The generation I belong to was born into a world where those with a brain as well as a heart couldn’t find any support. The destructive work of previous generations left us a world that offered no security in the religious sphere, no guidance in the moral sphere, and no tranquility in the political sphere. We were born into the midst of metaphysical anguish, moral anxiety and political disquiet. Inebriated with objective formulas, with the mere methods of reason and science, the generations that preceded us did away with the foundations of the Christian faith, for their biblical criticism – progressing from textual to mythological criticism – reduced the gospels and the earlier scriptures of the Jews to a doubtful heap of myths, legends and mere literature, while their scientific criticism gradually revealed the mistakes and ingenuous notions of the gospels’ primitive ‘science’. At the same time, the spirit of free inquiry brought all metaphysical problems out into the open, and with them all the religious problems that had to do with metaphysics. Drunk with a hazy notion they called ‘positivism’, these generations criticized all morality and scrutinized all rules of life, and all that remained from the clash of doctrines was the certainty of none of them and the grief over there being no certainty. A society so undisciplined in its cultural foundations could obviously not help but be a victim, politically, of its own chaos, and so we woke up to a world eager for social innovations, a world that gleefully pursued a freedom it didn’t grasp and a progress it had never defined. But while the sloppy criticism of our fathers bequeathed us the impossibility of being Christians, it didn’t bequeath us an acceptance of the impossibility; while it bequeathed us a disbelief in established moral codes, it didn’t bequeath us an indifference to morality and the rules for peaceful human coexistence; while it left the thorny problem of politics in doubt, it didn’t leave our minds unconcerned about how to solve it. Our fathers blithely wreaked destruction, for they lived in a time that was still informed by the solidity of the past. The very thing they destroyed was what gave strength to society and enabled them to destroy without noticing that the building was cracking. We inherited the destruction and its aftermath. Today the world belongs only to the stupid, the insensitive and the agitated. Today the right to live and triumph is awarded on virtually the same basis as admission into an insane asylum: an inability to think, amorality, and nervous excitability. -Excerpt from 'The Book of Disquiet' by Fernando Pessoa Thoughts? I think it pretty much nails it. |
| I wouldn't consider any of the Abrahamic religions good moral guides. I consider Buddhism the most respectable and agreeable religion. The sooner such antiquated faiths are replaced with updated beliefs, the better. I do agree, that this generation is built upon a weak and undisciplined cultural foundation that lacks the proper education to make any kind of intelligent thought process and responsible decision making. Yet upon this we enter a new age of Renaissance, that is driven by ignorance, wonton selfish hedonism and shortsighted social degeneracy. |
ModeratelyHuman said: I wouldn't consider any of the Abrahamic religions good moral guides. I consider Buddhism the most respectable and agreeable religion. The sooner such antiquated faiths are replaced with updated beliefs, the better. Buddhism is a spiritual guide more than anything. Like it or not, any man with a hint of psychology and possessing the virtue of self-honesty -- and metaphysics will be a bonus -- knows that Abrahamic religions do provide the most pragmatic moral code. Great Civilizations of the past that weren't Jewish, Christian or Islamic, still had a moral code akin to the one provided by these religions. One can have all scientific disagreements with Abrahamic faiths; but when it comes to 'morals', the most pragmatic, effective, and sensible morals are provided by these religions. |
| I have to agree on one thing, is that Islam offers a lot of structures in terms of social codifications, way more than Vedanta, Buddhism and Jainism. It can offers a solid society but it can also prevent from self-exploring. |
HooHiraiBunny said: I have to agree on one thing, is that Islam offers a lot of structures in terms of social codifications, way more than Vedanta, Buddhism and Jainism. It can offers a solid society but it can also prevent from self-exploring. Self-exploration is intellectual. Social restrictions cannot get in the way of that. (I am one example) The_Nico said: Same old song and dance, but yes, I do agree. Lack of principles and disciplines ultimately lead to the downfall of societies. The best societies are the ones that aren't necessarily the inverse, but rather ones still governed more by morals (not necessarily religious) rather than desires. Also open your comments section, faggot. I was about to tell you I am no longer a bachelor and that MAL btfo for good because of that. There is such a thing as PM. Inbox me fgt @Veneficia Relevant quoting bruh. Hits the spot. |
| I think that quote sounds like the words of someone who is bitter with the world they lived in and convinced themselves the previous was better. Religious and moral uncertainty as well as political turmoil are factors that have persisted throughout history. It's not something new, it just took a different shape. |
| I've been here way too long... |
TheConquerer said: I think that quote sounds like the words of someone who is bitter with the world they lived in and convinced themselves the previous was better. Religious and moral uncertainty as well as political turmoil are factors that have persisted throughout history. It's not something new, it just took a different shape. Such a radically different shape? I don't think this is something seen before. Never before has religion been replaced by irreligiousness. Nor has political stability been compromised solely to face the realization that there's only an eternity of lethargy and torpor ahead (for the common man). This uncertainty, which isn't just moral but more than that, isn't something seen before -- it is only following the same 'pattern'. |
xEmptiness said: I love this. I't also interesting that it was written before the final rejection of the Victorian Moral Set represented by the 1950's - 1960's.The generation I belong to was born into a world where those with a brain as well as a heart couldn’t find any support. The destructive work of previous generations left us a world that offered no security in the religious sphere, no guidance in the moral sphere, and no tranquility in the political sphere. We were born into the midst of metaphysical anguish, moral anxiety and political disquiet. Inebriated with objective formulas, with the mere methods of reason and science, the generations that preceded us did away with the foundations of the Christian faith, for their biblical criticism – progressing from textual to mythological criticism – reduced the gospels and the earlier scriptures of the Jews to a doubtful heap of myths, legends and mere literature, while their scientific criticism gradually revealed the mistakes and ingenuous notions of the gospels’ primitive ‘science’. At the same time, the spirit of free inquiry brought all metaphysical problems out into the open, and with them all the religious problems that had to do with metaphysics. Drunk with a hazy notion they called ‘positivism’, these generations criticized all morality and scrutinized all rules of life, and all that remained from the clash of doctrines was the certainty of none of them and the grief over there being no certainty. A society so undisciplined in its cultural foundations could obviously not help but be a victim, politically, of its own chaos, and so we woke up to a world eager for social innovations, a world that gleefully pursued a freedom it didn’t grasp and a progress it had never defined. But while the sloppy criticism of our fathers bequeathed us the impossibility of being Christians, it didn’t bequeath us an acceptance of the impossibility; while it bequeathed us a disbelief in established moral codes, it didn’t bequeath us an indifference to morality and the rules for peaceful human coexistence; while it left the thorny problem of politics in doubt, it didn’t leave our minds unconcerned about how to solve it. Our fathers blithely wreaked destruction, for they lived in a time that was still informed by the solidity of the past. The very thing they destroyed was what gave strength to society and enabled them to destroy without noticing that the building was cracking. We inherited the destruction and its aftermath. Today the world belongs only to the stupid, the insensitive and the agitated. Today the right to live and triumph is awarded on virtually the same basis as admission into an insane asylum: an inability to think, amorality, and nervous excitability. -Excerpt from 'The Book of Disquiet' by Fernando Pessoa Thoughts? I think it pretty much nails it. If you haven't read it, you need to read "Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals." by Robert Pirsig, and his first (and way more famous book) "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." as a primer for the term "Quality" he uses in Lila What distinguishes the pattern of values called Victorian from the post-World War I period that followed it is, according to the Metaphysics of Quality, a cataclysmic shift in levels of static value; an earthquake in values ... of such enormous consequence that we ... haven t yet figured out what has happened to us ... The 20th century collapse of morals is a ’ consequence of it. Further consequences are on their way. - From Lila Edit: Added "Book of Disquiet" to my kindle. |
NeoVoltJun 19, 2016 7:10 PM
| "The generation I belong to was born into a world where those with a brain as well as a heart couldn’t find any support. " Exaggerated; they do have support but not as much as they should. Probably is specifically speaking about themselves. "The destructive work of previous generations left us a world that offered no security in the religious sphere, no guidance in the moral sphere, and no tranquility in the political sphere." Considering how common religious freedom is these days it is more the opposite unless they mean something else by security. There is not a lack of guidance there is just multiple types of guidance floating around at once. A person always has the laws and their own judgement to guide them. The politics part is right for many countries but I would not say all. " We were born into the midst of metaphysical anguish, moral anxiety and political disquiet. Inebriated with objective formulas, with the mere methods of reason and science, the generations that preceded us did away with the foundations of the Christian faith, for their biblical criticism – progressing from textual to mythological criticism – reduced the gospels and the earlier scriptures of the Jews to a doubtful heap of myths, legends and mere literature, while their scientific criticism gradually revealed the mistakes and ingenuous notions of the gospels’ primitive ‘science’. At the same time, the spirit of free inquiry brought all metaphysical problems out into the open, and with them all the religious problems that had to do with metaphysics. Drunk with a hazy notion they called ‘positivism’, these generations criticized all morality and scrutinized all rules of life, and all that remained from the clash of doctrines was the certainty of none of them and the grief over there being no certainty. A society so undisciplined in its cultural foundations could obviously not help but be a victim, politically, of its own chaos, and so we woke up to a world eager for social innovations, a world that gleefully pursued a freedom it didn’t grasp and a progress it had never defined." It is only an anguish for some people. Many people do not think of metaphysics much. I would not say it is a moral anxiety but more a moral dispute of differing opinion. He seems to be incapable of adapting to a world where his foundation of morals basis is questioned. These are the words of the weak who can not have the guts to examine their pre convened concept of morals This is just such a load of crap really. These old concepts still live on even in people who are not religious. There is nothing exceptionally unique about Christian morals, you find similar things in things like Confucianism. Heck there even are Atheist Christians out there who follow the words of Jesus as a man. People should be kinder and more thoughtful to others but this is nothing new. Having morals with no basis in proof and reason is like having no morals at all and rolling a dice. "But while the sloppy criticism of our fathers bequeathed us the impossibility of being Christians, it didn’t bequeath us an acceptance of the impossibility; while it bequeathed us a disbelief in established moral codes, it didn’t bequeath us an indifference to morality and the rules for peaceful human coexistence; while it left the thorny problem of politics in doubt, it didn’t leave our minds unconcerned about how to solve it. Our fathers blithely wreaked destruction, for they lived in a time that was still informed by the solidity of the past. The very thing they destroyed was what gave strength to society and enabled them to destroy without noticing that the building was cracking. We inherited the destruction and its aftermath." Society is not being destroyed by moving away from religion. It i being destroyed by capitalism, corrupt political official, and the apathy of people mutilated by this machine they were born into unable to move past the struggle the society has created. "Today the world belongs only to the stupid, the insensitive and the agitated. Today the right to live and triumph is awarded on virtually the same basis as admission into an insane asylum: an inability to think, amorality, and nervous excitability." I would not say it only belongs to it but it is true the stupid, insensitive and agitated act in mass faster without hesitation and with much force behind their actions but this is nothing new. |
xEmptiness said: ModeratelyHuman said: I wouldn't consider any of the Abrahamic religions good moral guides. I consider Buddhism the most respectable and agreeable religion. The sooner such antiquated faiths are replaced with updated beliefs, the better. Buddhism is a spiritual guide more than anything. Like it or not, any man with a hint of psychology and possessing the virtue of self-honesty -- and metaphysics will be a bonus -- knows that Abrahamic religions do provide the most pragmatic moral code. Great Civilizations of the past that weren't Jewish, Christian or Islamic, still had a moral code akin to the one provided by these religions. One can have all scientific disagreements with Abrahamic faiths; but when it comes to 'morals', the most pragmatic, effective, and sensible morals are provided by these religions. I completely disagree. I'm not going to nit pick any of the moral commands, for the sake of time and effort I'm willing to put into this. What I find most disagreeable, is the fact that Abrahamic morality is not based off of the comprehension of right and wrong. But instead, motivated by punishment avoidance. Avoiding hell, and entering heaven. While never really explaining what good and evil is, why the laws of God should be followed, and why they are correct in any sort of meaningful way. Its less a moral code, and more of an authoritative dogma, that had the most pragmatic effect of controlling the masses during the ancient days, which fails to be completely relevant in this day and age. This rigid command structure, instead of having an open moral code, is what leads to scientific and logical scrutiny to lead to such huge disagreements with Abrahamic faiths to begin with. It's antiquated laws are designed for an antiquated society that is radical different to, and incompatible with modern civilization. Christianity and Judaism circumvent this by "modernizing" their religious texts through differerent interpretations, and outright discarding and ignorance of certain laws. But this attempt is barely successful at all, varying between different sects and individuals, more over leading to the watering down and destruction of what their religion stands for in the first place, leaving a meaningless, vague and blurry understanding of their faith. It just so happens that as of now, considering the cultural and social mess that civilization is in at the moment, a regression of beliefs to these traditional Abrahamic faiths will have a more beneficial effect, but not out of the right reasons. |
ModeratelyHumanJun 19, 2016 8:29 PM
ModeratelyHuman said: I completely disagree. I'm not going to nit pick any of the moral commands, for the sake of time and effort I'm willing to put into this. What I find most disagreeable, is the fact that Abrahamic morality is not based off of the comprehension of right and wrong. But instead, motivated by punishment avoidance. Avoiding hell, and entering heaven. While never really explaining what good and evil is, why the laws of God should be followed, and why they are correct in any sort of meaningful way. Its less a moral code, and more of an authoritative dogma, that had the most pragmatic effect of controlling the masses during the ancient days, which fails to be completely relevant in this day and age. This rigid command structure, instead of having an open moral code, is what leads to scientific and logical scrutiny to lead to such huge disagreements with Abrahamic faiths to begin with. It's antiquated laws are designed for an antiquated society that is radical different to, and incompatible with modern civilization. Christianity and Judaism circumvent this by "modernizing" their religious texts through differerent interpretations, and outright discarding and ignorance of certain laws. But this attempt is barely successful at all, varying between different sects and individuals, more over leading to the watering down and destruction of what their religion stands for in the first place, leaving a meaningless, vague and blurry understanding of their faith. It just so happens that as of now, considering the cultural and social mess that civilization is in at the moment, a regression of beliefs to these traditional Abrahamic faiths will have a more beneficial effect, but not out of the right reasons. That's a very easy misunderstanding to fix. Action A leads you to hell therefore it is bad. Action B leads you to heaven therefore it is good. The only question that yet remains is: But why should I avoid hell and seek heaven? The answer to that is: Because you're a believer of that doctrine; if you're not, the 'morality' of its principles doesn't concern you; but you are welcome to dissect them to see their practical benefits. An open moral code is not a moral code; it defies the use of the term 'code'. There are no logical inconsistencies within religion because if there were, religion would be senseless and hence incomprehensible but in reality, as it were, it's only either sense or simply nonsense. As for scientific inconsistencies, a lot of philosophical and theological arguments can be made for that and both sides will end up on an equal pedestal but that doesn't concern us. What concerns is only the practicability of the code these religions provide and on that front it seems these religions are winning. Exactly how, is something we can later delve into. @NeoVolt I'll see if I can find a pdf of that book. Thanks for the recommendation. |
| I find it hard to believe that order that was created supposedly of nothing has returned to nothing. The idea that morals have to be organized is preposterous for each kind of society has their own set of morals. Kinda like when you have self governing districts, a moral decision is the majority an amoral decision is the minority. If the majority believes that raping and pillaging in the name of god is moral then it is. The reason Rome fell was not because they lacked religious belief but because they succumbed to hedonism and not because they doubted their own morals but because if you are in the majority, there is no reason to doubt said morals. Well polytheism always has been vastly different than monotheism so Rome might not have been the best example. I do believe that morals are very vague things, that in older times were presented as a set of guidelines to the educated and absolute truth to the common folk. |
 |
xEmptiness said: The generation I belong to was born into a world where those with a brain as well as a heart couldn’t find any support. The destructive work of previous generations left us a world that offered no security in the religious sphere, no guidance in the moral sphere, and no tranquility in the political sphere. We were born into the midst of metaphysical anguish, moral anxiety and political disquiet. Inebriated with objective formulas, with the mere methods of reason and science, the generations that preceded us did away with the foundations of the Christian faith, for their biblical criticism – progressing from textual to mythological criticism – reduced the gospels and the earlier scriptures of the Jews to a doubtful heap of myths, legends and mere literature, while their scientific criticism gradually revealed the mistakes and ingenuous notions of the gospels’ primitive ‘science’. At the same time, the spirit of free inquiry brought all metaphysical problems out into the open, and with them all the religious problems that had to do with metaphysics. Drunk with a hazy notion they called ‘positivism’, these generations criticized all morality and scrutinized all rules of life, and all that remained from the clash of doctrines was the certainty of none of them and the grief over there being no certainty. A society so undisciplined in its cultural foundations could obviously not help but be a victim, politically, of its own chaos, and so we woke up to a world eager for social innovations, a world that gleefully pursued a freedom it didn’t grasp and a progress it had never defined. But while the sloppy criticism of our fathers bequeathed us the impossibility of being Christians, it didn’t bequeath us an acceptance of the impossibility; while it bequeathed us a disbelief in established moral codes, it didn’t bequeath us an indifference to morality and the rules for peaceful human coexistence; while it left the thorny problem of politics in doubt, it didn’t leave our minds unconcerned about how to solve it. Our fathers blithely wreaked destruction, for they lived in a time that was still informed by the solidity of the past. The very thing they destroyed was what gave strength to society and enabled them to destroy without noticing that the building was cracking. We inherited the destruction and its aftermath. Today the world belongs only to the stupid, the insensitive and the agitated. Today the right to live and triumph is awarded on virtually the same basis as admission into an insane asylum: an inability to think, amorality, and nervous excitability. -Excerpt from 'The Book of Disquiet' by Fernando Pessoa Thoughts? I think it pretty much nails it. I think it's a resentful diatribe from someone who can't accept the flow of time. Someone who would like nothing more than to be profound and insightful in his anguish. Correct me if I'm mistaken but I think most people in the world hold a religion. The man's a poet, nothing more. |
Autocrat said: I think it's a resentful diatribe from someone who can't accept the flow of time. Someone who would like nothing more than to be profound and insightful in his anguish. Correct me if I'm mistaken but I think most people in the world hold a religion. The man's a poet, nothing more. He's talking particularly about Europe and generally about the West where people have, by and large, driven away from religion and if people haven't then at least the societies have. And we're just random members of a forum. Doesn't discredit one thing we say. BokuNoHawky said: I find it hard to believe that order that was created supposedly of nothing has returned to nothing. The idea that morals have to be organized is preposterous for each kind of society has their own set of morals. Kinda like when you have self governing districts, a moral decision is the majority an amoral decision is the minority. If the majority believes that raping and pillaging in the name of god is moral then it is. The reason Rome fell was not because they lacked religious belief but because they succumbed to hedonism and not because they doubted their own morals but because if you are in the majority, there is no reason to doubt said morals. Well polytheism always has been vastly different than monotheism so Rome might not have been the best example. I do believe that morals are very vague things, that in older times were presented as a set of guidelines to the educated and absolute truth to the common folk. Morality, by definition, has to be organized; otherwise what you would call 'good' or 'bad' will be based on your whims, and surely no one trusts your whims (I do though -- you're a fellow MALer, you can't do anything). I think you need to reread your example of Romans. They indulged in hedonism and debauchery -- was that not 'going against their morals'? Abolishing a moral code and replacing it with nothing but uncertainty is as good as not following a moral code. |
xEmptiness said: Autocrat said: I think it's a resentful diatribe from someone who can't accept the flow of time. Someone who would like nothing more than to be profound and insightful in his anguish. Correct me if I'm mistaken but I think most people in the world hold a religion. The man's a poet, nothing more. He's talking particularly about Europe and generally about the West where people have, by and large, driven away from religion and if people haven't then at least the societies have. And we're just random members of a forum. Doesn't discredit one thing we say. BokuNoHawky said: I find it hard to believe that order that was created supposedly of nothing has returned to nothing. The idea that morals have to be organized is preposterous for each kind of society has their own set of morals. Kinda like when you have self governing districts, a moral decision is the majority an amoral decision is the minority. If the majority believes that raping and pillaging in the name of god is moral then it is. The reason Rome fell was not because they lacked religious belief but because they succumbed to hedonism and not because they doubted their own morals but because if you are in the majority, there is no reason to doubt said morals. Well polytheism always has been vastly different than monotheism so Rome might not have been the best example. I do believe that morals are very vague things, that in older times were presented as a set of guidelines to the educated and absolute truth to the common folk. Morality, by definition, has to be organized; otherwise what you would call 'good' or 'bad' will be based on your whims, and surely no one trusts your whims (I do though -- you're a fellow MALer, you can't do anything). I think you need to reread your example of Romans. They indulged in hedonism and debauchery -- was that not 'going against their morals'? Abolishing a moral code and replacing it with nothing but uncertainty is as good as not following a moral code. I was using that example because they themselves didn't think they were going against their morals, to them said Hedonism was just a way to pass the time. They had twisted their morals to their needs. That's why I was trying to shoe in the whole majority idea. I agree that it has to be organized but what I am saying is, it has always been organized. Because deterioration implies that there is something that can deteriorate which in this case is morals. Said deterioration implies that there was some great moral code that was skewed and obscured through generations, then when was this? When were we amazingly moral? |
|
Zeus- said: ModeratelyHuman said: lol, what's there to believe outside of old religions? there's nothing, really. I think what you actually mean is replace antiquated faiths with nothingI wouldn't consider any of the Abrahamic religions good moral guides. I consider Buddhism the most respectable and agreeable religion. The sooner such antiquated faiths are replaced with updated beliefs, the better. I do agree, that this generation is built upon a weak and undisciplined cultural foundation that lacks the proper education to make any kind of intelligent thought process and responsible decision making. Yet upon this we enter a new age of Renaissance, that is driven by ignorance, wonton selfish hedonism and shortsighted social degeneracy. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about the renaissance or not since I've seen people here say that the ignorance, hedonism and degeneracy is good, lmao It's good if you value yourself the most, there is nothing inherently wrong with following your desires it's only bad because it hinders others |
|
BokuNoHawky said: xEmptiness said: He's talking particularly about Europe and generally about the West where people have, by and large, driven away from religion and if people haven't then at least the societies have. And we're just random members of a forum. Doesn't discredit one thing we say. Morality, by definition, has to be organized; otherwise what you would call 'good' or 'bad' will be based on your whims, and surely no one trusts your whims (I do though -- you're a fellow MALer, you can't do anything). I think you need to reread your example of Romans. They indulged in hedonism and debauchery -- was that not 'going against their morals'? Abolishing a moral code and replacing it with nothing but uncertainty is as good as not following a moral code. I was using that example because they themselves didn't think they were going against their morals, to them said Hedonism was just a way to pass the time. They had twisted their morals to their needs. That's why I was trying to shoe in the whole majority idea. I agree that it has to be organized but what I am saying is, it has always been organized. Because deterioration implies that there is something that can deteriorate which in this case is morals. Said deterioration implies that there was some great moral code that was skewed and obscured through generations, then when was this? When were we amazingly moral? He's talking fanciful the author. His head is in the clouds. Interesting poetry is all he gave with this passage. |
xEmptiness said: ModeratelyHuman said: I completely disagree. I'm not going to nit pick any of the moral commands, for the sake of time and effort I'm willing to put into this. What I find most disagreeable, is the fact that Abrahamic morality is not based off of the comprehension of right and wrong. But instead, motivated by punishment avoidance. Avoiding hell, and entering heaven. While never really explaining what good and evil is, why the laws of God should be followed, and why they are correct in any sort of meaningful way. Its less a moral code, and more of an authoritative dogma, that had the most pragmatic effect of controlling the masses during the ancient days, which fails to be completely relevant in this day and age. This rigid command structure, instead of having an open moral code, is what leads to scientific and logical scrutiny to lead to such huge disagreements with Abrahamic faiths to begin with. It's antiquated laws are designed for an antiquated society that is radical different to, and incompatible with modern civilization. Christianity and Judaism circumvent this by "modernizing" their religious texts through differerent interpretations, and outright discarding and ignorance of certain laws. But this attempt is barely successful at all, varying between different sects and individuals, more over leading to the watering down and destruction of what their religion stands for in the first place, leaving a meaningless, vague and blurry understanding of their faith. It just so happens that as of now, considering the cultural and social mess that civilization is in at the moment, a regression of beliefs to these traditional Abrahamic faiths will have a more beneficial effect, but not out of the right reasons. That's a very easy misunderstanding to fix. Action A leads you to hell therefore it is bad. Action B leads you to heaven therefore it is good. The only question that yet remains is: But why should I avoid hell and seek heaven? The answer to that is: Because you're a believer of that doctrine. Then it's not a moral code anymore. It's just direction following, under the very basic and selfish desire of self preservation. An open moral code is not a moral code; it defies the use of the term 'code'. By this, I mean that most moral guides out their are too static and simplified to adequately meet every situation you come across. Nearly everything is permissible under the right situations. But in Abrahamic faiths, there are many rules that are absolute. |
Zeus- said: lol, what's there to believe outside of old religions? there's nothing, really. I think what you actually mean is replace antiquated faiths with nothing Are you referencing Buddhism or things in general? |
xEmptiness said: ModeratelyHuman said: I completely disagree. I'm not going to nit pick any of the moral commands, for the sake of time and effort I'm willing to put into this. What I find most disagreeable, is the fact that Abrahamic morality is not based off of the comprehension of right and wrong. But instead, motivated by punishment avoidance. Avoiding hell, and entering heaven. While never really explaining what good and evil is, why the laws of God should be followed, and why they are correct in any sort of meaningful way. Its less a moral code, and more of an authoritative dogma, that had the most pragmatic effect of controlling the masses during the ancient days, which fails to be completely relevant in this day and age. This rigid command structure, instead of having an open moral code, is what leads to scientific and logical scrutiny to lead to such huge disagreements with Abrahamic faiths to begin with. It's antiquated laws are designed for an antiquated society that is radical different to, and incompatible with modern civilization. Christianity and Judaism circumvent this by "modernizing" their religious texts through differerent interpretations, and outright discarding and ignorance of certain laws. But this attempt is barely successful at all, varying between different sects and individuals, more over leading to the watering down and destruction of what their religion stands for in the first place, leaving a meaningless, vague and blurry understanding of their faith. It just so happens that as of now, considering the cultural and social mess that civilization is in at the moment, a regression of beliefs to these traditional Abrahamic faiths will have a more beneficial effect, but not out of the right reasons. That's a very easy misunderstanding to fix. Action A leads you to hell therefore it is bad. Action B leads you to heaven therefore it is good. Actually, no. Because if a person were to commit both actions A and B then where would they end up? A and B don't have to be different choices in a situation. xEmptiness said: There are no logical inconsistencies within religion because if there were, religion would be senseless and hence incomprehensible but in reality, as it were, it's only either sense or simply nonsense. Are you saying that when anything has logical inconsistencies that it is incomprehensible, or are you only speaking for religion; and that furthermore, religion can't have logical inconsistencies? You've taken 30 words here to say nothing meaningful it seems. I think you need to define your word choices here. |
JustaCratJun 25, 2016 9:53 AM
Zeus- said: religions in general, if I'm understanding what you mean correctly if you're an atheist, there's nothing to believe, unless you count many atheists' belief in scientific studies without checking those studies' methodologies and verifying that those results are reproducible, lmao What I meant was the nothing other than religions. As an aside, I am an atheist and I believe in nihilism, not the idea itself but conclusion derived from it. If the world is inherently lacking in meaning and baseless then the meaning/base can be therefore further constructed by the predisposed condition of what separated us from animals. One of it is our desires for order; to counter chaos, and that's where laws was first conceived. The west bases their morals beyond their religion and set it around: Empathy, Freedom of Expressions and being nice to each other, I have not really spotted any severe moral failings so I am not sure where the contention lies. Psychology experiment? I assume you brought that up because psychology is science and morals in science can only be derived from psychology? If so, I will clarify, I don't base my morals around literal science, what I believe in Science is the facts and when atheists says they believe in Science instead of religion; one of their main points is that they believe in facts and not the mythology of Earth's existence. Speaking of moral codes and getting it from religion. What is the benefit of them? Is it to keep order? Is it for more happiness? More freedom of expressions? Meaning in life? The only conclusion I could get are the meaning of life and order, which do satisfy a few categories of what humans has been striving for but the nature of its antiquity can be detrimental to the progress (another of what humans are seeking to achieve) with it dating all the way back to the dark ages, for example, Steam Cell research in the USA, the teaching of evolution as a theory and facts that opposes what religion's holy texts said. As for religions that are vague enough to be interpreted either way, as long as it doesn't hinder the progress of humanity or stir up chaos, oppress individuals et cetera, it's good in my book. Accepting Atheism is harder than one might think, the inevitability of death and the incomprehensibility of the void is terrifying. |
Trolls_BaneJun 25, 2016 10:32 AM
ModeratelyHuman said: Then it's not a moral code anymore. It's just direction following, under the very basic and selfish desire of self preservation. What is a moral code to you? By this, I mean that most moral guides out their are too static and simplified to adequately meet every situation you come across. Nearly everything is permissible under the right situations. But in Abrahamic faiths, there are many rules that are absolute. I've had those thoughts in abundance some years back. Thinking that, 'this rule is too absolute; there are surely conditions where it cannot be obeyed'. And then I got down to thinking of those situations where those supposedly cannot be obeyed and it turned out I was wrong. They can be obeyed; they leave enough room. Enough to not make them impossible to follow, nor enough to make one rule contradict another (only speaking for Islam here ; not sure about Christianity but I conjecture it'd be the same). Autocrat said: Actually, no. Because if a person were to commit both actions A and B then where would they end up? A and B don't have to be different choices in a situation. Needlessly complicating the situation wouldn't negate the underlying structure. In a more complex situation we'll just be dealing with compounds. The choices may, accordingly, become (A + B) and C, and any of these can be moral. Are you saying that when anything has logical inconsistencies that it is incomprehensible, or are you only speaking for religion; and that furthermore, religion can't have logical inconsistencies? You've taken 30 words here to say nothing meaningful it seems. I think you need to define your word choices here. According to Wittgenstienian philosophy, yes. Religion, as I said before, either makes sense or it is nonsense. Nonsense is statements like, 'A God Exists'. The other 'logical inconsistencies' that you have in mind -- namely the omnipotence paradox and the likes -- are solvable through twists of language. All Abrahamic religion presuppose that God's nature is unintelligible. Any interpretation of God's nature is bound to be false so any twist of language can achieve the aim of debunking those 'inconsistencies'. The only one who is saying 'nothing' is you, sir. BokuNoHawky said: I was using that example because they themselves didn't think they were going against their morals, to them said Hedonism was just a way to pass the time. They had twisted their morals to their needs. That's why I was trying to shoe in the whole majority idea. I agree that it has to be organized but what I am saying is, it has always been organized. Because deterioration implies that there is something that can deteriorate which in this case is morals. Said deterioration implies that there was some great moral code that was skewed and obscured through generations, then when was this? When were we amazingly moral? When you go against your morals, to consciously think that you're going against your morals is the last thing you'll do. This whole example only strengthens the imperative that moral code shouldn't be challenged. If the moral code is challenged by an individual, then even though it is of no consequence, it is still drastic to the individual. If it is challenged by society as a whole (not actively but passively -- as in a slow decay of values) then it just destroys the society and leaves it vulnerable to foreign and inner corruption. The second paragraph of your post comes from a misunderstanding. This deterioration only implies that there was a moral code, which raised you to this level, being disobeyed. True that moralities have been replaced with one another often times in the past but if the superseding morality, too, outputted a great and prosperous Civilization then you'll do good in analyzing the differences between the new and the old morality; both will be the same. |
TranceJun 25, 2016 11:54 AM
Zeus- said: but the foundation of valuing empathy, freedom of expression and being nice to each other stems from Christian philosophy; the idea that since we are all special and equal in the eyes of a deity, we all have natural rights. without a supernatural being giving us more value than we are physically, how should value be derived for the foundation of those natural rights? there really is no universal way without a supernatural overseer/creator/force, because if you say the majority determines that value based on what they like, that simply is mob rule and subject to change if someone convinces enough people otherwise. a very shaky foundation for natural rights indeed. Actually, it's empathy, treat others the way you want to be treated, most people want to be treated equally. A lot of people in the Confederate army was Christian but they still want to enslave the African Americans. And the freedom of expression of West is typically attributed to 1st amendment which was instated so the colony won't be restricted to speak ideas like they were previously in Britain. Crediting it to Abrahamic religion isn't right. In Asia, they also value filial piety, strict morals as well, which also are derived from either Chinese philosopher and people in general but it is strict. Again, religion is spawned from the desire for order and the meaning of life so I cannot deny it is achieving what it is seeking to achieve but it still remain to be a hindrance in some cases. the benefit of moral codes from religion is the avoidance of what I described above: it forms an absolute, universal source of natural law that people can refer to. by believing they are subject to the judgement of a divine, all-seeing force and not simply the majority's judgement, they have no beneficial choice if they are self-interested but to follow that morality. this ensures a society's moral stability as long as people believe in the religion, and the religion also gives meaning of life and happiness as well, like you listed. by having all these things provided by said religion, it frees up the society to do other things that are more productive, instead of having a significantly depressed, significantly suicidal populace who spend vast amounts of time wondering about what's moral or not. it just makes more sense for a society's efficiency and stability and helps it survive. People can be affected by other people's judgement and that of the law. There exist a lot of people who believe in God but are still criminals and killers so you can't say the divine being's absolute can stop people from doing what they want with their own ways to interpret a holy text, such as everything that happened in the dark ages, ISIS, Hitler killing Jews and justifying it with Catholic doctrine. Objective morality will give Order but so will empathy and care for other human beings and how many people will interpret the text the way it should be when there are people who are Christian camps that says the Bible hates gay and another saying they love gays. Holy texts can be interpreted in a lot of ways by people's emotions because there are a lot of inherent contradictions as well so to say it present an objective morality is false. Of course, I am not negating the positive aspects it gives but things like empathy obtain the same, if not better results. I will grant that it's stupid how it restrict things like Stem cell research, but this isn't universal across all religions; for example, China follows Confucian ancestor worship and they have no problem with stem cell research and other moral problems with science that Christianity does have. Cannot quite agree that China does Confucian ancestor worship, more idolisation, coupled with its communism influences and various other sort of Chinese philosophy, it is more of an Atheistic country with a little mixture of the belief in cosmic justice. I'm agnostic because it's impossible to know with 100% certainty that there are no gods. I'm just aware of the social benefits that religion brings. even atheist Roman leaders in the past wrote about the value of the Imperial Cult despite their personal disbelief Of course, I cannot deny the social benefits that religion has brought, in fact, religion is a natural stage of humanity's progression. Humans cannot accept the inevitable conclusion of nihilism and therefore seek comfort and meaning in a supreme being, that is perfectly normal in human's stage of evolution. As said, I don't find problems in religion that doesn't do the following; hinder progress of humanity or stir up chaos, oppress individuals. as for the void and death, it's not such a big deal. I think it was Socrates who said death is nothing to fear because you'll either experience a dreamless sleep or a good afterlife. after all, Hell as we know it was a Catholic invention A dream always involved waking up, I did live in that delusion for a good long while but the epiphany that dawned upon me is that I will never wake up. |
xEmptiness said: Needlessly complicating the situation wouldn't negate the underlying structure. In a more complex situation we'll just be dealing with compounds. The choices may, accordingly, become (A + B) and C, and any of these can be moral. I paid particular attention to your word choice "needlessly." Funny. That was a needless little jab there. So you're saying that when the good outweighs the bad then that person would go to heaven, and vice versa? If we ignore the metaphysical assumption that some God is judging our moves, this becomes unquanitfiable. This is no moral system. The Abrahamic morality is just a system of deterrence to put off people doing bad things. It is just punishment avoidance. Autocrat said: Are you saying that when anything has logical inconsistencies that it is incomprehensible, or are you only speaking for religion; and that furthermore, religion can't have logical inconsistencies? You've taken 30 words here to say nothing meaningful it seems. I think you need to define your word choices here. xEmptiness said: According to Wittgenstienian philosophy, yes. Religion, as I said before, either makes sense or it is nonsense. Nonsense is statements like, 'A God Exists'. The other 'logical inconsistencies' that you have in mind -- namely the omnipotence paradox and the likes -- are solvable through twists of language. All Abrahamic religion presuppose that God's nature is unintelligible. Any interpretation of God's nature is bound to be false so any twist of language can achieve the aim of debunking those 'inconsistencies'. All metaphysics is nonsense at the very least. I agree that Abrahamic religions may not be able to have logical inconsistencies in their claims about their God. It may have them in other regards, though. But you can't generalize that to every deistic religion, and furthermore any and all religions as they may not presuppose that God's nature is unintelligible if they have a God in their religion. xEmptiness said: The only one who is saying 'nothing' is you, sir. You do like your little jabs, don't you? If you were more accurate in what you were saying then you could have spoken more sense. I hardly said "nothing". I had to ask for clarification on your generalizations! xEmptiness said: When you go against your morals, to consciously think that you're going against your morals is the last thing you'll do. This is a random assumption. I beg to differ. |
JustaCratJun 25, 2016 12:28 PM
| This topic usually gets way too heated for some people since it involves spirituality/morality and Judeo-Christian beliefs. So as an aside, here's the first first Congressional Prayer in 1774. O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen. Reverend Jacob Duché Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m. Fact of the matter is we were a much more disciplined peoples in this nation (the US at least). |
Autocrat said: I paid particular attention to your word choice "needlessly." Funny. That was a needless little jab there. So you're saying that when the good outweighs the bad then that person would go to heaven, and vice versa? If we ignore the metaphysical assumption that some God is judging our moves, this becomes unquanitfiable. This is no moral system. The Abrahamic morality is just a system of deterrence to put off people doing bad things. It is just punishment avoidance. If we're considering Islam alone, then good outweighing the bad isn't the sufficient condition (nothing is). But really, what do you aim to achieve by ignoring that metaphysical assumption? the entire discussion depends on that. Autocrat said: All metaphysics is nonsense at the very least. I agree that Abrahamic religions may not be able to have logical inconsistencies in their claims about their God. It may have them in other regards, though. But you can't generalize that to every deistic religion, and furthermore any and all religions as they may not presuppose that God's nature is unintelligible if they have a God in their religion. Begin from the third post in this thread and affirm that this discussion really only concerns Abrahamic religions. You do like your little jabs, don't you? If you were more accurate in what you were saying then you could have spoken more sense. I hardly said "nothing". I had to ask for clarification on your generalizations! None of those were generalizations. They were simply 'conclusions'. This is a random assumption. I beg to differ. You can differ here but a foreword: you will achieve nothing from it i.e you will not debunk my argument because it doesn't rest on that. |
xEmptiness said: If we're considering Islam alone, then good outweighing the bad isn't the sufficient condition (nothing is). But really, what do you aim to achieve by ignoring that metaphysical assumption? the entire discussion depends on that. I'm not assuming for a second here that God is morally meriting our actions. We were talking about the practicalities of Abrahamic morality as a moral system. That means no metaphysical nonsense as a prerequisite. xEmptiness said: Begin from the third post in this thread and affirm that this discussion really only concerns Abrahamic religions. Top tip by the way. "Confirm" is a better word choice here. :) xEmptiness said: None of those were generalizations. And no, they were. xEmptiness said: You can differ here but a foreword: you will achieve nothing from it i.e you will not debunk my argument because it doesn't rest on that. It's not an argument, merely an opinion you have. This is the point. |
JustaCratJun 25, 2016 1:21 PM
Autocrat said: I'm not assuming for a second here that God is morally meriting our actions. We were talking about the practicalities of Abrahamic morality as a moral system. That means no metaphysical nonsense as a prerequisite. Then why are you bringing heaven and hell in this discussion? Actually, why are you even bringing the notions of 'good' and 'bad' here? If practicality of this moral code concerns you, then make a comment on how such practice doesn't achieve the desired outcome. No, they were. Ok. Happy now? It's not an argument, merely an opinion you have. This is the point. That's my point? You're debunking the opinion. And that is not part of my argument. Hence the 'you will achieve nothing from it'. |
| Once I again, it seems the wrong points are being argued. I'm just going to point that out. More unnecessary polarization. Whether one advocates a return to the Victorian moral set or not (I, for one, don't), one should still acknowledge the validity and significance of asking the question: what does the loss of socially reinforced objective morality mean? We are seeing a rise relativism and moral apathy. Progress isn't a constant. There may have been good drivers behind the rejection of the Victorian Moral Set. But nothing has taken it's place. Meaning that there is no established social reinforcement of personal responsibility. Whatever you believe, this is significant. Also, I want to bring up religion and practicality. Modern religions are products of significant cultural evolution and shouldn't be dismissed just because modern religious cultures tend to be rife with internal inconsistencies. Just because the culture doesn't conform to reason, doesn't mean the belief system is completely unreasonable. Consider bacon. Seriously. "Pork is unclean," is a belief of both Islam and Judaism. And as delicious as it is, that shit is VERY unclean. Considering modern butchering techniques and modern understanding of bacteria, viruses, etc...we eat pork with reckless abandon. But thousands of years ago, declaring it unclean represents a very practical moral imperative. And to a certain extent is still applicable today (along with beef, linked to increased risk of cancer). But there are religious people who eat beef today and not pork. Which doesn't make as much sense. But that is a problem with religious culture. Religious cultures tend to be very dogmatic. But if we try to establish the maxim of "Pork is unclean" it really is just "Don't Die." Which is very pragmatic. Another problem with religious culture is that it tends to push hyper-monism. As such it generally doesn't engage in this^ kind of rational interpretation. I'll get around to the point. There are tons of problems with religious culture and because of this, there is a widespread, and totally irrational, automatic rejection of everything tagged "religious." Reasonable people should be able to evaluate the merits of a moral structure/belief system without bias. Unfortunately, there seems to be highly prevalent, unrecognized, ad hominem against religion floating around. religion =/= religious culture I'm not arguing for religion. I avoid practicing it myself. I just so often see that the arguments against it aren't valid because of the above referenced fallacy. Meaning that a religious cultures interpretation of their own religion doesn't have to be the only interpretation. Also, ultimately, individual religions can be considered subjective interpretations of an objective god (however inaccurate they may be). So responding to the problems with religious culture by completely rejecting the possibility of the existence of an objective god is highly irrational. Not saying god exists or anything. Just saying that atheism rests on an unproved absolute just as much as most religions do. |
| yes op is a genius i agree with him he is correct |
 hiSets Last FM Anime List Manga List Clue no. 2: Somewhere in one of the pictures in my forum signature. |
| Back when Unit 731 was running, Hitler was gassing Jews and Pol Pot killed a third of a country the world wasn't corrupt and belonged tot he cruel? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Deviants, alcoholic, junkies, gays, pedos, perverts, humanists, "omniscient" ateists, liberals, "equality-fighters", trashes whithout goals, rioting minorities, racemixers, and pathetic petty bourgeois. That's what the XXI. century and it's generation gave the world. |
 |
| @Zeus- This is interesting because you are saying the philosopher's claims of these values is a direct result of what is said in the Holy Bible. Yes, they do believe in a God but how many of their moral derivations are as a direct result of what is said in the Bible? I have said of the many interpretations people have of what the Bible means, the Ancient Greece's religions were of many Gods but they still follow philosophy like stoicism and platoism more, the basis of morals is still built upon that of their own thoughts rather than the direct influences of what God said in the Bible considering it's vaugeness as well. The main point of the Confederates analogy is that they might believe in the Bible but they interpet it differently, the different interpetation doesn't allow for an objective morality. I haven't found much information on Google regarding "Confederates and illteracy of Bible" so I can't take that at face value yet considering it to be an important facet of the point, this also doesn't negate how there are clearly educated politicians in the Confederates who want to secess from the USA and believe black people should be enslaved. This already show how there are people that can interpet it no matter in spite of what is written in the text. And regarding Nazi Germany's Hitler who also failed to notice that Jesus was Jewish and what is clearly written about the Jews being the holy people of God. Calling it warp and the authority figure's presence to interpet it isn't being specfic on why it is so, no, not all ideas are suspectible to being warped because some ideas are specific on it's purpose, like stoicism, which is literally to be stoic and devote yourself of emotions and no negativity can be added to it for it to fit anybody's narrative. Things in religion are easier to warped because it is often vague as said many times and as demonstrated by many things that has happened due to religion. And the world is not following the religious morals more, rather they are evolving the principals that are working and abandoning those that are not, extreme punishments was dished out for sexual acts, clearly we don't do that anymore. There was also one text in the bible that says people shouldn't eat shellfish (It is in the same text in leviticus; the one that condemns homosexuality and people condemn homosexuality more than they stopping themselves from eating shellfish). How many Christians actually follow that the same way Muslims are following not eating pork? Religious morals are not objective in different culture standard and the foundation is easy to mold to suit different people's narrative at that time. About empathy, and controlling education seems ludicrous because the main point of that is for empathy to be advocated so it can replace the absurd morality of religion, it is better to have something that is tangible like relating with other people and the laws that we have now which is instated to keep order then to follow the primitive morality from all the way back then. China does practice ancestor worship but not the same way people in the west worship their Gods and follow specific set of ideas the theology advocates, more of what Ancient Greece did so what filled it up the moral spectrum is a mixture of Chinese philosophy and the belief in cosmic justice. |
| Nah, the world and its inhabitants are the same as ever. Humans have always been utter garbage; the cancer of this world. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
| @NeoVolt Right on! Even in this thread where we began with discussing the practicability of Abrahamic morality, we ended up with discussing the goodness of that morality. People are just insecure about their beliefs and stances; which is why they shut off any discussion that goes against their beliefs. The trademark question of every insecure atheist, so you're saying a God is judging me?!, can also be seen here. The only reason why people cannot analyze other's beliefs objectively is because they're not sure of their own. TheBrainintheJar said: Back when Unit 731 was running, Hitler was gassing Jews and Pol Pot killed a third of a country the world wasn't corrupt and belonged tot he cruel? That's not the point of this thread. And frankly, no one even said that. |
xEmptiness said: @NeoVolt Right on! Even in this thread where we began with discussing the practicability of Abrahamic morality, we ended up with discussing the goodness of that morality. People are just insecure about their beliefs and stances; which is why they shut off any discussion that goes against their beliefs. The trademark question of every insecure atheist, so you're saying a God is judging me?!, can also be seen here. The only reason why people cannot analyze other's beliefs objectively is because they're not sure of their own. TheBrainintheJar said: Back when Unit 731 was running, Hitler was gassing Jews and Pol Pot killed a third of a country the world wasn't corrupt and belonged tot he cruel? That's not the point of this thread. And frankly, no one even said that. It is. If you go on and on how the world is more terrible now than it was before, then what era do you compare it to? I'm not saying the situation isn't bad, but now we ignore people and cage them schools. That's a slight improvement over conducting vivsections without anesthetic. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Morality goes hand in hand with a sound reasoning. Abrahamic religions builds their morals on shaky grounds of faith. Faith based morality is a failure. It lacks the ability to convince those outside a religion and faith is something that always wavers at least briefly even in the most devout. Abrahmaic Religions lacks the sound reasoning needed to convince people to be truly moral. |
TheBrainintheJar said: It is. If you go on and on how the world is more terrible now than it was before, then what era do you compare it to? I'm not saying the situation isn't bad, but now we ignore people and cage them schools. That's a slight improvement over conducting vivsections without anesthetic. Whether it is terrible or not comes later. What we're concerned with is simply the uncertainty which exists for the sake of existing. You can, very easily, dismiss comparison with past ages by bringing up wars and whatnot because they've been recorded and so are in front of everyone but that wouldn't change the fact that the world, as it is now, seems to be heading nowhere. traed said: Morality goes hand in hand with a sound reasoning. Pure reason or practical reason? The latter is impossible, the former leaves room for all kinds of morality. Abrahamic religions builds their morals on shaky grounds of faith. Faith based morality is a failure. It lacks the ability to convince those outside a religion and faith is something that always wavers at least briefly even in the most devout. Abrahmaic Religions lacks the sound reasoning needed to convince people to be truly moral. Faith is the only absolute ground. The morality of a religion simply doesn't apply to individuals outside that religion; the relationship of a religion and disbelievers is that of convincing each other that I am right. What you are saying is comparable to: "I don't accept United States' constitution because I live in Pakistan''. Of course you don't. Your 'argument' only answers the question 'Do you accept such-and-such moral code?', not the question, 'Is such moral code moral in nature or not?'. |
xEmptiness said: Pure reason or practical reason? The latter is impossible, the former leaves room for all kinds of morality. Religion leaves room for all kinds of morality because there is all kinds of religions and all kinds of branches within those religions. I'm not going by things Kant said. I don't like how his moral system is inflexible with things like never tell a lie even to someone who wants to find someone to kill them because they will kill them anyway. When I say sound reasoning I mean something that takes into account as much facts as possible and creates an argument that is in line with those facts as a whole rather than basing on only individual facts. This is because we live in a real world not a hypothetical world where only individual factors are present. If multiple morals are present and equal in how good their reasoning is one saying something is moral another says something is immoral then you can simply say it is amoral till a better reasoning comes around. xEmptiness said: Faith is the only absolute ground. The morality of a religion simply doesn't apply to individuals outside that religion; the relationship of a religion and disbelievers is that of convincing each other that I am right. If that were true everyone in a religion who is faithful would be the utmost perfect example of morality .....and they aren't. We even have faithful cults and terrorist organizations but their faith does not make their morals correct. Also every religion has different sects believing in different morals which I already said. Morals based on faith leave nothing but more questions "Is this really what God meant?" "Why would God want this?" "Am I even following the right religion? " "Is there even a God?" "If I don't know if there is a God or if I am following the right religion, how do I know this is moral? " xEmptiness said: What you are saying is comparable to: "I don't accept United States' constitution because I live in Pakistan''. Of course you don't. Your 'argument' only answers the question 'Do you accept such-and-such moral code?', not the question, 'Is such moral code moral in nature or not?'. You're missing the point. I am saying a moral code based on factual things rather than unproven things would be convincing to much more people and can not be doubted if its reasoning is better than all others countering it. |
| Damn this passage seems quite cynical. Or was this entire book filled with cynicism? |
| @traed You''re again mixing up stuff. Let's take Judaism, for an instance. Its morality is not based on faith; it's based on Torah and what that says. Whether one accepts Torah or not, that's where 'faith' comes in. And even after faith, perfect obedience is impossible for a man for faith doesn't linger on in the mind 24/7 (which is why every religion has the concept of 'worshiping' -- that serves as reminder of one's faith in his religion). Also every religion has different sects believing in different morals which I already said. Morals based on faith leave nothing but more questions And so believers of every sect have faith in their own version of doctrine. What argument are you making? The problem you're having consists in this: You are looking for a religion that cannot be disputed -- or rather not disputed but one that no one can disobey. "Is this really what God meant?" - Look in the book. "Why would God want this?" - Because he's God. Why would you not want to follow it? "Am I even following the right religion? " - Then why are you following one? "Is there even a God?" - For God's sake we began with the supposition that you have faith otherwise this discussion is pointless and your questioning of a certain morality is pointless. "If I don't know if there is a God or if I am following the right religion, how do I know this is moral? " - Because you have a brain and if you utilize even 10% of it you'll see the error in your thinking. You're missing the point. I am saying a moral code based on factual things rather than unproven things would be convincing to much more people and can not be doubted if its reasoning is better than all others countering it. You are again trying to create an ideal system which no one can dispute, or disobey, and confusing such an ideal system with the notion of 'objective morality'. Tachii said: Damn this passage seems quite cynical. Or was this entire book filled with cynicism? More or less. But it's not just cynicism. It's more than that. I'd say it's a must-read for everyone. Especially anyone who considers himself 'insightful'. |
| @xEmptiness I'm not mixing anything up. You just choose to misrepresent my points. Basing morality on something that is based on faith is still basing it on faith unless it actually gives a real argument instead of "this old book said god said so". You actually just supported how I am right. If a persons morals is based on something like the Torah then they have no thought process to actually support the morals within beyond the faith and obedience in that faith. A person who does something because it is right is more moral than a person who does something because they were told so when they know it is not right and more moral than someone who does something because they are afraid of hell or trying to get into heaven. If you never question why something is moral or immoral then you have no way to know if it truly is moral or immoral. You just keep spouting your usual moral relativism crap. Moral relativism is no different than having no moral at all because any person of any moral can create its own group. So all you have is individuals doing their own thing while grouping with like minded people. We dont live in a closed system and these different groups come in contact with eachother. Lets say one group says murder is moral, another says murder is immoral. The group that says murder is moral murders someone in the group that says it is immoral. Was it moral or immoral? |
| @traed Torah is not based on faith. It's a book which is based on something-something -- *Magic*. >If you never question why something is moral or immoral then you have no way to know if it truly is moral or immoral. You question that before adopting a doctrine lmao Not after adopting it. It's this simple to understand traed.... you aren't even traeeeenng! |
xEmptiness said: That joke is bad, and you should feel bad. It's this simple to understand traed.... you aren't even traeeeenng! xEmptiness said: Insightful on?More or less. But it's not just cynicism. It's more than that. I'd say it's a must-read for everyone. Especially anyone who considers himself 'insightful'. |
 |
| You have to have faith in a holy book and the God mentioned in such holy book in order to believe the basis of the morals because this basis is an unproven thing, God. Sure a person could follow a religions morals without believing in it, for example Thomas Jefferson's bible took out all the supernatural elements of Christianity but kept all the morals, but this is usually backed by a faith in the morals themselves and ones own feelings rather than reasoning behind morals. Both a religious and non religious person can come up with reasoning behind morals. I did not suggest that religion makes a person entirely incapable of doing so but a religious person would be less likely to question morals on how moral they really are so they are more likely to be immoral. They will more likely use confirmation bias no matter how wrong something is to others. You're basically saying a person should never change religions or moral codes. It is good to be consistent but it is moronic ignore new information that was not around when making the original choice or seeing flaw to the original logic. In many cases it is not even a choice as people are born and raised into religions. You keep talking about objective morals when talking about moral relativism. The two are incompatible with eachother. You can't have both. |
More topics from this board
» Are you a deep sleeperST63LTH - 6 hours ago |
13 |
by H-A-M-M-Y
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» whats your shoe size ?sussybakagirl420 - Mar 22 |
30 |
by ST63LTH
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Over the years, I began to be repulsed by pork, is there any explanation for this?Absurdo_N - Mar 26 |
30 |
by H-A-M-M-Y
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Worst social mediaIpreferEcchi - Mar 19 |
34 |
by ST63LTH
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
47 |
by ST63LTH
»»
8 minutes ago |