellow Christians.
I believe the Catholic Church refers to this split as a "schism".
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-19-2007, 04:53 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I guess that means there is no thinking mind left to determine objective morality
I don't think you understand my point of view. You're getting tied down in semantics. You speak of "objective morality". I say there is no such thing. Morality does not exist in a vacuum. If there were no minds to ponder moral values, morality would not exist.

But there are such minds and they do determine moral values. And they would nearly universally find your punching people in the nose to be bad. So, I'd advise against it unless you want to be carted off to jail for assault.
Reply

barney
06-19-2007, 05:02 AM
Far Far away, there may be a planet where it is considerd the height of good manners to wake early in the morning, smack your family awake with a freindly and courteous baseball bat to the skull, then as a good deed, smash next doors Toyota up and spit in his face.

In this happy world, theres a few deviants who go around shaking hands and opening doors for people. They will quickly get the attention of the police and the derision of society.
Reply

جوري
06-19-2007, 05:05 AM
catching the zone's marathon?

Reply

barney
06-19-2007, 05:13 AM
Actually. It's not on a planet far far away.

It's called Leeds.:skeleton:
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-19-2007, 06:49 AM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Perhaps your view of christianity, however i know many that say catholics, presbitarians, etc.. "fill in what ever form of christianity they arent" are not christians.
Really? Many? I know a few, and only a very few at that.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-19-2007, 07:02 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I don't think you understand my point of view. You're getting tied down in semantics. You speak of "objective morality". I say there is no such thing. Morality does not exist in a vacuum. If there were no minds to ponder moral values, morality would not exist.

But there are such minds and they do determine moral values. And they would nearly universally find your punching people in the nose to be bad. So, I'd advise against it unless you want to be carted off to jail for assault.
I do get your point. You don't get your own point. You say there is no objective morality. That means that all morality must be subjective. Subjective like in beauty. You say one thing is good and I say another is. In punching you in the nose, I would likely be hauled off to jail. Not because I had done anything objectively bad however, but simply because it was subjectively viewed that way by more people than those who didn't. The truth is, I'll bet that probably the majority of the 6 billion could care less if I punched you in the nose, as I long as I didn't also punch them in the nose. But the count of one side for and another side against a morality does not make it right or wrong, because as you say, there simply are no objective morals. And if there are no objective morals, then the whole concept of right and wrong is a complete sham. It is merely opinion and preference and nothing more. Whether you have fully understood that this IS the ultimate conclusion of your point I don't know. But it is where, by your system, morality both begins and ends, at the tip of one's nose.

I'm just proposing putting your system to the test, and you don't seem to like it. That doesn't surprise me. But who are you going to call on? There is no one out there to say that I am wrong. You can get all 6 billion to team up with you against me. But that doesn't make you right and me wrong. It just means that you are more persuasive, more charismatic, or more willing to bribe people than me. But that's OK. There is nothing right or wrong about any of those behaviors either, because there is no such thing as right or wrong in a world without objective morality. And the morality of the intelligent mind you propose isn't objective either, it is still very much subjective. Change the culture and I am sure that we can find one where punching people in the nose is perfectly acceptable, just like punching people in the arm is perfectly acceptable in Jr. High cultures.

Objective morality cannot be the result of many minds. It is the result of one mind, and you have excluded the possibility of such an objective mind being true. So we are left to our collective subjectivity. Something which has about as much meaning to me as beauty. It is in the eye or culture of the beholder.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-19-2007, 09:47 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Far Far away, there may be a planet where it is considerd the height of good manners to wake early in the morning, smack your family awake with a freindly and courteous baseball bat to the skull, then as a good deed, smash next doors Toyota up and spit in his face.

In this happy world, theres a few deviants who go around shaking hands and opening doors for people. They will quickly get the attention of the police and the derision of society.
That'd be a weird alien race. lol!

No such society could exist on earth of course, given our common experiences and simple self interest and empathy. Unless of course we designate a particular group to be those who bash people and those who get based. We could then solidify it and make it more palatable to everybody by saying it is the will of the Coconut God.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-19-2007, 10:18 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I do get your point. You don't get your own point. You say there is no objective morality. That means that all morality must be subjective. Subjective like in beauty. You say one thing is good and I say another is. In punching you in the nose, I would likely be hauled off to jail. Not because I had done anything objectively bad however, but simply because it was subjectively viewed that way by more people than those who didn't.
Yes. Why is this a problem?

The truth is, I'll bet that probably the majority of the 6 billion could care less if I punched you in the nose, as I long as I didn't also punch them in the nose.
Actually, they'd care if they can relate to me. Empathy kicks in. The more different I am from them though, you're right, they start to care less. This can be seen in many facets of life. You may even seek to dehumanize me, say if I'm of another race, or influenced by demons or something, to differentiate further and make it seem just for me to be a nose punchee.

Empathy really does more often than not intercept these things though. So does simple self interest.

But the count of one side for and another side against a morality does not make it right or wrong, because as you say, there simply are no objective morals. And if there are no objective morals, then the whole concept of right and wrong is a complete sham.
Sham?

Your conlcusion does not follow your premise here. Why is it a complete sham? Just because it is subjective? Sham implies that you were misled by a trickster or something. Did a preacher tell you to believe in objective morality and now you're hearing there isn't such a thing, so are feeling you wre fooled?

And the morality of the intelligent mind you propose isn't objective either, it is still very much subjective.
The only objective things that factor into this are our experiences, the chemistry in our brains, our DNA, and the resulting empathy and self preservation drives that result from it. This often leads to universal findings on what is moral and what is not. But that doesn't make morality objective. It would not exist if we did not exist to perceive it.

It is the result of one mind, and you have excluded the possibility of such an objective mind being true.
"objective mind" is an oxymoron. If a mind is creating it, it isn't objective.
Reply

Skavau
06-19-2007, 03:58 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I do get your point. You don't get your own point. You say there is no objective morality. That means that all morality must be subjective.
He is of the opinion that there is no objective source for morality, from what I can entail.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You say one thing is good and I say another is. In punching you in the nose, I would likely be hauled off to jail. Not because I had done anything objectively bad however, but simply because it was subjectively viewed that way by more people than those who didn't. The truth is, I'll bet that probably the majority of the 6 billion could care less if I punched you in the nose, as I long as I didn't also punch them in the nose. But the count of one side for and another side against a morality does not make it right or wrong, because as you say, there simply are no objective morals.
That would be true if moral assertions were deemed morally viable based on consensus. Basing morality by who agrees on it is simply flawed. What matters most is that whether a moral assertion is substantiated. You can justify why punching Pygoscelis is morally wrong and it is not through numbers.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And if there are no objective morals, then the whole concept of right and wrong is a complete sham.
When you say 'objective' do you mean originating from an infallible source or no universal consensus or agreement that there should be objective moral values?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
It is merely opinion and preference and nothing more.
Everything is simply opinion. You appear to be coming close to Alfred Ayer's viewpoint on morality.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Whether you have fully understood that this IS the ultimate conclusion of your point I don't know. But it is where, by your system, morality both begins and ends, at the tip of one's nose.
Morality ends when it is no longer understood or attempted to be understood.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I'm just proposing putting your system to the test, and you don't seem to like it. That doesn't surprise me. But who are you going to call on? There is no one out there to say that I am wrong. You can get all 6 billion to team up with you against me. But that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
Correct. That would actually be a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
It just means that you are more persuasive, more charismatic, or more willing to bribe people than me. But that's OK. There is nothing right or wrong about any of those behaviors either, because there is no such thing as right or wrong in a world without objective morality.
When you say 'objective' do you mean originating from an infallible source or no universal consensus or agreement that there should be objective moral values?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And the morality of the intelligent mind you propose isn't objective either, it is still very much subjective. Change the culture and I am sure that we can find one where punching people in the nose is perfectly acceptable, just like punching people in the arm is perfectly acceptable in Jr. High cultures.
Different cultures do not validate acts.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Objective morality cannot be the result of many minds. It is the result of one mind, and you have excluded the possibility of such an objective mind being true.
This is simply wishful thinking. Objective morality does not exist in so much that no-one agrees on what morality actually entails but this does not undermine the necessity in striving for a moral standard. I have to be a Moral Absolutist. I am an Atheist and I reject any source advocating a moral standard outside of humanity. A source existing itself which does advocate such does not validate any moral ideas. It simply advocates them.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So we are left to our collective subjectivity. Something which has about as much meaning to me as beauty. It is in the eye or culture of the beholder.
Which is why a moral standard should be pursued.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-20-2007, 01:56 AM
Originally Posted by Skavau
He is of the opinion that there is no objective source for morality, from what I can entail.


That would be true if moral assertions were deemed morally viable based on consensus. Basing morality by who agrees on it is simply flawed. What matters most is that whether a moral assertion is substantiated. You can justify why punching Pygoscelis is morally wrong and it is not through numbers.


When you say 'objective' do you mean originating from an infallible source or no universal consensus or agreement that there should be objective moral values?


Everything is simply opinion. You appear to be coming close to Alfred Ayer's viewpoint on morality.


Morality ends when it is no longer understood or attempted to be understood.


Correct. That would actually be a logical fallacy.


When you say 'objective' do you mean originating from an infallible source or no universal consensus or agreement that there should be objective moral values?


Different cultures do not validate acts.


This is simply wishful thinking. Objective morality does not exist in so much that no-one agrees on what morality actually entails but this does not undermine the necessity in striving for a moral standard. I have to be a Moral Absolutist. I am an Atheist and I reject any source advocating a moral standard outside of humanity. A source existing itself which does advocate such does not validate any moral ideas. It simply advocates them.


Which is why a moral standard should be pursued.

Well, you appear to be thinking this through a little more fully.

For me, objective morality is not something that can be determined by consensus or numbers. It has to be something that all would be able to recognize, not becuase they agree with it but because it actaully does exist. I don't believe that my claiming of something as moral makes it exist. And thus having everyone claim it would not make it exist either. Though we might all agree that it does, its exist has to be independent of us and our thoughts regarding it. So, for objective morality to exist it has to exist in and of itself, independent of human thought or opinion.

If there is no source for determining morality outside of human thought, then there can be no source of objective morality. And given that I don't recognize subjective morality to be valid as anything other than mere preference, then if there is no source of objective morality, there is no such thing as morality at all. And if there is no such thing as morality at all, then there is no behavior that in and of itself is either right or wrong, there is just behavior that is appreciate or unappreciated.

Do, I really believe that to be the case? No. I don't. I do think that there is a source of objective morality. I do believe in the existence of a divine creator and I believe that this creator creates not only people and animals and earth and other things, but that this creator calls some things good. And that which is outside the will of the creator would be not good. The creator could have created a world in which there was no morality, a world in which wind blew and water flowed and volcanoes erupted all as set in motion by the creator. But I believe we live in a world in which the creator not only created amoral creatures and things that do not make choices between that which the creator calls good and something else, but that this creator gave some of the creatures the ability to make choices for themselves as to whether they would cooperate with the creator or not. Those choices are moral choices, and the standard they are measured by are those of the creator, which I hold to be an objective source of morality.

Of course, if there is no creator, then there would be only the random chance happenings of this atom or that particle and there is no moral action in such happenings. Thus without a creator we live in a world with not source of objective morality, no choices that can be called either good or bad. We, just as much as trees and tornados are not truly moral creatures, just cosmic accidents and our choices are just compound functions of those cosmic accidents and have no real good or bad behind them. Thus punching Pygoscelis in the nose is just a cosmic accident, even if it does look like premediation to you, that is your subjective evaluation, not an objective fact.

I think that covers all your questions.
Reply

barney
06-20-2007, 02:27 AM
We could take morality from animals. thats outside human thought.

The cookoo will smash up others eggs and replace them with its own because It CBA looking after them.
The Penguins will travel miles to rescue one of their own, even not from their family.
Dolphins keep humans alive when drowning.


Lots of issues of morality outside human thought. I'm wondering what sort of God the Dolphins beleive in and if doing "good deeds2 will carry them to dolphiny heaven?
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-20-2007, 02:38 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Well, you appear to be thinking this through a little more fully.
Hmm? You mean in comparison to me? Come now, Grace Seeker, you've never been one to engage in ad homs.

For me, objective morality is not something that can be determined by consensus or numbers.
This would be true by definition. If it is objective, it doesn't matter what is subjectively thought of it.

By definition It has to be something that all would be able to recognize, not becuase they agree with it but because it actaully does exist.
This does not follow. If it is objective why must all be able to recognize it? Maybe it exists and we don't view it correctly. If morality exists in a vacuum, then our subjective opinions on it seem to become moot.

I don't believe that my claiming of something as moral makes it exist. And thus having everyone claim it would not make it exist either.
I understand this. You believe morality somehow exists in a vacuum with nobody to perceive it (objective). I believe it can only exist in the mind (subjective).

So, for objective morality to exist it has to exist in and of itself, independent of human thought or opinion.
By definition.

And given that I don't recognize subjective morality to be valid as anything other than mere preference, then if there is no source of objective morality, there is no such thing as morality at all.
Now you are just defining your way into the absurd. Seems an odd definition for morality to say it does not exist even though we have concepts of right and wrong.

And if there is no such thing as morality at all, then there is no behavior that in and of itself is either right or wrong, there is just behavior that is appreciate or unappreciated.
Appreciated or unnappreciated. As well as socially constructive and destructive.

But really this is just more semantics. All you are doing in this whole post so far is redefining terms. You want to define right and wrong that way, thats ok, but don't expect others to know what you are talking about if you do. And don't fall into the fallacy of trying to attach the emotional loadings of the old terms to your new definitions.

Thus without a creator we live in a world with not source of objective morality
Not necesarily so. There are some who believe in good and bad existing in a vacuum but don't believe in Gods. But I'm not one of them, and that would be a whole other thread.

no choices that can be called either good or bad.
Sure they can. This is where your new definitions for good and bad lead you astray. People will definitely be calling choices good or bad, and they will be doing it universally in some cases, due to their common experience and brain chemistry. Morality doesn't have to be objective for that. And you certainly don't need anything supernatural.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-20-2007, 02:45 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Lots of issues of morality outside human thought. I'm wondering what sort of God the Dolphins beleive in and if doing "good deeds2 will carry them to dolphiny heaven?
Well that depends on if you speak of the dolphins in the Atlantic or the Pacific. Atlantic dolphins are pagans. Pacific dolphins worship the one true Dolphin God. They get 72 seahorses in paradise for it too. Good deal.
Reply

barney
06-20-2007, 02:49 AM
I know the Tuna get a bit sick of them ranting on about being the chosen ones.
Yet it is the Tuna who every day accend into nets and are raised up above the waves!
Yea! though they are gone they shall return!
Reply

Malaikah
06-20-2007, 02:50 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Lots of issues of morality outside human thought. I'm wondering what sort of God the Dolphins beleive in and if doing "good deeds2 will carry them to dolphiny heaven?
Animals don't go to paradise. They will be resurrected on the day of judgement and put to trial. After they see the condition of the humans, they will bow down to Allah, although the angels will tell them they don't have to bow, but they will reply that they are grateful to Allah for not having created them as humans. After that they will be turned to dust.

:cry:
Reply

doorster
06-20-2007, 02:51 AM
Pacific dolphins worship the one true Dolphin God. They get 72 seahorses in paradise for it too
Mock all you like, but you and this forum are heading to hell in a hand basket, all squished and screaming
Reply

Malaikah
06-20-2007, 02:53 AM
Wow, which religion do you follow? I never knew computer program would go to hell too.:rollseyes
Reply

doorster
06-20-2007, 02:58 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
Wow, which religion do you follow? I never knew computer program would go to hell too.:rollseyes
in our language usage, forum is a gathering not a program.

I'll try a dictionary if I were you, and that is lughat, tarjama, sorry cant make it any easier I only know Urdu and english like my father and some Arabic to get by
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-20-2007, 02:58 AM
Originally Posted by doorster
Mock all you like, but you and this forum are heading to hell in a hand basket, all squished and screaming
I'd rather go in a ferrari if that can be arranged. Handbaskets are so crowded.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-20-2007, 02:59 AM
Originally Posted by doorster
in our language usage, forum is a gathering not a program.

I'll try a dictionary if I were you, and that is lughat, tarjama, sorry cant make it any easier I only know Urdu and english like my father and some Arabic to get by
Wow, so you don't discriminate eh? Even Malaikah, Grace Seeker, and all the "good" Christians and muslims here are going to hell with me? I'll bring the marshmallows.




Sidenote: Why can't I see my private messages? Is there something awry with the board or is it my computer?
Reply

Malaikah
06-20-2007, 03:03 AM
^The forum is acting up. I can't access my user cp either.
Reply

barney
06-20-2007, 03:07 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
Animals don't go to paradise. They will be resurrected on the day of judgement and put to trial. After they see the condition of the humans, they will bow down to Allah, although the angels will tell them they don't have to bow, but they will reply that they are grateful to Allah for not having created them as humans. After that they will be turned to dust.

:cry:
How would the earthworm bow. It hasnt got any hips.

I know that sounds silly, but to me all of the above sounds just as silly. escpecially that theyre all grateful and then they get zapped.

Plus, if all the great food in heaven that beleivers are going to eat is retroactively turned into powder....whats the mechanics of that?

And yeah PG, ive just mailed ya...mines on the blink as well.
Reply

ranma1/2
06-20-2007, 03:10 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Well that depends on if you speak of the dolphins in the Atlantic or the Pacific. Atlantic dolphins are pagans. Pacific dolphins worship the one true Dolphin God. They get 72 seahorses in paradise for it too. Good deal.
but how far can they carry a coconut?
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-20-2007, 04:28 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Hmm? You mean in comparison to me? Come now, Grace Seeker, you've never been one to engage in ad homs.
Well, in truth, you did not seem to be thinking it through as fully. That could be becuase you weren't, or because I wasn't being perceptive enough.




This does not follow. If it is objective why must all be able to recognize it? Maybe it exists and we don't view it correctly.
Ah, you are correct. Objective morality, like objective truth could exist and we might not either see it or even in seeing it not recognize it.

If morality exists in a vacuum, then our subjective opinions on it seem to become moot.
Are you introducing the concept of morality existing in a vacuum, or do you think that I already have?



I understand this. You believe morality somehow exists in a vacuum with nobody to perceive it (objective). I believe it can only exist in the mind (subjective).
Your restatement of your view is helpful. I understand this expression of it much better. But I am not quite in agreement with your restatement of my position. I do think that we are able to perceive the morality that does exist apart from us.






Now you are just defining your way into the absurd. Seems an odd definition for morality to say it does not exist even though we have concepts of right and wrong.
I think that is the logical conclusion of your position. They are no more than prejuidices of one sort or another.

Query: Is head hunting right or wrong? People have views with regard to it. But if there is no objective morality, how can we really say that it is wrong. Indeed for those who practice it, it is a very basic moral good. But separate from some sort of objective morality, while we might subjective opinions of somethings rightness or wrongness, we cah't really say that our morality is in fact right at all. We can't say that it is right, because in reality there is no right nor wrong, on our particular prejuidices with regard to those things that we call right and wrong for reasons about from any moral reality.



But really this is just more semantics. All you are doing in this whole post so far is redefining terms. You want to define right and wrong that way, thats ok, but don't expect others to know what you are talking about if you do. And don't fall into the fallacy of trying to attach the emotional loadings of the old terms to your new definitions.
Semantics are about the meaning of words. Sometimes those meanings are important. I am suggesting that they are important in this discussion. That we must define our terms. If I understand you correctly, you want to say that there is no objective source for morality. And I want to say that if that is true, then there is no sense talking about morality at all. That what you call morals is not morality at all, but something else.


Sure they can. This is where your new definitions for good and bad lead you astray. People will definitely be calling choices good or bad, and they will be doing it universally in some cases, due to their common experience and brain chemistry. Morality doesn't have to be objective for that. And you certainly don't need anything supernatural.
This is where talking about morality when you don't believe in objective morality leads you astray. With only subjective morality, you have no ground to stand on for you or anyone else to make a moral decison. You can only call things good and bad because you agree to use those terms to describe something instead of what you really mean which is a common like and a common dislike.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-20-2007, 08:54 AM
This has been a very interesting discussion on semantics. But I think that's all it really is. We're defining terms differently. And I don't think we really disagree on much other than the objective/subjective nature of morality.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Are you introducing the concept of morality existing in a vacuum, or do you think that I already have?
I thought you already had. If morality was created separate from a mind to perceive it, could it not exist in a vacuum?

I think that is the logical conclusion of your position. They are no more than prejuidices of one sort or another.
Good and bad are no more than subjective. Creations of our minds resulting from our common experiences, empathy, and self interest, ultimately resulting from our DNA and brain chemistry.

Using words like "prejudices" (instead of say "judgments") and redefining "morality" to exclude subjective moral judgments just looks to me like attempts to emotionally load your terms.

Query: Is head hunting right or wrong?
I think its great that people come to me and offer me another job.

But separate from some sort of objective morality, while we might subjective opinions of somethings rightness or wrongness, we cah't really say that our morality is in fact right at all. We can't say that it is right, because in reality there is no right nor wrong, on our particular prejuidices with regard to those things that we call right and wrong for reasons about from any moral reality.
This is all about our definitions of "right" and "wrong", on which we differ. You are correct that without objective morality there can be no objective statements of right or wrong. That isn't saying as much as I think you think it is though.

If I understand you correctly, you want to say that there is no objective source for morality.
Yes. That is my view.

And I want to say that if that is true, then there is no sense talking about "morality" at all. That what you call morals is not morality at all, but something else.
""s added by me.

This is semantics. You can call subjective morality what you wish, but it is still what it is. It is a sense of right and wrong. And it is often universal amongst humans (due to what I mentioned above).

This is where talking about morality when you don't believe in objective morality leads you astray. With only subjective morality, you have no ground to stand on for you or anyone else to make a moral decison.
If you redefine morality as you have, then sure. But so what? You are still making decisions for the same purposes and with the same impacts and value.

I reject your redefinition and I say morality must be subjective, for objective morality doesn't exist. So you're not talking about morality unless you are talking about the subjective. :D

I actually find belief in objective morality to be one of the more dangerous things religions lead us towards. If morality is thought to be objective, and thought to be revealed to us, then we are prone to accept this "revealed" code of "right" and "wrong" and subdue our own moral sense. Things like burning witches, stoning people to death, or flying planes into buildings become "moral" even though our own internal senses of good and bad scream otherwise.

True, absent a belief in objective morality we may decide that doing a horrible act is just, because we are psychopaths or have been brainwashed and our victims demonized, but at least we could still readjust if a non-psychopath or non-programmed moral voice in us tells us otherwise.

Obedience to an external moral code, if you don't internally agree with that code, is just bare obedience. And I say that is not morality at all. Many things in religions follow this pattern. Some political ideologies do too.

If you speak to believers/followers you often find them telling you that many things are "right" because such-and-such God or Great Leader says they are right, and not because they the believer actually themselves feel they are right. Recipe for disaster that is.
Reply

thirdwatch512
06-20-2007, 08:59 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
Animals don't go to paradise. They will be resurrected on the day of judgement and put to trial. After they see the condition of the humans, they will bow down to Allah, although the angels will tell them they don't have to bow, but they will reply that they are grateful to Allah for not having created them as humans. After that they will be turned to dust.

:cry:
why do we have souls and are able to go to heaven, but animals aren't?

as a Christian, i believe that animals ARE inferior to us. which is why they don't have to follow the Bible, because they can't do so. but at the same time, they can think, and some are just as smart as humans. and as a Christian, i believe they will be able to go to heaven :)
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-20-2007, 09:28 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
why do we have souls and are able to go to heaven, but animals aren't?

as a Christian, i believe that animals ARE inferior to us. which is why they don't have to follow the Bible, because they can't do so. but at the same time, they can think, and some are just as smart as humans. and as a Christian, i believe they will be able to go to heaven :)
Ya. If there was a heaven, animals should be included. They are decent folk for the most part. Why discriminate just on species and race? :D And they should thank Allah and then promptly be turned to dust? Because Allah won't burn them in hell instead? And this is all fair and just?

I bet a muslim will now come along and say that it may not sound good but it is the will of Allah, so therefor it is good. Actually no. Now that I've called them on it, they probably won't.
Reply

Skavau
06-20-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
For me, objective morality is not something that can be determined by consensus or numbers. It has to be something that all would be able to recognize, not becuase they agree with it but because it actaully does exist.
As far as we know there is no actual objective source of morality and if there is one then it is not exerting itself effectively. Morality to me simply has to be substantiated morally.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't believe that my claiming of something as moral makes it exist.
Your claiming of it as moral exists as an opinion. It is therefore up to you to substantiate it in order for it to have validity.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And thus having everyone claim it would not make it exist either.
It exists in so much that there is an understanding of it.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Though we might all agree that it does, its exist has to be independent of us and our thoughts regarding it. So, for objective morality to exist it has to exist in and of itself, independent of human thought or opinion.
I disagree. An objective source of morality has to exist in and of itself. What makes an objective source of morality anymore tangible than subjective morality? What is an 'objective source' of morality?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If there is no source for determining morality outside of human thought, then there can be no source of objective morality.
There can be a method though of justifying moral principles or ideas which is simply more important than subjective morality and objective morality.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And given that I don't recognize subjective morality to be valid as anything other than mere preference, then if there is no source of objective morality, there is no such thing as morality at all.
Oh but you do. The morality I would assume given your religion that you profess to is entirely subjective because it is based on your idea of God. It is arguably arbitrary. Correct me if I am wrong.

It is not who professes an opinion but whether that opinion is backed up.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And if there is no such thing as morality at all, then there is no behavior that in and of itself is either right or wrong, there is just behavior that is appreciate or unappreciated.
That's one way of putting it I concede. But what is the difference between the two ways of defining behaviour in this scenario?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Do, I really believe that to be the case? No. I don't. I do think that there is a source of objective morality. I do believe in the existence of a divine creator and I believe that this creator creates not only people and animals and earth and other things, but that this creator calls some things good. And that which is outside the will of the creator would be not good.
My assumptions are confirmed. Your definition of morality is then entirely arbitrary and based on the viewpoint of a single source. That is subjective.

What is your views on the Euthyphro Dilemma?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The creator could have created a world in which there was no morality, a world in which wind blew and water flowed and volcanoes erupted all as set in motion by the creator. But I believe we live in a world in which the creator not only created amoral creatures and things that do not make choices between that which the creator calls good and something else, but that this creator gave some of the creatures the ability to make choices for themselves as to whether they would cooperate with the creator or not. Those choices are moral choices, and the standard they are measured by are those of the creator, which I hold to be an objective source of morality.
See above. That analysis you asserted there just comes to the conclusion that there is authority and that it is advisable to follow.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Of course, if there is no creator, then there would be only the random chance happenings of this atom or that particle and there is no moral action in such happenings. Thus without a creator we live in a world with not source of objective morality, no choices that can be called either good or bad.
This is false. We understand morality and that alone gives it meaning.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-20-2007, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Good and bad are no more than subjective. Creations of our minds resulting from our common experiences, empathy, and self interest, ultimately resulting from our DNA and brain chemistry.

Using words like "prejudices" (instead of say "judgments") and redefining "morality" to exclude subjective moral judgments just looks to me like attempts to emotionally load your terms.


This is all about our definitions of "right" and "wrong", on which we differ. You are correct that without objective morality there can be no objective statements of right or wrong. That isn't saying as much as I think you think it is though.

But here is the point then. On what grounds do we hold people accountable for doing "bad", "evil", or "wrong"? If a person gets between a mother bear and her cubs, and the mother bear attacks that person to defend her cubs. We don't say that the bear is good or bad. We just say that this is what mother bears do. It is an amoral act. I am saying that by your way of thinking that all acts are amoral. And if they are amoral, then we have no more grounds for punishing a person who kills than a bear who kills. We might do it because we fear the person or bear will do it again, because we don't trust them or are uncomfortable around them, or simply out of a sense of our personal revenge. But there is nothing moral about the action, so there is no reason to invoke concepts of right or wrong with regard to the behavior. Invoking the language of morality to talk about amoral behaviors and our responses to them does not make sense.







This is semantics. You can call subjective morality what you wish, but it is still what it is. It is a sense of right and wrong. And it is often universal amongst humans (due to what I mentioned above).
Just because you label it morality doesn't mean it is about morality. From what you have said, there really is no source of morality that is not subjective. And subjective morality is a worthless way to run a planet.


If you redefine morality as you have, then sure. But so what? You are still making decisions for the same purposes and with the same impacts and value.
But I don't understand why you make these decisions in your amoral world.

I reject your redefinition and I say morality must be subjective, for objective morality doesn't exist. So you're not talking about morality unless you are talking about the subjective. :D
Then I repeat. If there is only subjective morality, there is no true basis for calling anything a moral good or a moral evil. And thus no reason to reward a moral good or punish a moral evil, except for how it impacts me personally, of for some alturistic people, how we see it impacting society. Whether personal morality or societal morality it is all just so much subjective preferences for chocolate instead of strawberry ice cream, for Picasso rather than VanGoh, for myspace rather than your space. Ethics are utilitarian, and that is all they are, nothing more.

I actually find belief in objective morality to be one of the more dangerous things religions lead us towards. If morality is thought to be objective, and thought to be revealed to us, then we are prone to accept this "revealed" code of "right" and "wrong" and subdue our own moral sense. Things like burning witches, stoning people to death, or flying planes into buildings become "moral" even though our own internal senses of good and bad scream otherwise.
Oh, I agree that if one believes that there is some source of objective morality and then also believes that this source wants you to behave in a way unappreciated by others, that it could be a danger to others. But of course, if all morality is only subjective, then they really aren't doing anything wrong in acting that way, they are just acting in ways that some would prefer they would not. But once again, it is a matter of personal prefernce. On the other hand, if we could show that they were right about their being a source of objective morailty, but that they were wrong about their understanding of what that source was seeking in the way of behavior, then we might have a reason to stop them, for they would be acting immorally. But if what they are doing is just another amoral act, even though inconvienent, I say, live and let live. You deal with it. But, watch out for your nose.

True, absent a belief in objective morality we may decide that doing a horrible act is just, because we are psychopaths or have been brainwashed and our victims demonized, but at least we could still readjust if a non-psychopath or non-programmed moral voice in us tells us otherwise.
No, absent a belief in objective moraily, we have no right to say that the act is in reality horrible. Because absent an objective (i.e. existing) morailty, morality does not exist.

Obedience to an external moral code, if you don't internally agree with that code, is just bare obedience. And I say that is not morality at all. Many things in religions follow this pattern. Some political ideologies do too.
Now, who is redefining morality?

If you speak to believers/followers you often find them telling you that many things are "right" because such-and-such God or Great Leader says they are right, and not because they the believer actually themselves feel they are right. Recipe for disaster that is.
No bigger recipe for disaster than each person doing what is right in their own eyes.
Reply

Philosopher
06-20-2007, 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Just because you label it morality doesn't mean it is about morality. From what you have said, there really is no source of morality that is not subjective. And subjective morality is a worthless way to run a planet.
Morality IS subjective. While Christians find it moral for fathers to sell their daughters to slavery, secularists find it to be a blatant violation of human rights.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But I don't understand why you make these decisions in your amoral world.
I think morality has progressed greatly since the advent of Christianity. Why do you think the world thrives for secularism, as opposed to theocracies?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Then I repeat. If there is only subjective morality, there is no true basis for calling anything a moral good or a moral evil. And thus no reason to reward a moral good or punish a moral evil, except for how it impacts me personally, of for some alturistic people, how we see it impacting society. Whether personal morality or societal morality it is all just so much subjective preferences for chocolate instead of strawberry ice cream, for Picasso rather than VanGoh, for myspace rather than your space. Ethics are utilitarian, and that is all they are, nothing more.
Morality is not determined by scripture, but by consensus. That is why people's view on morality changes with time. In the past homosexuals would be stoned to death. Now, homosexuals run political offices in America.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No, absent a belief in objective moraily, we have no right to say that the act is in reality horrible. Because absent an objective (i.e. existing) morailty, morality does not exist.
Hogwash.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No bigger recipe for disaster than each person doing what is right in their own eyes.
Again, morality is by consensus. People in a a particular state share similar sentiments for morality. That is how laws are crafted.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-21-2007, 02:43 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But here is the point then. On what grounds do we hold people accountable for doing "bad", "evil", or "wrong"?
Usually on the grounds that we feel they harm us and our society. Actual tangible grounds that is. Not blind obedience to declarations of "Good" and "Evil" from some "revealed" source of "objective" morality.

I am saying that by your way of thinking that all acts are amoral.
Only because you have gone ahead and defined them that way. Obviously if subjective morality does not qualify under your definition of morality (even though value satatements on right and wrong are made) and if there is no objective morality, then there is nothing left to fall under your definition of morality so it doesn't exist. You are playing word games.

And if they are amoral, then we have no more grounds for punishing a person who kills than a bear who kills. We might do it because we fear the person or bear will do it again, because we don't trust them or are uncomfortable around them, or simply out of a sense of our personal revenge.
Or for any number of other moral bases, such as self preservation, empathy with the victim, etc. By the way, it is interesting that you gave the bear a moral excuse for doing what it did (protecting its young). Why not use the example of a bear who kills for the sheer joy of it? Or would you find that a bit morally repugnant? Sure we can rationalize that the bear is just a mindless killing machine (maybe it is?) but don't you instinctively still feel a sense of injustice when you see it mauling random helpless toddlers passing by? That'd be your empathy kicking in, and it is a big part of what forms your subjective sense of morality.

Certainly we hold human beings to a higher standard than animals, but isn't that because we are human beings ourselves and relate to them better, and because we know for sure that humans are thinking beings who could and should know better than to behave in such a way?

Just because you label it morality doesn't mean it is about morality.
And just because you relabel it as excluded from morality doesn't make that so either.

And subjective morality is a worthless way to run a planet.
It is all we have.

And it works a lot better when we realize that instead of pointing to some "revealed" and "objective" morality that may scream to us peronally as unjust. If you strangle your internal feelings of right and wrong and replace them with obedience to some external code, what do you think it bound to eventually happen? Something rather awful, no? Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, gentical mutilation, the list goes on and on. Things any healthy person's sense of empathy would lead them to conclude is wrong, but "objective" morality tells them is righteous. Is that any way to run a planet? I think history has shown it isn't.


But I don't understand why you make these decisions in your amoral world.
Because a lack of objectivity in moral judgments doesn't make questions of right and wrong magically disappear. We still have these issues to address and we do so address them.

Then I repeat. If there is only subjective morality, there is no true basis for calling anything a moral good or a moral evil.
Only if you define terms as you have done.

And thus no reason to reward a moral good or punish a moral evil, except for how it impacts me personally, of for some alturistic people, how we see it impacting society.
We punish certain acts because we judge them dangerous to our society's ideals. We see that they will hurt people or threaten our way of life so we deem them wrong and we outlaw them. Conversely, we see that charity helps those we can relate to (fellow humans) and so we call it good.

As I have repeatedly noted, absent objective morality our findings of good and bad are not arbitrary. They are based on the experiences we have, our DNA, and our empathic sense (based on self preservation and idenfication) These bases of what forms our moral sense can be modified by our culture and our programming (be it religious or political), but the bases remain.

On the other hand, if we could show that they were right about their being a source of objective morailty, but that they were wrong about their understanding of what that source was seeking in the way of behavior, then we might have a reason to stop them
I find this truly mind blowing. Are you telling me that you need some external "source of morality" to motivate you from stopping men from bashing the heads of babies against rocks? You otherwise feel no "reason to stop them"? Have you no sense of empathy?

No, absent a belief in objective moraily, we have no right to say that the act is in reality horrible.
Yes we do. I just did.

Because absent an objective (i.e. existing) morailty, morality does not exist.
Now, who is redefining morality?
:D :p

If you insist on redefining morality for yourself, why should I not do the same?

I am speaking of obedience to a code of behaviour placed upon you from outside yourself, that your own internal sense of right and wrong fundamentally diasgrees with.

Would you really call that "moral?"

It would mean that should this code tell you theft and murder are virtues and kindness a vice, you'd have to call that just and right. This is the kind of mentality that leads to the attrocities I noted above, such as flying planes into buildings or burning witches at the stake.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-22-2007, 02:19 AM
So, are you saying that if Hitler had won the war, and achieved his goal of a "superrace", that his actions would have become moral by reason that the society he would have created would have subjectively given credence to them?

Are you saying that a dog with rabies that attacks people is a moral act? I agree that we can use the terms bad and good subjectively. And if I am subject to the attack of a rabid dog I am going to call it a bad thing to have happen to me. But I am not going to call it a morally bad dog. I won't do so because it has no choice in the matter and without choice there is not moral action.

You have said that there is no creator. So where did we come from? Are we not then just the chance production of certain atoms and molecules. We are nothing more than the output of a cosmic science experiment. And that includes are very thoughts, attitude, actions, and motives that we ascribe to those actions. They are not choices, they are accidents of chemistry and physics. Even your decision to respond to this post is something that you are pre-conditioned to by the very random happening that created the entire universe. We are no more free to make our respective choices or have a thought of our own than cat is to chase mice or a rock is to fall downhill. And without freedom of choice, then there can be no assigning of culpability (an essential component of declaring somethng right or wrong behavior). That lack of culpability, not what you think are games of semantics, are why there is no morality of any kind in the world you claim exists.
Reply

dougmusr
06-22-2007, 02:43 AM
Again, morality is by consensus. People in a a particular state share similar sentiments for morality. That is how laws are crafted.
Here's what the founders of the constitution had to say about rule by consensus in "Federalist Papers, #10".

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-22-2007, 03:47 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, are you saying that if Hitler had won the war, and achieved his goal of a "superrace", that his actions would have become moral by reason that the society he would have created would have subjectively given credence to them?
You need to consider though if and how credence was given. Did his people really follow their own internal senses of right and wrong and agree with Hitler's view though close introspection (especially as it became clearer what his actual ideas were)? Or did they defer to the "revealed" morality of a Great Leader, who they perhaps figured knew better than themselves about moral issues, or perhaps who they simply feared and obeyed? The use of religious and authoritarian imagery is strong in Nazi propaganda for a reason. They had to override people's empathic senses. The same senses that lead you to the subjective idea that Hitler's ideology was wrong.

Are you saying that a dog with rabies that attacks people is a moral act?
I agree that we can use the terms bad and good subjectively. And if I am subject to the attack of a rabid dog I am going to call it a bad thing to have happen to me. But I am not going to call it a morally bad dog. I won't do so because it has no choice in the matter and without choice there is not moral action.
You keep using examples of animals who have some moral excuse you find palatable. How about a dog without rabies who just enjoys ripping children apart? Would you not then make a moral judgment? If not, I thnk you are rather unique.

You have said that there is no creator. So where did we come from?
Don't know. Don't particularly care. And for the record, I didn't actually say there is no creator (though I don't believe in one). I just said I don't believe in objective morality and you don't need a creator or God to explain moral senses.

Are we not then just the chance production of certain atoms and molecules.
Maybe. Again, I don't claim to know. And don't really care. It isn't relevant to this discussion.

We are nothing more than the output of a cosmic science experiment. And that includes are very thoughts, attitude, actions, and motives that we ascribe to those actions. They are not choices, they are accidents of chemistry and physics. Even your decision to respond to this post is something that you are pre-conditioned to by the very random happening that created the entire universe.
This premise just materialized out of nowhere. Why do you claim that there being a creator or not determines if there is free will or not?

There could be no creator and complete free will. Why do you say that is inconsistent? Likewise, there could be a creator and no free will.

And what does this have to do with subjective vs objective morality?

Also, if there is a creator who created morality, according to its view of right and wrong, isn't that itself subjective?
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-22-2007, 04:06 AM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
Here's what the founders of the constitution had to say about rule by consensus in "Federalist Papers, #10".
All rule is ultimately by consensus.

Even slaves consent to the rule of their masters. If they didn't, they would rise up against them. That they don't shows that they value some things (ie, life, family) above their freedom. The consent may be coerced, but it ultimately is consent.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-22-2007, 09:32 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You need to consider though if and how credence was given. Did his people really follow their own internal senses of right and wrong and agree with Hitler's view though close introspection (especially as it became clearer what his actual ideas were)? Or did they defer to the "revealed" morality of a Great Leader, who they perhaps figured knew better than themselves about moral issues, or perhaps who they simply feared and obeyed? The use of religious and authoritarian imagery is strong in Nazi propaganda for a reason. They had to override people's empathic senses. The same senses that lead you to the subjective idea that Hitler's ideology was wrong.
Plenty of Germans agreed with the principles of the superiority of the Aryan race. There are many Americans who continue to think these things. Likewise Japan held a similar view with regard to their superiority over other peoples. Since in Japan this was a consensus of the society it surely was right by your definition. Though in the USA where the consensus is more in favor of all men being created equal those who hold these views would be wrong. Now since by simply moving from one country to another the consensus of society changes, does that mean that one's ethics of right and wrong must change also? Because, afterall, there is no absolute, on subjective morality established by consensus.


You keep using examples of animals who have some moral excuse you find palatable. How about a dog without rabies who just enjoys ripping children apart? Would you not then make a moral judgment? If not, I thnk you are rather unique.
And you keep assuming that other cultures all have the same values that you project we have agreed on by consensus in the USA. But as to the dog, rabid and non-rabid. No, I do not think there are any bad dogs. There are dogs conditioned to behave in certain ways by their owners, by circumstance, by disease, but there are not dogs that make moral choices. To project morality onto an animal that is simply responding to its environment because we perceive their actions as good or bad in our lives is the heigth of anthro-based egocentrism.



And for the record, I didn't actually say there is no creator (though I don't believe in one).
I believe you have in other threads. If not, no matter, you have now.



Maybe. Again, I don't claim to know. And don't really care. It isn't relevant to this discussion.
It is very relevant. If there is no creator, then humans are just another form of animal. And as I have already said repeatedly, there is no moral compass in animals. No objective morality that they are held to, no subjective morailty that they possess. That would hold for us as well.


This premise just materialized out of nowhere. Why do you claim that there being a creator or not determines if there is free will or not?

There could be no creator and complete free will. Why do you say that is inconsistent? Likewise, there could be a creator and no free will.

And what does this have to do with subjective vs objective morality?
This has been part of the conversation for as long as I have been talking about the origins of morality. The origins of morality require free will. Free will requires options. Options means that we are not a mere cosmic accident. If we are, then Skinner's theories of behaviorism must come into play in terms of the origins of your subjective morality. That is, like Pavlov's dog salivating at the sound of a bell, our subjective morality is all about what we have been conditioned by our environment to value and devalue. But if people have it within themselves to rise up, despite their conditioning, and say "No" to the society in which they live, then this is something that is either coming completely from outside them (and thus not subjective) or was intrinsic to them as a human being (and thus created within them as distinct from animals) or both.

Also, if there is a creator who created morality, according to its view of right and wrong, isn't that itself subjective?
Subjective on the creator's part, but absolute as received by us the creator's creatures.
Reply

S.A.
06-22-2007, 09:39 AM
Originally Posted by powerkoala
Mohammed's and Jesus's claims that they were God/Allah
:sl:

You have got wrong info bro...to begin with none of them claimed that they were Allah or any God.
Reply

Grace Seeker
06-22-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally Posted by S.A.
:sl:

You have got wrong info bro...to begin with none of them claimed that they were Allah or any God.


You've also got wrong info bro...to begin with while Muhammad never claimed to be Allah or any God, Jesus did.
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-22-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Now since by simply moving from one country to another the consensus of society changes, does that mean that one's ethics of right and wrong must change also?
Different cultures (in both time and space) vary on their moral standards. But as I've said repeatedly, they have more in common than they have differences, due to common experiences and genetic makeup.

To project morality onto an animal that is simply responding to its environment because we perceive their actions as good or bad in our lives is the heigth of anthro-based egocentrism.
You seem to be saying that animals are unthinking beings ruled exclusively by instinct. I've seen such a claim before. It is bold and unsupported. We don't really know either way.

But even if the animal doesn't have any self control and runs like a mindless robot, that doesn't mean we know this. We may believe they do have such choices and make bad ones and are thus bad animals. That is a moral judgment. It just happens to be based on erroneous information (so we're assuming here).

I believe you have in other threads. If not, no matter, you have now.
Actually, I'd never say with certainty that there is no God. I just find the idea unsupported and unlikely. But I certainly don't claim to know for sure one way or the other. I think anybody who does is either dishonest or insane.

It is very relevant. If there is no creator, then humans are just another form of animal.
Humans ARE a form of animal. We are not plants. And we could be just another form of animal even if there was a creator.

And as I have already said repeatedly, there is no moral compass in animals.
That is your opinion, perhaps from religoius training? Its fine to have this opinion but you have no way to back it up. As an earlier poster noted, many non human animals certainly apear to have cultures and moral ideals.

This has been part of the conversation for as long as I have been talking about the origins of morality.
That hasn't been clear at all. I think you've made assumptions not shared by those not in your paradigm.

The origins of morality require free will.
The origins do? I don't know what you mean by that.

I'd agree that most of us wouldn't make a moral judgment against somebody who had no free will in what they did.

Options means that we are not a mere cosmic accident.
?

You are talking about God's choice to create us here? You've lost me completely on this one.

If we are, then Skinner's theories of behaviorism must come into play in terms of the origins of your subjective morality. That is, like Pavlov's dog salivating at the sound of a bell, our subjective morality is all about what we have been conditioned by our environment to value and devalue.
That is certainly a big part of what shapes our views on these matters, yes. Social programming definitely impacts on and shapes our moral sense. It doesn't start there though. It starts with our genetic make up and resulting sense of empathy (seeing ourselves in others).

But if people have it within themselves to rise up, despite their conditioning, and say "No" to the society in which they live, then this is something that is either coming completely from outside them (and thus not subjective) or was intrinsic to them as a human being (and thus created within them as distinct from animals) or both.
If it is "coming completely outside them" it is just more conditioning by their environment.

If it is intrinsic to them, it is a result of their earlier programming or genetics and resulting predisposition to see themselves in others, ie empathy.

The whole concept of "objective morality" makes no sense. Morality is about value judgments and only a working mind can make such judgments and the product of a working mind (even a creator's) is subjective.

Any moral code designated from a hypothetical creator is subjectively created by them. If it is then "revealed" to us we must decide for ourselves if we agree with it, thus making it our subjective view if we do. We could also disagree with this hypotheical creator's code (ie, God saying we should stone people to death for a number of silly reasons). Either way we are making value judgments within our own minds. This is all subjective.

The only objective questions here are whether there is a God, and if so, whether that God wants us to behave or programmed us to behave in a certain fashion. And if there is no God then there are the objective questions of the influences of nature (ie, genetic make up) and nurture (ie, experiences and social programming) on our moral judgments.
Reply

S.A.
06-22-2007, 11:01 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You've also got wrong info bro...to begin with while Muhammad never claimed to be Allah or any God, Jesus did.
Thanks for trying to correct me sis/bro :coolious: ...but Jesus didnt make such claims.

:thankyou:
Reply

Skavau
06-22-2007, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You have said that there is no creator. So where did we come from?
Why is it necessary to invoke a creator for us to exist?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Now since by simply moving from one country to another the consensus of society changes, does that mean that one's ethics of right and wrong must change also? Because, afterall, there is no absolute, on subjective morality established by consensus.
An individual has the ability to establish what ought to be or not to be. Just because specific societies think otherwise now, and in the past does not necessitate that morality ought to be subjective and dependent on the society. The difference of morality in societies is merely an expression of how ideas on morality have developed. They are not necessarily morally substantiated towards and/or reasonable. We have the ability of judgement to declare what is right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Subjective on the creator's part, but absolute as received by us the creator's creatures.
It is entirely subjective and arbitrary if a creator is simply attempting to define morality. It matters whether the moral assertions are substantiated rather than declared and by whom.

What is your opinion of the Euthyphro Dilemma?
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 09:16 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!