Morality & Obedience

[Pygoscelis]

We keep weaving around my central point here instead of addressing it.

Can we agree that forgoing your own moral judgment making in favour of an authority figure, trusting that the authority figure is benevolent to us and knows better than we do, can be a very dangerous thing if that authority figure turns out not being so benevolent or not existing?

Can you recognize this in the context of false Gods that are not your own real God?

Because that is my concern here, people actively shutting off morality in favour of fantasy, and i don't think you have to be an atheist to see it. Just think in terms of other and false religions.

 

[syed_z]

Can we agree that forgoing your own moral judgment making in favour of an authority figure, trusting that the authority figure is benevolent to us and knows better than we do, can be a very dangerous thing if that authority figure turns out not being so benevolent or not existing?

Hey Pygo.

Ali Ibn Abi Talib (RadiAllah Anhu) - Son in Law, a cousin and a very close companion of the Prophet - was asked by an atheist. 'What if your Allah (swt) doesn't exist?' To which he replied 'I'd nothing to loose, but if He does exist then you'd have a lot to loose.'

 

[Serinity]

Arguement from imagination or ignorance.. we won't get anywhere by doing that. "what ifs" without evident and convincing proof is, empty, meaningless.

Why is it that you aren't concerned about fairies existing and concerned (or discussing with us) about the existence of God?

Cause you know fairies are false, and from folklore. Afaik, that is. then you extrapolate it on belief in God, which is error. Cause how do we know God exists? By what do we know? In Islam, we know Him by His Book, and we know His existence by His signs in creation.

you are trying to put God in the same basket with fairies, etc. Audhu billah.

It is vital to differentiate between truth and falsehood, imagination, and reality. Atheists however take this to the extreme being like "see it, then believe it" kinda. Confusing reason with imagination. So I see it.

may Allah forgive me if I erred. Ameen.

Allahu alam.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Why is it that you aren't concerned about fairies existing and concerned (or discussing with us) about the existence of God?

I am not concerned with the existence of either. I am equally confident that both don't exist. False Gods I mean of course, not yours. As explained by our dear admin I am forbidden from saying yours doesn't exit. Yours is oh so very real and true The difference between the false Gods and faeries is that one currently has people trying to structure society around belief in it and shutting off their own moral decision making in favour of it, and the other at present does not.

In Islam, we know Him by His Book, and we know His existence by His signs in creation.

The same ways believers in false gods think they know their existence, except in your case its true and in their case it is false...

you are trying to put God in the same basket with fairies, etc. Audhu billah.

Do Zeus, Thor, Ra, etc not all belong in that basket?

And anyway, you didn't answer my question above. Surely you can see what I am talking about in my point above in regard to false religions (unlike your own true religion), no? Why won't people here admit this? Are you defending false Gods or just yours? If just yours, then you should be able to see my point.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Hey Pygo.

Ali Ibn Abi Talib (RadiAllah Anhu) - Son in Law, a cousin and a very close companion of the Prophet - was asked by an atheist. 'What if your Allah (swt) doesn't exist?' To which he replied 'I'd nothing to loose, but if He does exist then you'd have a lot to loose.'

Pascal's wager... again? I refer you to the dozens of other times we've already addressed the problems with it. If you can't find them, let me know and I'll address it again.

 

['abd al-hakeem]

people actively shutting off morality in favour of fantasy

From where did you develop your sense of morality?

And how do you determine what constitutes fantasy?

 

[Pygoscelis]

From where did you develop your sense of morality?

I can only ask you to read the thread. I am repeating myself at this point regarding this question.

And how do you determine what constitutes fantasy?

I'm not. You are. I outright stated that Allah is real and true, since the mods demand I do so. I can do so while still making my point. You know that there are false Gods, being Gods that are not Allah and that conflict with Allah. Look at my point in relation to those false Gods. Or just dodge as everybody else is

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

We keep weaving around my central point here instead of addressing it.

Can we agree that forgoing your own moral judgment making in favour of an authority figure, trusting that the authority figure is benevolent to us and knows better than we do, can be a very dangerous thing if that authority figure turns out not being so benevolent or not existing?

Can you recognize this in the context of false Gods that are not your own real God?

Because that is my concern here, people actively shutting off morality in favour of fantasy, and i don't think you have to be an atheist to see it. Just think in terms of other and false religions.

Whoops, I pressed like instead of the quote button, my mistake.

We keep weaving around my central point here instead of addressing it.

Can we agree that forgoing your own moral judgment making in favour of an authority figure, trusting that the authority figure is benevolent to us and knows better than we do,

I am sorry to say, we cannot agree. There is only 'One God' the creator of the universe and life. All religions worship this same creator who knows better than we do, and who is a benevolent God. If God says we should not murder, then we should not murder, God also says it is better to be merciful and forgive, rather than demand the justice of an eye for an eye, or a death for a death. If god is benevolent, it would make more sense that he would want his creation to be the same. In Islam, I like the 99 names of Allah, they tell us much about our God.

State laws follow the law of God, which say do not kill, we must all be obedient to this law. If you disobey this law, you go against God against the state and against your victim. In America, 24 people have been murdered by terrorists in the decade leading up to 1st October 2015, as opposed to 284,000 during the same period, for good old murders for non terrorist motives, I know who I should be afraid of, and it is not the terrorist.

Can you recognize this in the context of false Gods that are not your own real God?

Because that is my concern here, people actively shutting off morality in favour of fantasy, and i don't think you have to be an atheist to see it. Just think in terms of other and false religions.

The definition of a false god, is a god who cannot create the universe and life. Now if you think the furies created the universe, then clearly you can make up your own rules. You have said on occasions there are some laws you don't agree with, so if you want to make up your laws, that gives everyone else the freedom to make up their laws, I would not want to live in a world like this, where we all know what is best.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric.

 

[Pygoscelis]

There is only 'One God' the creator of the universe and life. All religions worship this same creator who knows better than we do, and who is a benevolent God.

This is demonstrably false. There are plenty of "Gods" both today and throughout history who totally opposed one another, demanded conflicting things, and even went to war with one another through the wars of their believers. Some of them must be false. They can't all be true. And they can't all be the same God. Some people are clearly mistaken, and believing in Gods or conceptions of Gods that are not real. Your bible even explicitly refers to false Gods, and thr first of the ten commandments forbids "other Gods" before yours, so they can't all be one.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

This is demonstrably false. There are plenty of "Gods" both today and throughout history who totally opposed one another,

With all due respect, I don't know who believes there was an army of gods competing to create the universe and life. I worship the same God who created the universe and life, as do my Muslim friends here. There is only one God responsible for creation, the same God hears all our prayers despite the differences between all the religions.

We have a duty to care for God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other despite our differences.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

 

['abd al-hakeem]

 

[Abz2000]

[TABLE="width: 585, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Estimated Time of Death from Various Execution Methods[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Lethal Injection[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]5 min to 2 hours[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Gas Chamber[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]10 to 18 minutes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Hanging[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]4 to 11 minutes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Electric Chair[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]2 to 15 plus minutes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Firing Squad[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Less than a minute[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Guillotine[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Less than a minute[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Estimated Time of Death from Various Execution Methods
Lethal Injection 5 min to 2 hours
Gas Chamber 10 to 18 minutes
Hanging 4 to 11 minutes
Electric Chair 2 to 15 plus minutes
Firing Squad Less than a minute
Guillotine Less than a minute

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001623

 

[Pygoscelis]

With all due respect, I don't know who believes there was an army of gods competing to create the universe and life. I worship the same God who created the universe and life, as do my Muslim friends here. There is only one God responsible for creation, the same God hears all our prayers despite the differences between all the religions.

I am not talking about real Gods; actual being competing to create the universe. I am talking about false Gods; ideas and conceptions competing to fill our minds. You know that many of these Gods are not real, And you can see that people nevertheless believe that they are, and that they can go on to use the same logic that we have seen above, that their God knows better than they do what is good and bad, and that something that seems bad, must be good if their God (which they think exists) says so, because he/she/it is all knowing and all good (according to them). You can see how that can be dangerous, yes? They have shut off their own moral decision making, or subdued it, in favor of this false God, who doesn't actually exist, so doesn't actually make what they think they are being told to do actually good.

Remember the quote that started all of this:

like for example, halal slaughter. After reading about how an animal is killed according to halal means, I realized "wow...that causes the animal to suffer a lot." But it's not my job to care if it causes the animal to suffer since that it what God says to do.

crimsontide06 believes that God knows better so what may look bad must actually be good. That only works so long as crimsontide06's god exists and is all good. I am not saying crimsontide06's god doesn't exist (I am forbidden by the mods to say that). I am saying that others can and do use the same sort of reasoning with other and false gods.

 

[Pygoscelis]

[TABLE="width: 585, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Estimated Time of Death from Various Execution Methods[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Lethal Injection[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]5 min to 2 hours[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Gas Chamber[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]10 to 18 minutes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Hanging[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]4 to 11 minutes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Electric Chair[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]2 to 15 plus minutes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Firing Squad[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Less than a minute[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Guillotine[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #D2D8EA"]Less than a minute[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Estimated Time of Death from Various Execution Methods
Lethal Injection 5 min to 2 hours
Gas Chamber 10 to 18 minutes
Hanging 4 to 11 minutes
Electric Chair 2 to 15 plus minutes
Firing Squad Less than a minute
Guillotine Less than a minute

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001623

Not relevant to this discussion. But I have to point out that time of dying probably isn't the only concern people would have when looking at ways you can die.

 

[Scimitar]

The difference between morality and obedience:

Morality is acting on something with the best intentions and sensitivities to another as well as yourself.

Obedience is acting on something without question because you trust the source based on core teachings which you agree with.

Are they the one and the same? No. Are they related? Yes.

Are they distinguishable? Only to the distinguished.

What right do we have to distinguish ??? ...moral grounding and obedience to our own innate need to know better - why did i post? to point that out.

Why are you still reading? is it due to some mystified moral obligation? or are you simply obeying your innate need to know better?

Is there a difference? What is it? and Why?

Scimi

 

[kritikvernunft]

Some people are clearly mistaken, and believing in Gods or conceptions of Gods that are not real.

If a false god becomes powerful enough, because he has enough believers for that, he will start demanding human sacrifice. He will start eating the flesh and drinking the blood of his own believers. In fact, all gods, including the One True God, will end up terminating the lives of their followers and recovering their souls, in one way or another. You cannot request for your life not to be terminated at some point. It will always get terminated. You can only choose which entity will recover your soul.

Used in this sense, "true" and "false" are just conventions, actually. We conventionally define the universe and its reality as "true", and its creator as the One True God, but in fact, this is an almost arbitrary choice. This arbitrary choice just happens to suit me fine, and that is pretty much all there is to it. Nothing would stop you from picking another kind of reality and such other creator as your conventionally false god. Lots of people do this, actually. This practice is very common, and there is really nothing special about doing that.

 

[Serinity]

Falsehood is falsehood, truth is truth. They are not arbitrary. Whether everyone followed Islam, wouldn't make it more Truer than it is, cause it is the Truth.

Whether everyone left Islam / truth. Wouldn't make a difference to the authencity.

Let me give you an example:

IF everyone followed truth, it would still be truth. IF everyone followed falsehood, it'd still be falsehood.

Truth is not dependent on humans. Rather Truth has always beenb independent of humans.

Truth never needs us to exist. Truth never benefits from us, rather we benefit from it. Falsehood is what is born of the imagination of mankind. In the end Truth will prevail, and it is no need of anyone.

The sun exists, someone say it doesn't. Whether the sun does truly exist or not, is it arbitrary? No. Either something is true, or it is falsehood. Regardless of what anyone says. It can never be both.

No matter how many follow falsehood, or how "powerful" it looks. Truth will prevail in the end. Cause Falsehood, by nature, is destined to perish, while Truth, is destined to prevail.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Falsehood is falsehood, truth is truth. They are not arbitrary.

There is the belief that truth is the only thing that will remain consistent, while falsehood will ultimately always collapse under its own contradictions. But then again, this is just a belief. You cannot know if it is true or not, no matter how often you may have experienced this. Therefore, this belief is still to an important extent an arbitrary choice that you make or do not make.

No. Either something is true, or it is falsehood. Regardless of what anyone says. It can never be both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic
In logic, a many-valued logic (also multi- or multiple-valued logic) is a propositional calculus in which there are more than two truth values. Traditionally, in Aristotle's logical calculus, there were only two possible values (i.e., "true" and "false") for any proposition. Classical two-valued logic may be extended to n-valued logic for n greater than 2. Those most popular in the literature are three-valued (e.g., Łukasiewicz's and Kleene's, which accept the values "true", "false", and "unknown"), the finite-valued (finitely-many valued) with more than three values, and the infinite-valued (infinitely-many valued), such as fuzzy logic and probability logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-valued_logic
Four-valued logic taught on technical schools is used to model signal values in digital circuits: the four values are 1, 0, Z and X. 1 and 0 stand for boolean true and false, Z stands for high impedance or open circuit and X stands for don't care (e. g. the value has no effect). This logic is itself a subset of 9-valued logic standard by the IEEE called IEEE 1164 and implemented e. g. in VHDL's std_logic.

An algebraic lattice can have any arbitrary number of truth values, besides (tautologically) true and false, and still remain consistent as long as it correctly implements the absorption law. There is almost no technology that would function correctly, if we only used a simplistic Aristotelian (true,false) algebraic lattice.

Catuskoti. 4-valued logic system.
Many-valued logic systems are very old. They appeared thousands of years ago. In particular, the catuṣkoṭi is a "four-cornered" system of argumentation that involves the systematic examination and rejection of each of the 4 possibilities of a proposition. The Catuṣkoṭi in Western Discourse has often been glossed, Tetralemma, which is the nomenclature for the Greek form.

1. true
2. false
3. true and false
4. not true and not false

The 'Four Extremes' (Tibetan: མཐའ་བཞི, Wylie: mtha' bzhi; Sanskrit: caturanta; Devanagari: चतुरन्त) [25] is a particular application of the Catuṣkoṭi:
1. Being (Wylie: yod)
2. Non-being (Wylie: med)
3. Both being and non-being (Wylie: yod-med)
4. Neither being and non-being (Wylie: yod-med min)

 

[Serinity]

There is the belief that truth is the only thing that will remain consistent, while falsehood will ultimately always collapse under its own contradictions. But then again, this is just a belief. You cannot know if it is true or not, no matter how often you may have experienced this. Therefore, this belief is still to an important extent an arbitrary choice that you make or do not make.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic
In logic, a many-valued logic (also multi- or multiple-valued logic) is a propositional calculus in which there are more than two truth values. Traditionally, in Aristotle's logical calculus, there were only two possible values (i.e., "true" and "false") for any proposition. Classical two-valued logic may be extended to n-valued logic for n greater than 2. Those most popular in the literature are three-valued (e.g., Łukasiewicz's and Kleene's, which accept the values "true", "false", and "unknown"), the finite-valued (finitely-many valued) with more than three values, and the infinite-valued (infinitely-many valued), such as fuzzy logic and probability logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-valued_logic
Four-valued logic taught on technical schools is used to model signal values in digital circuits: the four values are 1, 0, Z and X. 1 and 0 stand for boolean true and false, Z stands for high impedance or open circuit and X stands for don't care (e. g. the value has no effect). This logic is itself a subset of 9-valued logic standard by the IEEE called IEEE 1164 and implemented e. g. in VHDL's std_logic.

An algebraic lattice can have any arbitrary number of truth values, besides (tautologically) true and false, and still remain consistent as long as it correctly implements the absorption law. There is almost no technology that would function correctly, if we only used a simplistic Aristotelian (true,false) algebraic lattice.

Catuskoti. 4-valued logic system.
Many-valued logic systems are very old. They appeared thousands of years ago. In particular, the catuṣkoṭi is a "four-cornered" system of argumentation that involves the systematic examination and rejection of each of the 4 possibilities of a proposition. The Catuṣkoṭi in Western Discourse has often been glossed, Tetralemma, which is the nomenclature for the Greek form.

1. true
2. false
3. true and false
4. not true and not false

The 'Four Extremes' (Tibetan: མཐའ་བཞི, Wylie: mtha' bzhi; Sanskrit: caturanta; Devanagari: चतुरन्त) [25] is a particular application of the Catuṣkoṭi:
1. Being (Wylie: yod)
2. Non-being (Wylie: med)
3. Both being and non-being (Wylie: yod-med)
4. Neither being and non-being (Wylie: yod-med min)

I sense some misapplication..

I won't entertain fancy arguements. The reality we live in, there can only be one Truth. This is true, and can not be false.

In regards to religion, it is a given that there can only be one truth. This is true, and can not be false. If you say otherwise, bring me your proof, because there is no proof to 2 truths. Cuz it is contradictory. There can only be one truth. This is fact, not belief.

you have misapplied something, and you are mistaken.

Truth will always stay consistent, falsehood will collapse. This is NOT just a belief. It is FACT.

I won't entertain misapplied stuff.

In regards to beliefs, it is either true or false, not both. If you come with something, with NO proof. It is false!

In regards to finding the True religion, it is either:

False, or true. Some false religions may have truth in it, but following it would be disbelief cuz it is falsehood, cuz its beliefs are falsehood.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Truth will always stay consistent, falsehood will collapse. This is NOT just a belief. It is FACT.

In fact, there are not even facts. If you believe that an event truly happened, why is that? Because people witnessed it? In that case, the "fact" just represents the belief in their witness depositions. If you witnessed it by yourself, it represents the trust (=belief) in your own eyes and memory. Everything is literally belief.

In regards to beliefs, it is either true or false, not both.

Aristotelian naivism collapsed a long time ago. In the 19th century, when set theory (Zermelo-Fränckel) was busy replacing number theory (Dedekind-Peano) as the dominant axiomatization for mathematics, with everybody thinking and hoping that things would finally get better, Russell's paradox triggered a meltdown in the belief that all questions would now be decidable (i.e. be true or false): Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself? That was the end of "naive" set theory and naive Aristotelian 2-valued logic. The answer to the paradox is obviously that it cannot be true, but that it can also not be false. It is fundamentally not-true-not-false.