Religious debate (split from main board)

#1,101
#1,101
IPorange said:
No. I suppose many will disagree with this, but there is NOT some universal morality. Different cultures on this world have different morals and ethics.

Is Murder unacceptable in every culture? Maybe, but the definition of what IS a murder definitely varies.

There are certain concepts that are analogous across cultures, but that is because they are social constructs necessary to live cooperatively with other human beings.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just started going back over the board and a saw this. And pretty strongly disagree.

First, even if different cultures operated under different moral systems, it would not say that there is not a universal morality. To argue that it does is akin to arguing that since different cultures have different epistemologies that one is not universally correct. Just because it is not embraced does not make something less than fact.

Second, you talk about how all cultures say it is wrong to murder, but that they have different conceptions of murdering. That is an epistemic difference, not a moral difference. We can look at the history of morality concerning murder and pretty clearly say that it is tied to a conception of the 'other' as an equal being fully deserving of rights. All cultures say that "if X is a full human being, the same as I am in all relevant criteria, then I cannot wrongfully kill them". The epistemic problem of recognizing the other as fully human is the basis of our moral disagreements in this realm. That doesn't mean that the moral principle is relative.

Third, to argue that they are necessary is not to argue that they aren't objective. The ability to use language is also necessary for culture, but that doesn't make it a post hoc societal construct. Don't let your teleology influence your ontology.

My view is that certain basic moral principles are universal and objective. Not murdering is one of these. The differences we find between cultures are ones of a) epistemic issues (i.e., not recognizing certain truths about the world), or b) further extrapolations from these general moral precepts.

I noticed that you may have confused ethics and morals in your post - or, at least, you conflated the two. In my view, ethics are particular applications of general moral principles. Ethics are subjective and relative (duh! we have business ethics, sports ethics, academic ethics, medical ethics, etc. And nobody believes that it is impossible to construct a culture or group with diverse ethical codings).

Sorry for the tangent. You may now return to what you were doing. That is all.
 
#1,102
#1,102
Snakes on a Wii said:
An action can be ethical on two levels (and more if we get into the second level deeper). It's ethical on the first level if the results are good (it stops, alleviates, or prevents suffering). They are then ethical on the second level if the motivation for the act is good. For example, a person who goes to help in Haiti is committing a good act, but if that person were going to help because they wanted to look like a good person, then they are committing that act for an amoral or immoral reason, depending on taste.

Torture, for example, is a highly unethical act because it involves inflicting intense suffering. But if it led to saving peoples' lives, some would argue that it is worth it. But that only makes the motivations good. The act itself is still bad.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be the ethics police, but I disagree with this too. Your first example is utilitarianism. Your second example is an interpretation of deontological principles. These aren't two levels of morality, but are two competing schools of thought that place the locus of moral acts on different levels.
 
#1,104
#1,104
BeecherVol said:
You need to help the Skipper get that boat patched up.
Click to expand...

I'm enjoying being stranded. And, us over-educated liberal elitist intellectual types aren't much for doing manual labor. Hell, we never learned anything about the real world anyway...we have just become really good at bull****ting. Right?
 
#1,105
#1,105
turambar85 said:
I'm enjoying being stranded. And, us over-educated liberal elitist intellectual types aren't much for doing manual labor. Hell, we never learned anything about the real world anyway...we have just become really good at bull****ting. Right?
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:

Nice Post.:good!: Funniest thing I have seen in several pages.

I enjoy the exchanges.
 
#1,106
#1,106
turambar85 said:
I'm enjoying being stranded. And, us over-educated liberal elitist intellectual types aren't much for doing manual labor. Hell, we never learned anything about the real world anyway...we have just become really good at bull****ting. Right?
Click to expand...

O' the irony!
 
#1,110
#1,110
turambar85 said:
Ah...I get it. Since reason has failed you in explaining/comprehending why it was ironic, you'll now say it is a matter of faith? Is that the different level?
Click to expand...

Ha ha! No thats not the different level, besides you well educated guys should be able to figure it out without explanation.
 
#1,111
#1,111
Come on guys - I am open-minded. Convince me that there is a reason for believing: a) in god, b) in the christian god, c) that there isn't a contradiction in saying that religion is based on faith while mocking and condemning non-believers and other-believers, and d) that there are problems with evolution.
 
#1,112
#1,112
turambar85 said:
Come on guys - I am open-minded. Convince me that there is a reason for believing: a) in god, b) in the christian god, c) that there isn't a contradiction in saying that religion is based on faith while mocking and condemning non-believers and other-believers, and d) that there are problems with evolution.
Click to expand...

You've got it all backwards. You have to convince yourself.
 
#1,113
#1,113
Oldvol75 said:
You've got it all backwards. You have to convince yourself.
Click to expand...

Interesting copout. Why are you in a religious debate forum if you believe that words can't help someone understand anything about religious truths (or falsehoods)?

And, if that is your understanding...if you truly have removed religion from the marketplace of ideas, then you have erased your ability to criticize or condemn religious ideas. You can't honestly call atheists, scientologists, Muslims, or pagans strange or insane.
 
#1,114
#1,114
turambar85 said:
Interesting copout. Why are you in a religious debate forum if you believe that words can't help someone understand anything about religious truths (or falsehoods)?

And, if that is your understanding...if you truly have removed religion from the marketplace of ideas, then you have erased your ability to criticize or condemn religious ideas. You can't honestly call atheists, scientologists, Muslims, or pagans strange or insane.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it you that stated that you were once going into the ministry? If that is indeed true, then you had atleast seeds that had been sown in rocky soil. You said that you had came close, if thats true, then you need need to look to yourself. Its obvious that from what all that has been said in this thread all you are really interested in comfirming your faith.

If what you say is true, no harm, no foul, but if your wrong, well you know.

Besides, we can't change what the Bible says or teaches so you will be happy.
 
#1,115
#1,115
Oldvol75 said:
Wasn't it you that stated that you were once going into the ministry? If that is indeed true, then you had atleast seeds that had been sown in rocky soil. You said that you had came close, if thats true, then you need need to look to yourself. Its obvious that from what all that has been said in this thread all you are really interested in comfirming your faith.

If what you say is true, no harm, no foul, but if your wrong, well you know.

Besides, we can't change what the Bible says or teaches so you will be happy.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was me. I was doing it without having thought about it - I just did what I was used to. I was taught to believe so strongly that the idea that there wasn't a god, or that other religions may be true was foreign to me. So, my experience says nothing. Once I had the taboo broken, and gave it some thought, I realized the error of my ways.

And, no. I'm not only interested in confirming my faith - also, I don't have faith. Please, learn how to give evidence for your views instead of simply stating them - show me why that is true of me and not of you. I enjoy arguing. I enjoy it because it helps me reach truth, and because it is fun. If I am proven wrong, so be it. But, it isn't simply confirmation - I feel like I learn something from interacting with other people and ideas.
 
#1,116
#1,116
turambar85 said:
Interesting copout. Why are you in a religious debate forum if you believe that words can't help someone understand anything about religious truths (or falsehoods)?

And, if that is your understanding...if you truly have removed religion from the marketplace of ideas, then you have erased your ability to criticize or condemn religious ideas. You can't honestly call atheists, scientologists, Muslims, or pagans strange or insane.
Click to expand...

You have enough information to chew on, and think about, just from our exchanges.
 
#1,117
#1,117
BeecherVol said:
You have enough information to chew on, and think about, just from our exchanges.
Click to expand...

I chew fast. I prefer to nibble on a lot of different things. Feed me.

I learn from interacting with other people, not from simply thinking about what I've heard said. If I learned any other way, I wouldn't be here. I would read a book. After all, there are many books written by smarter people than you or I. They just don't do me that much good.
 
#1,118
#1,118
turambar85 said:
Yes, that was me. I was doing it without having thought about it - I just did what I was used to. I was taught to believe so strongly that the idea that there wasn't a god, or that other religions may be true was foreign to me. So, my experience says nothing. Once I had the taboo broken, and gave it some thought, I realized the error of my ways.

And, no. I'm not only interested in confirming my faith - also, I don't have faith. Please, learn how to give evidence for your views instead of simply stating them - show me why that is true of me and not of you. I enjoy arguing. I enjoy it because it helps me reach truth, and because it is fun. If I am proven wrong, so be it. But, it isn't simply confirmation - I feel like I learn something from interacting with other people and ideas.
Click to expand...

Really?

Explain.
 
#1,119
#1,119
turambar85 said:
Yes, that was me. I was doing it without having thought about it - I just did what I was used to. I was taught to believe so strongly that the idea that there wasn't a god, or that other religions may be true was foreign to me. So, my experience says nothing. Once I had the taboo broken, and gave it some thought, I realized the error of my ways.

And, no. I'm not only interested in confirming my faith - also, I don't have faith. Please, learn how to give evidence for your views instead of simply stating them - show me why that is true of me and not of you. I enjoy arguing. I enjoy it because it helps me reach truth, and because it is fun. If I am proven wrong, so be it. But, it isn't simply confirmation - I feel like I learn something from interacting with other people and ideas.
Click to expand...

What kind of evidence could I possibly give you? Its the evidence of things not seen that you don't understand. Its also the thing that you say you don't believe the most in and that is faith. Its obivious that God himself gave you a sign once, you embraced it for a short time, the let it go. If you wouldn't take it from Him, you won't take it from me.
 
#1,120
#1,120
BeecherVol said:
Really?

Explain.
Click to expand...

Well, its pretty easy. People have different histories than I do. They've held different ideas. I can experience those, in an active setting. But, even if the people don't offer much intellectually, I can learn from myself from seeing what I come up with, and how I interact with the ideas available. I can learn what you think, and more about what I think.

I'm lazy. I could feasibly get as much out of a book, but I have a fun time arguing, so I can get myself to really interact with a discussion. I can get myself to push around the ideas and see where they go. With a book, I just read around and move on.
 
#1,121
#1,121
Oldvol75 said:
What kind of evidence could I possibly give you? Its the evidence of things not seen that you don't understand. Its also the thing that you say you don't believe the most in and that is faith. Its obivious that God himself gave you a sign once, you embraced it for a short time, the let it go. If you wouldn't take it from Him, you won't take it from me.
Click to expand...

That's obvious? My experience is proof? Really? Wow. So, the religious experiences of the billions of non-christians proves their religions too. I am literally surrounded by scores of mutually incompatible true religions now! How do I choose?!??!!

Come on. Thats so intellectually lazy OV. It is a just-so story that my experience was of god. Nothing more.
 
#1,122
#1,122
Oldvol75 said:
What kind of evidence could I possibly give you? Its the evidence of things not seen that you don't understand. Its also the thing that you say you don't believe the most in and that is faith. Its obivious that God himself gave you a sign once, you embraced it for a short time, the let it go. If you wouldn't take it from Him, you won't take it from me.
Click to expand...

And, contrary to your suggestion, I don't disbelieve in faith...whatever that would mean. I just think it is hollow. Meaningless. All faith is attached to reason, it is pushed off the ground by reason, and supported by reasons. Nobody lives on pure faith, and this diluted faith of the natural theologians and evangelicals is just irrelevant and pointless. Any faith mixed with reason is a faith attached to and dependent on reason. What that leaves is people just being intellectually lazy and creating arbitrary points at which they cease to look and search for truth.
 
#1,123
#1,123
turambar85 said:
And, contrary to your suggestion, I don't disbelieve in faith...whatever that would mean. I just think it is hollow. Meaningless. All faith is attached to reason, it is pushed off the ground by reason, and supported by reasons. Nobody lives on pure faith, and this diluted faith of the natural theologians and evangelicals is just irrelevant and pointless. Any faith mixed with reason is a faith attached to and dependent on reason. What that leaves is people just being intellectually lazy and creating arbitrary points at which they cease to look and search for truth.
Click to expand...

Are you substituting reason for evidence?
 
#1,124
#1,124
Religious people who don't attach reason to their beliefs are also religious people who don't criticize others for their beliefs. Those, despite being further from myself in logical values, are the ones I respect the most. They're the most consistent and coherent ... and the least hypocritical.
 
#1,125
#1,125
turambar85 said:
That's obvious? My experience is proof? Really? Wow. So, the religious experiences of the billions of non-christians proves their religions too. I am literally surrounded by scores of mutually incompatible true religions now! How do I choose?!??!!

Come on. Thats so intellectually lazy OV. It is a just-so story that my experience was of god. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

What kind of ministry were you going into then? Was it not the Christian ministry? Or were you thinking about being a Muslim or Buddist minister? If it was the Christian ministry, then your post makes no sense.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top