What God Would Say

Discussion in 'Religion' started by davidelkins, Oct 19, 2016.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    I don't agree because for me it is not a matter of choice. It is not that I choose not to accept anything else: I simply can't. I can give it lip service but no more.
    I could certainly be brainwashed to accepting and believing something else, but that would again not be a choice as I would end up believing whatever I was brainwashed into thinking.
    But hey, if you know me so well as to be know how my mind works, feel free to say so and I'll just let you get on talking to yourself, okay? Otherwise please refrain from claiming to know the mind of others. Discuss what they say, not what you think they say or why you think they are saying it. Can you do that?
    I am glad that such things are so easy for you, and that you see them as a simple matter of choice. For me they are not. But I look forward to you choosing to be an atheist in more than simple lip service. You honestly and genuinely think you could do that?
    Where did I say that it was easy? Maybe you confuse the maxim being a simple linguistic construct with the practical application of that maxim being simple?
    So you believe.
    And as soon as you don't accept God you will become aware of it not being there. Hey ho. And so the circles begin.
    This is certainly one version of what it means to be honourable. There are others.

    But to return to baldeee's point: of what value is the command from God to "Be Honorable" when it is done anyway.
    Are religious people only honourable because of that command?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You say you can't accept anything else?
    What else could you possibly accept?

    How would you know you are being brainwashed?
    Maybe you are being brainwashed.

    I don't claim to know how your mind works. Sorry if it it comes across like that, from one individual to another.

    Where did I say it was easy, let alone easy for me?

    ''Atheist'' is precisely nothing more than a word that loosely describes someone position with regard to Theos (GOD). If it is anything more, please explain. If I am theist or atheist, it is not because I choose to be. It stems from my fundamental principles. If I commit adultery, but still believe in God, then I am being athiestic (in the true sense). I may even believe in God, without being consciously aware of such a belief. It is far more complex than you give it credit.

    The only way you could know that is if I tell you, or you accept it on the basis of your fundamental principles. Either way, you believe your analysis.

    We are talking about fundamentals. From them you may draw conclusions, and form arguments, they themselves are not the subject of scrutiny.

    The only way to get a true answer is to ask each and every single religious person.

    jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Until I accept it, I couldn't say.
    Maybe we all are. I would not know whether I was brainwashed or not until after the event of no longer being so. But ones knowledge of it is an irrelevancy as long as we are talking about "what is" rather than merely what one is aware of.
    Then simply quit telling me/people that they are wrong (which you do through contradiction) when you do not know.
    I was being flippant.
    For purposes of this exchange and my use thereof: Atheist: one who lacks belief in the existence of God.
    You do know that the original comments you are discussing were in relation to davidelkins' claim that belief in the existence of God is a choice? Are you really sure you want to agree with me that it is not a choice?
    No, you are not being atheistic in the true sense, unless you lack that core belief in the existence of God. You may not be a true adherent of any number of religions that have "do not commit adultery" as a supposed God-given command, but sinning against a religion and being atheistic are different issues. Please do not equivocate.
    I have neither given credit not taken it away. The issue in question is one of whether one chooses to believe in the existence of God or not. You originally seemed to imply not, even going so far as to indicate a method as to how one can choose differently, and yet you then say it is not a matter of choice.
    I believe my analysis of what you believe in this regard is true, yes, since you have told me... as soon as you issue it as a claim of truth it becomes identified as something you believe.
    What exactly do you consider to be a "fundamental" in this regard? And why do you consider them to be exempt from scrutiny?
    Not quite true. One merely needs to find a single instance of a religious person who is honourable but not because it was commanded by God.
    This would be sufficient to thus answer the question with "No".[/quote][/quote]
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Because believers are not content, unless they impose their beliefs in others.

    To wit:
     
  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    So there is nothing outside of what you accept?

    That's your opinion, which is based on your particular fundamental principles, namely that you cannot accept God, outside of your range.

    Please point out where I have told you, or anyone else, that they are wrong. Plus may I remind you that this is a discussion forum, and we are bound to have differences of opinions.
    I noticed you bracketed through contradiction, which I suspect is to couch your statement in the lap of ambiguity and obscurity.

    Define existence?

    Firstly let me reiterate: Theist and atheist are simply words, like thirsty, not thirsty, perplexed, not perplexed. They are not the positions themselves.

    I cannot speak for davidelkins, but here is a quote...

    Belief in God is a choice. You either choose to believe in Him or not. I chose to believe in Him. It's that simple. I have to start by knowing something. It's like in mathematics. If you are not willing to agree that 1 + 1 = 2, then how are you to build thousands of complex proofs?

    From what I can comprehend, belief in God is choice, because he accepts God, regardless of belief.

    ''Existence'' doesn't really come into it (unless you only accept existence as the reality of God. Then that brings into question of what existence.
    A theist doesn't ponder on whether or not God exists, as God is the ultimate of everything. Again a fundamental principle based on the acceptance of God.
    What do you regard as ''belief in God'', as opposed to accepting that God is? I asked this because you seem to think that the definition of ''atheist'' or ''atheistic'' is actually what you think it is, as opposed to loose description about ones position regarding Theos.

    These are principles which we derive from our fundamental principles, and are only loosely connected to religion. How many religious leaders are guilty of committing adultery, directly going against their own teachings, and the scriptural injunctions? Hence it isn't a religious tenet, but a spiritual one. To be atheistic is to forget God (from a theist perspective). To committ adultery can be the result of a whim, or the result of desire, or any other number of reasons. But the reasons will be selfish, and as such God would be out of the picture (even for that moment).

    The pyramids of Egypt, were actually built point down 3 million years ago. 2 million years ago a bloke named Bob slaved night and day, eventually turning them upside down.

    Already said.

    jan.
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    You're conflating atheism with killing people. The fact that most atheists have the same values as most religious people indicates that those values have nothing to do with religion.
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    I am and I do.

    My point was that humans know that, generally, it's a bad idea to kill other humans. Every man's death diminishes me, as John Donne said. Killing members of my own colony reduces my chances of survival. We don't need a God to tell us that.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    There is plenty outside of what I accept, both true and not. I can not say what of it I will accept until I accept it. Hopefully it will coincide with what is true.
    That is not one of my fundamental principles. It might seem to you to derive from what you might deem mine to be, but it is not in and of itself one.
    On the contrary it is to provide clarity over how you effectively claim "you're wrong". If someone gives their opinion and you then claim that it is something different then you are de facto claiming the person to be wrong.
    And yes, discussions do lead to disparate views, but please express your views with less certainty of fact than you usually do.
    Having objective reality.
    While atheist can be used as a direct adjective, it is actually a noun. It is a label. It is different in that regard to the adjectives you example. The adjective is "atheistic".
    But irrespective of that, to respond to your point: so what?
    You really should follow up on all subsequent posts if you intend to respond to posts between others:

    DE: "Sarkus, when I say that I believe in God, I mean that I believe that He exists, that He is Perfect and that I should worship Him."
    It is that definition of "Belief in God" that was being discussed.

    I specifically asked DE to define what he meant by "belief in God", he responded (as per above) and I am using that as the basis for my raponses to him.
    If you want to take the usage of the terms differently and equivocate between the usages then that is up to you, but I won't be playing, thanks.
    I am using DE's definition of what he considered it to be.
    At its heart it is a very specific description about a very specific position one holds: lack of belief in the existence of God.
    All rather irrelevant to the discussion, Jan: this is not a thread for you to hijack and once again spin into the mire while on your personal crusade regarding the use of the term "atheist".
    Tone and context, Jan.
    Where? I must have missed it. I'm not being facetious: I genuinely do not see where you have answered these questions:
    What do you consider to a "fundamental" in this regard, and why do you consider them to be exempt from scrutiny?
     
  12. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    No, I merely gave examples to what societies with no God can turn easily, to challenge your premise that "we could figured out with no religion" and your statement that "there isnt Natural Selection used in any societies", the point being; from where we have got our moral values, "to be honorable", I will argue that without religions it wouldnt be possible.
     
  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Other animals appear to have morals, ergo, they must also have religion.
     
  14. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    Care to give an example?
     
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
  16. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    "Rowland naturally agrees that humans possess a moral consciousness that no animal can rival, but he argues that it is not necessary for an individual to have the ability to reflect on his or her motives to be moral. Animals can't do all that we can do, but they can act on the basis of some moral reasons--basic moral reasons involving concern for others. And when they do this, they are doing just what we do when we act on the basis of these reasons: They are acting morally."
    http://rowlands.philospot.com/index.php?m=10&y=12&d=17&story=story121017-181720

    Certainly interesting reading, complex subject matter. But is it really the kind morality what we are discussing then, if one isnt aware why one is doing something, that sounds automaton. I bet we are not witnessing animal to do good with no selfintresting motive behind it any time soon, example man giving charity while nobody knowing it. I think there is big difference there.

    "In his well-argued book that blends philosophical inquiry with empirical data, Mark Rowlands argues that animals can and sometimes do act for moral reasons. I couldn't agree more. People with varying interests will find this book to be a welcomed addition to their required reading list. Despite having been long interested in the moral lives of animals, I learned a lot from this wide-ranging book."--Marc Bekoff, University of Colorado, Boulder, author (with Jessica Pierce) of Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals

    "Rowlands carves out a space where animals can act for moral reasons without being as self-reflective (or self-congratulatory) as humans sometimes are. With clear-headed thinking, he maps out the terrain where ethics, philosophy of mind, and cognitive ethology meet. This book will be an indispensable to everyone concerned about justifying moral respect for animals."--Colin Allen, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana Universit"
    http://rowlands.philospot.com/index.php?m=10&y=12&d=17&story=story121017-181720


    That doesnt prove anything as far I can tell, from my point of view thats the way God created them, we, on the otherhand are self-reflective and that put us in the position that we have to decide what is moral thing to do, or, get our morals from outside, and around we go, to the starting point of this discussion.
     
  17. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    First; actually it will at first probably increase your chance to survival, more everything to you, but there is a point when it comes counterproductive, and again we come to starting point, where do we draw the line and why? Just look at headlines of any given day, or our violence filled history.
    Second; ofcourse we dont need anymore anybody to tell us that, but my guestion is how did we arrive to that point, I dont think it is just coincidence that Nations without God have been utter failures.
     
  18. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    So, you're saying you just choose not to believe.
     
  19. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    To not believe in what exactly? That animals are acting in the same framework of morality than we are? I think I explained my position on that.?. Or are you suggesting that they are? I think you are now over simplifying subject matter.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2016
  20. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Humans can perceive reality better than other animals because of bigger brains. That still doesn't mean other animals don't have morals.
     
  21. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    Bigger brains relativity their body size, thats why for example raven is more intelligent than dog, on the otherhand in dog you can see far more easier morality than in raven because of conditioning, selfserving morality, so the brainsize isnt factor in this one.
    I think I already explained the difference of the morality in animals vs humans, and didnt deny that there is morality in animals but it is selfserving, not self-reflecting.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2016
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Perhaps, but you're missing the connection.

    Nations that deign to tell their population what they shall or shall not believe in, in the privacy of their spritiual lives, are not going to go over well with the population.
     
  23. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    You only said: Because God made them (animals) that way. You also said that societies need religion/God to have morality in order to survive.

    If other animals can have their societies because of morality without religion or God, why do we need those things? Why would some stupid God need to create humans different just to worship him?
     

Share This Page