Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stryke 9 on August 06, 2002, 09:46:29 pm
-
Nietzche once said "God is dead". He was full of it, wasn't he? However, the question still remains; is there a higher existence, that created this one? What is he/she/it/they like? Does whatever God there is out there really wanna hear us talking about how great he is, when we don't know anything about it, and complaining to Him/whatever about how we aren't getting any, have pimples, a dead grandparent, etc.?
I personally have my reservations about believing in a deity who seems so utterly irrational and even malevolent as the Jewish and Christian ones, and, due to lack of really helpful materials, don't feel I have enough information about any other religions but Taoism to be able to dismiss or accept them. For some reason, I just find it unlikely that literature that recommends essentially drinking mercury to live forever is all that reliable on much else. The Islamic one seems just about the same as the Christian and Judaic, and just the same spiteful sort that, even if it did exist, I wouldn't worship out of principle.
However, since it doesn't seem a topic that anyone really CAN know anything about, I don't completely disregard any of these possibilities. After all, the idea that the Universe once could fit on the head of a pin, and despite a lack of any outside forces, one day just exploded and became this one seems to me quite as improbable as manna falling from heaven.
Your turn. Is there a God? What kind? What do you believe in, and why?
Anyone who says that they won't answer because this is something unknowable, or explains their beliefs with something like "I just have faith, in spite of logic", is a cop-out and will be beaten senseless with a goat.
-
nope
-
Okay, this won't be closed right away, but I've put it on the highest HAMCON level possible. Anyone screws up, offends anyone, or start off one of the paths that we ran down oh so often on these last two months, and it's 0wnagE time.
-
No god, nothing, and the higher reality that forms the substratum of this one is a synthetic all-encompassing scientific theory. God is indeed dead. :D
Anyone who says that they won't answer because this is something unknowable, or explains their beliefs with something like "I just have faith, in spite of logic", is a cop-out and will be beaten senseless with a goat.
:D :lol:
-
I do believe in God, though in what form or nature or even number I can only guess.
Interesting how region has evolved. Many powerful exotic gods(Egyptians) to many humanlike gods (Greeks or Romans) to one powerful God (the big three)
Science covers only the logical area of the human brain. It does NOT cover the emotional or spiritual part. That only religion will explain.
Religion and creation is one of the most difficult ares of understanding for us humans. A challenge.
Oh, and CP, no offense but could you please not put a happy smilie after saying God is indeed dead.
-
what about emotion do you think is bond science to explain, "spirit" is the same thing as emotion, only fear will make you insist on it being some majical nonunderstandable thing that'll let you live forever
and God is not dead, something that doesn't exsist can't die
-
I choose not to believe in a god(or group there of) because 1: It's so illogical and irrational to believe (in christianity's case) in an invisible man that lives in the clouds and whatches your every move. and 2: No one in recoreded history has ever proved one way or another that there is or isn't a god(or group there of). I simply go about my day to day life ignoring the people that choose to live their life by a book. And I know all you religious people are thinking "He's going to hell.", we'll just find out when that day comes, woun't we? I live in the south where religion is very, very common and i've thought about my actions and choices quite a bit, but I wouldn't change a thing about the way I think or live.
I've got quite a few theories on religion, and it's beginings...I doubt most of you are prepaired to hear them with a truely open mind.
And as Manson said so well: "...I'm not a slave to a god that dosen't exist..."
EDIT so not to offend anybody: If you chose to be religious, go right ahead. I'm not gonna stop you.
Nietczhe f***in RULES!!
-
Taoism kicks ass.
But anyway. Say that the universe is infinite and timless. Then eventually, due to the very simple laws of probability, there will come a point when there is a God and a point when God dies. Simple as that.
-
Given, God is not dead, but is again taking a new form to us.
The notion of an all powerful being(s)ended (somewhat) long ago. Right now until some brilliant philosipher makes a a contribution, who we are remains a mystery and will remain a mystery. You could think up a hundred theories. Ex. God is a collective shadow of our souls. And that could be true. Philosiphy has much more to discover than science ever will.
-
But anyway. Say that the universe is infinite and timless. Then eventually, due to the very simple laws of probability, there will come a point when there is a God and a point when God dies. Simple as that.
But then one could also argue that there will be a time when god both exists and does not exist simultaneously (which is logically contradictory), and there will also be a time for any other conceivable event, even, say, such as a vasudan taking a terran head out of a headz box, putting it on a nearby kitchen counter, talking to it and walking away. :D :D
Science covers only the logical area of the human brain. It does NOT cover the emotional or spiritual part. That only religion will explain.
They're the same thing though; the universe is one big system, and nothing can be completely seperated from anything else. As Hegel said, the truth is the whole, and thus the final theory must have everything in it.
Oh, and CP, no offense but could you please not put a happy smilie after saying God is indeed dead.
I will remove it if any more people say to, but I actually dropped it in there so as to be less offensive. Although it is something to be jubiliant about anyway were it true.
Philosiphy has much more to discover than science ever will.
The two are the same thing; heck, physics was originally called natural philosophy. The job of science is to cover everything. Although I am planning to go into both mathematics and philosophy later on. :D
-
1.When did God become controlled by quantum mechanics?
There are a thousand to interpret something, as shown from these arguments.
2. Correct. I was wrong in some respects.
3. Ok, sorry, took it the wrong way.
-
1.When did God become controlled by quantum mechanics?
He doesn't have to be, but then we must find a new theory that can also explain his actions along with everything else. ;)
3. Ok, sorry, took it the wrong way.
No problem.
I'm off to do my usual gaming now; let's see if this thread is still open when I return. :D
-
I to believe there is a god, ( higher order ) The power begins from within, and it doesen`t bother me that some people do not believe, heck even my brother does not believe in god or the devil, but I still love him just the same..
-
Just noticed that I passed 3000 posts; yes! :D
it doesen`t bother me that some people do not believe, heck even my brother does not believe in god or the devil, but I still love him just the same..
That certainly makes sense. :nod:
-
This is obviously a sensitive topic (especially nowadays), and I do have something to add to this conversation about God, the Universe and everything.
But first, I gotta go out for a smoke. :D
We all know to behave ourselves here or else Admin will own the topic and close it (and if anyone should misbehave, Admin will be right to do so). Here's hoping the topic will still be open when I get back. :)
And I promise to keep my religious hangups out of this thread when I do speak. (Translation: I'm NOT going to rant about the Catholic Church!) :D
After all, this is a philosophical discussion, not a religious or political one, so I'm going to speak my comments accordingly.
-
How about we continue this from where that last 1000+ post topic left off? :D ;7 (or on second though maybe not; it was getting somewhat repetitive later on)
-
I'm surprized this thread isn't 0wnx0red by now...
Oh and CP, I agree(although I dont remember that thread[don't tell me about it]).
-
Wanna know what god is to the science world? Just something people beleave in so they wont kill themselves. A method, if you will, to keep the masses in line. Thats religion summed up.
-
Wanna know what god is to the science world? Just something people beleave in so they wont kill themselves. A method, if you will, to keep the masses in line. Thats religion summed up.
Exactly. :yes: It has now begun to fade away, while the morals will probably remain for a bit longer.
Oh and CP, I agree(although I dont remember that thread[don't tell me about it]).
You can find out about it here: (click at your own risk :D)
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,7527.0.html
-
Vadar: actually, a good deal of your most famous scientists believed devoutly in a God, and as a group atheism seems to run no higher than in any other category. Due to the mechanics of faith, it's fairly easy to reconcile belief in a God with belief in the fact that if you drop something over a source of gravity, it will fall, and discard anything on either side that doesn't mesh. I mean, people talk about how evolution is a fraud, yes, but we also threw out the idea that the Sun orbits the Earth, because generally few people can find a way to believe in either one and still have their religious/scientific worldview function.
Actually what Nietzche meant by that supposedly comes out to more of a "God is irrelevant nowadays, and we don't need him". Of course, the context he wrote it in makes no sense, and if you read the book he said it in, he sounds more like he's just trying to shock the easily shocked than like he's actually being meaningful.
Oh, and given that the Universe is infinite (which it seems to be), than all that is indeed possible. However, it's not likely that if there is an immortal being (if whatever it is IS immortal), it will eventually die, same as it's unlikely that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (or any other physical constant) will change. Physics is NOT philosophy, by the way; science is an examination, with the implements we have, of how the components of the Universe work in order to expand that which we know; philosophy is the way of, by sheer reasoning, putting what we know together to form a coherent picture.
Styxx: Anyone who is so easily offended as to be shocked that others have different beliefs and ideas of their own has no business in a thread that involves thought, and should have better sense than to show up here. Same with trolls that just wanna insult people's ideologies. In fact, both are such repulsive sorts that they're not worth taking into consideration; I don't see why they can't be just recognized for the distasteful types that they are and ignored. If we can't have the occasional thread where people can discuss things that are truly significant in life, than this OT forum is absolutely worthless and should be deleted. There's very little redeeming value to the 500th word game or movie criticism on this forum- they're all the same, and I think somehting different is what is needed right now.
-
morality will and should remain for the life humanity, it's good for holding a socal code, wich improves the chances of the majority of people surviving and promotes improvement on many diferent levels,
if you removed the morality code from humans our race would stagnate disintigrate and die off. with out morality our ancestors never even would survived.
thus the moral code is an important evolutionary survival stratigy
now by morality I am refering to the natural sence of right and wrong, any sence of god or afterlife are mearly constructs added to reinforce it or use it to controle people,
you are born with the knowlege that it is wrong to kill someone, to steal from someone, to cause pain, this all refers to people who are part of you're socal groupe, and there is an inate sence to grant a level of morality to people who have no hostility to you.
there are also other instincts involved wich revolve around wether something is in the same socal groupe as you, and thus deserving of some level of humane treatment, when ever someone has tried to denigrate another groupe of people they are always cast as beeing less than human, when they clearly are, the reason that this sort of thing ever works is becase we have a built in sense of Us and Them
I'm too tierd to continue this right now
-
Physics is NOT philosophy, by the way; science is an examination, with the implements we have, of how the components of the Universe work in order to expand that which we know; philosophy is the way of, by sheer reasoning, putting what we know together to form a coherent picture.
Uh, yes it is. This "sheer reasoning" is also required in much of modern physics, just like mathematics, since experimentation is no longer possible in some areas. (e.g. we cannot really examine black holes; their existence and properties follow from the math) In fact, all arbritrary subdivisions of knowledge are essentially various parts of philosophy.
morality will and should remain for the life humanity, it's good for holding a socal code, wich improves the chances of the majority of people surviving and promotes improvement on many diferent levels,
if you removed the morality code from humans our race would stagnate disintigrate and die off. with out morality our ancestors never even would survived.
thus the moral code is an important evolutionary survival stratigy
It will die off as well after a while; remember that the governments are the new gods and the laws are the new morals, and the system thus keeps constantly evolving. At this point, the morality still needs to be there to some extent, but I can definitely see a time in which ethical values will have become as irrelevant as ritualistic religion is about to become.
-
I suppose so; however, a good deal of the quantum-mechanics theorizing on the nature of time and space seems to me to be science in name only. There is a definite line, but the two rely heavily on each other and sometimes they get confused.
-
no it's one of those pre programed things like crying when you are a baby and are hungery, or wanting to get layed, the religous setup (God will burn you in hell if you do\don't do this) will fade away (the sooner the beter), but the instinctual behavour will remain strong (shareing, helping, not killing)
basicly people will be nice to people they like
I don't see that going away any time soon
things you do to be nice are good
people will be mean to people they dislike (rivals, people who have been mean to them)
I don't see that going away any time soon ether
things you do to be mean or to please you're self at the expense of others (typicaly people you don't like) are bad
people will try not to make more enemies
you will be nice to people you don't have any reason to dislike (ignorance can become a reason)
-
THat's not an entirely religious thing, anyway. Total bastards don't get too far in life, generally. Neither do extremely nice people. So, by natural selection, society tends towards the middle. Works in people as well as anything else.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Styxx: Anyone who is so easily offended as to be shocked that others have different beliefs and ideas of their own has no business in a thread that involves thought, and should have better sense than to show up here. Same with trolls that just wanna insult people's ideologies. In fact, both are such repulsive sorts that they're not worth taking into consideration; I don't see why they can't be just recognized for the distasteful types that they are and ignored. If we can't have the occasional thread where people can discuss things that are truly significant in life, than this OT forum is absolutely worthless and should be deleted. There's very little redeeming value to the 500th word game or movie criticism on this forum- they're all the same, and I think somehting different is what is needed right now.
Indeed, that makes sense - it doesn't stop, though, the "trolls" from starting to try to offend people, and people to try to offend them back in response. Such topics have a tendency to go that way, and even if we allow and encourage this discussion, we won't let it degenerate into a flame war.
Just a warning.
-
no it's one of those pre programed things like crying when you are a baby and are hungery, or wanting to get layed, the religous setup (God will burn you in hell if you do\don't do this) will fade away (the sooner the beter), but the instinctual behavour will remain strong (shareing, helping, not killing)
Nah, instinctual behavior dictates complete anarchy, and the original primordial man only had his own survival in mind. Morals came up as societies and groups started to cohese, and these were the first laws. Over the millennia, they have been ingrained into the minds of the people like a religion, but they will only retain it as long as it beneficial to the society; once the concept of individuality starts to fade, morals will go along with it.
I suppose so; however, a good deal of the quantum-mechanics theorizing on the nature of time and space seems to me to be science in name only. There is a definite line, but the two rely heavily on each other and sometimes they get confused.
It's still accepted as science though and fits all the criteria for science. Once science has completed its investigation and analysis of the experimentable world, it will work on the same questions that philosophy does today.
-
people have been liveing in tribes and such for milions of years, humans are socal animals, like most primates swiming in our part of the gene pool
-
Humans are only social when there is something to be gained for the survival of the individual; even before the tribes, they were just like the jungle animals today.
-
That's not necessarily true. People, and indeed all animals, are hardwired to protect their species (and, particularly, their genetic strain) first, and themselves second. You can see examples of this sort of thing everywhere; it's what's called self-sacrifice, and it has no real benefit for the individual. It just furthers the individual's descendants.
-
While that may be true, if the animal has to make a choice between their own survival and the survival of the species, they will choose the former without a moment of hesitation. (there are cases where this is not true, but most of the human-related species have this type of behavior) For example, if there are two monkeys that are both a bit hungry, and if only one has a banana, the other will try to take it from him, and this is just what the old human was like. The modern human, in the mainstream at least, will need to be really driven to desperation before he does something "morally wrong," because the years of cultural influence will have finely embedded the ideas into his mind and created a tough foundation there. (this is exactly the same way religion works)
-
cimpansese are socal too, they have a similar socal behavor, as do gorilas, most monkes generaly have some level of socal behavor,
also can you list one population of humans that do not live in a famly\socal gorupe
-
I'm not saying that they are not social at all; what I am saying is that they are not moral in the sense we think of today. Morality can only stem from the early progress of knowledge.
Frankly, people that claim that religion is all irrational but strictly adhere to morals in the same manner are being very inconsistent.
-
in a socal environment you need rules, and you need a sence of right and wrong, if you don't you're socity won't last very long.
morality stems from empathy, wich is an emotion, you feel bad if you do something that you wouldn't want to be done to you
-
That only applies to the system of today and will probably change in the future. Like I said, the laws are the new form of morality if you think about it. Morality is fine, but only as a means to keep society running; for most people today it has become an end in itself regardless of religion, and that is just as bad (if not worse) as the religion. It should be kept in mind that for about half the situations it has no application whatsoever.
-
At the risk of being vulgar...
Christianity: How was the Universe created?
Science: I don't know.
Christianity: Well in that case it was obviously conjured up in seven days by a big man in the sky.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of th VBB
At the risk of being vulgar...
Christianity: How was the Universe created?
Science: I don't know.
Christianity: Well in that case it was obviously conjured up in seven days by a big man in the sky.
Science: The universe was created through the big bang theory, where all the gasses condensed into an area smaller then photon, exploded, shooting out hydrogen, and various other gasses into the known universe. Slowly but surely, these gasses started to pull together under each others gravity, and form condensed clusters of gas, known as nebulas. These nebulas then continued to form around gravitational spikes to form stars. Eventually, these stars exploded under the weight of their own gravity, and various other elements formed through these explosions. These free-floating elements started attracting to each other through magnetic fields and the gravity from each particle, and eventually as the peices grew larger and larger, planets formed. Carbon was one of these elements, and the carbom formed amino (sp)? chains, that ultimately evolved into life.
Christianity: It all makes sense now
-
so true... :D :lol:
-
Evolution seems to promote a moral society once it becomes advanced, as an immoral one will destroy itself.
Religion was prevalent when life was difficult and a reason to hope was needed. That's one explanation about religion.
And to anyone who says that a powerful man flying above in the clouds is impossible so therefore God is, you're assuming that God is a life form or matter you can touch.
All the religions I have seen teach morals or themes but do not teach the purpose or true nature of the universe. My opinion is that was left for us to figure out.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
so true... :D :lol:
i don't think so
Originally posted by vadar_1
Wanna know what god is to the science world? Just something people beleave in so they wont kill themselves. A method, if you will, to keep the masses in line. Thats religion summed up.
that may have been the case during the Spanish Inquisition, but how does religion 'keep the masses in line' now!?
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
All the religions I have seen teach morals or themes but do not teach the purpose or true nature of the universe. My opinion is that was left for us to figure out.
Buddhism does... I'm not Buddhist, but i know to an extend Buddhism teaches that man was created to live in harmony with nature, so they almost become "one" with nature.
i don't know if that was what you were talking about
CP, you probably don't know what you're talking about... do you believe in the Bible? (just curious)
It will die off as well after a while; remember that the governments are the new gods and the laws are the new morals, and the system thus keeps constantly evolving. At this point, the morality still needs to be there to some extent, but I can definitely see a time in which ethical values will have become as irrelevant as ritualistic religion is about to become.
I disagree... there were governments even when Jesus was on the earth, and yet religion was still strong! so, is it dying REALLLLYYYY slowly? (like over thousands of years) !?
-
Evolution seems to promote a moral society once it becomes advanced, as an immoral one will destroy itself.
That is true for the first couple of major social eras, but does not have to hold for later time periods. As I said before, the laws are the next generation of morals, and a new systems will come up later on. Also, you need to make a distinction between morals for the sake of a social good, and being actively conscious that the only reason that you don't constantly kill everyone around you is because other paths of action lead to logical contradictions, not because it is the "right" thing to do or a book tells you to.
Religion was prevalent when life was difficult and a reason to hope was needed. That's one explanation about religion.
That is certainly one of the sub-reasons, but another, possibly more important one is that something was needed to enforce the emerging laws as societies started to form, since a civilization will collapse without an orderly system of law. The god was the police force of the world and performed both of its functions: god protected people from the "outside world," thus giving them the sense of safety and hope you talked of, and god also punished those people who went against the laws. The morals we see so finely embedded in the minds of people today are merely the first laws of our civilization. The other major reason for the formation and acceptance of religion is that of the scientific explanation, but I won't get into that just yet.
And to anyone who says that a powerful man flying above in the clouds is impossible so therefore God is, you're assuming that God is a life form or matter you can touch.
If we get into a perceptual mode of thought, anything basically goes. I mentioned this in that old thread several times but never got a response (probably because there can be none): tell me why the god is more likely to exist than a purple ghost dragon who rules the universe.
All the religions I have seen teach morals or themes but do not teach the purpose or true nature of the universe. My opinion is that was left for us to figure out.
But in that case the religions are not too useful, because the morals and themes will follow directly once we learn the true nature of reality, and they will be very difficult, if not impossible, to determine without knowing the latter.
I disagree... there were governments even when Jesus was on the earth, and yet religion was still strong! so, is it dying REALLLLYYYY slowly? (like over thousands of years) !?
Of course it is occurring over tens of thousands of years; almost all such social phenomena go on in a subtle manner like this. We are now approaching the climax of our morality system, at which point the distinctions between the morals will form. (this can already be seen today: the Palestinian terrorists truly think they are doing the morally right thing, and so do the Israelis, but this is only the beginning) Also, Christianity is definitely not among the older religions; some others like Judaism and Hinduism go back several thousand more years, and so it is not really a good case to use for that argument. The governments back then were strong only because they knew how to manipulate religion into the people's minds.
CP, you probably don't know what you're talking about... do you believe in the Bible? (just curious)
I think you can tell the answer to that from my postings. :D
In the end, it all boils down to this:
or explains their beliefs with something like "I just have faith, in spite of logic"
It is perfectly fine to go by this, but then don't expect to be able to argue it out with total nuts like me. :D :D
-
you don't believe in it? oh, ok...
why not though... curious
-
Well, I do not like to believe in anything because that skews the ability to logically think, rather I assume certain things; the difference is that the believer will continue to believe if/when a contradiction is shown, while the assumer will drop the assumption immediately in the same situation.
The closest thing I could be said to believe in is something like this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521588073/qid=1028759685/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3895834-5120044). A bit outdated, but a totally awesome book. :D About the only thing it's missing is generalized hypgeom functions (appell, meijer G, etc.), but that's not such a big deal considering the other stuff in it.
-
*sigh* I'm afraid I don't have the time to read this still relatively small thread (considering the topic). And besides, the majority of you know me and my beliefs, and those who dan't can ask those who do. I'll just let off with saying this: If there is a God, and if there truly are negative consequences for denail/rejection/etc, I'd rather be safe than sorry. And if/when the "Judgement Day" comes around, I'm gonna be mighty sorry that the majority of you guys won't "pass", so to speak - I've truly enjoyed our discussions and coversations on these boards. :nod:
That's about as logical as I'm gonna get this late at night, sorry if I've disappointed anyone. :)
-
My take on the universe, life, and everything? I really don't care. If something happens, it happens. There probably is a god - or gods - responsible for creating the world, because it had to come from something, right? I have a close friend who's a celtic polytheist. I really don't care, though, because there is no wrong answer. If something happens, let it happen.
-
I'm gonna be mighty sorry that the majority of you guys won't "pass", so to speak
But then I will go to hell and I will learn things that the heaven guys never get a chance to. ;7
I've truly enjoyed our discussions and coversations on these boards.
Same here; my ideas have definitely become more sharpened due to the arguments here, and I think all of us are for the better from it. :)
My take on the universe, life, and everything? I really don't care. If something happens, it happens. There probably is a god - or gods - responsible for creating the world, because it had to come from something, right?
Well, there are a good number of equally plausible theories out there that do not require a god. I also have a slightly fatalistic view of things when it comes to the big picture (i.e. humans cannot do much to dramatically change the course of the universe), but knowledge is the final objective anyway, and it can be shown so for the entire species as well; in the famous words of Hilbert, "We must know. We shall know."
-
Originally posted by CP5670
But then I will go to hell and I will learn things that the heaven guys never get a chance to. ;7
Now I know why I like you, CP.;) :cool: :D :nod:
-
:D :D
-
You ever hear of: "Heaven for the weather, Hell for the company"?:D
-
ok from reading you're responces, I don't think were talking about that same thing when I say morals, I useualy use the word ethics becase it doesn't have the religous conotation,
laws morals, ect... are all a way of defining ways in wich you can and can not behave and assigning consiquenses for your actions,
this system is not what I am refering to
I am speaking of the simplest internal feelings you have about how to act around and treat people
yay top of the second page !!!
-
Yes, but those "internal feelings" stem from exactly the same things that the "morals" do; since they have stayed in the mainstream culture for many thousands of years, they have become finely embedded into the minds of the people just like any religion. ;)
-
so you are telling me some time in the future, people won't find stealing bad if it isn't against the law
or (better example) they will feel guilty about, speeding, or j-walking for example
or they won't find it reprehensable to cheat on or be cheated on by there boy\girl frend\spouse if there is no law againsed it
-
Oh certainly; as I said before, we have almost reached the high point of morality in human affairs. We can see the divisions in the interpretations of morality form even today on a large political scale (see what I said earlier), and this will continue to go on from the top down until the system breaks down to a point where the divisions consist of individuals only (thus effectively having no ethics at all), and then the law alone will be what binds people together into an orderly system.
-
so if it wern't againsed the law to say beat someone to the brink of death with there own severed limbs for no reason at all, then you wouldn't be pissed if someone did this to you.
I don't see this, if anything I see people takeing the law into there own hands more
and laws being less direct leaving people to determine what they feel is right more, in fact now that I think about it, it's a fairly long drawn out patern from the old theocricys that over regulated what people think to now were it is law that people are alowed to do and think whatever they want (solong as it doesn't interfere with anyone elses right to do the same, wich actualy restricts what you can and can't do quite a bit)
I hadn't realy thought about it, but from what I see writen laws are being drasticaly weakened in favor or personal determination and this is a long trend
-
Originally posted by an0n
Taoism kicks ass.
Amen brotha an0n!
-
so if it wern't againsed the law to say beat someone to the brink of death with there own severed limbs for no reason at all, then you wouldn't be pissed if someone did this to you.
I would be pissed off, but the other guy wouldn't care. That is what I am trying to say.
I hadn't realy thought about it, but from what I see writen laws are being drasticaly weakened in favor or personal determination and this is a long trend
Yes, but the written laws to a large extent dictate what the personal determination does; they all influence and are influenced by the cultural systems of that time, and once set in motion it is difficult to completely turn around such a trend. It is more of a subtle, behind-the-scenes effect.
-
so why would you be pised if he did something that was perfictly in his legal right to do
-
Because it was detrimental to me. But my opinion in this hardly matters; if for some strange reason there is no law against this, then the society would not and should not care.
I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make here... :p
-
I'm just trying to figure out how this is suposed to work
-
You know we do have our own built in morals, at least according to Freud(the superego).
-
I'm just trying to figure out how this is suposed to work
Well, I'm just stating what the likely outcome is in the end; not what I like or do not like. (I happen to like a system without any ethics at all, but my personal preferences are of little importance)
You know we do have our own built in morals, at least according to Freud(the superego).
Nah, it is much more likely that they developed over time with civilizations, since the present day animals certainly do not exhibit them in the same way we do, and more importantly, there are people out there today with completely different systems of morals than we have. (note the moral divisions I was talking about earlier) It all depends on the person's surrounding in his first few years of life; once this idea foundation has been formed, everything else builds on top of it, and it is very difficult to remove the foundation completely.
-
There is one thing that is ingrained into animals or any lifeforms for that matter: that is the want to survive. The more intelligent an animal is, the more he needs to save. For example a plant or bacteria is not intelligent and therefore saves itself. An animal is a lot smarter so it developes a sense of caring. Now not only does he seek to protect himself, he also wants to protect what he cares about. This undoubtedly through evolution of animals and reached its paramount in humans. Now we seek to protect our interest, our children, our money, our property, our wives, our character, etc. Since most people have an interest in protecting themselves, they gather and made laws regarding such issues.
that, my friends is how morals developed.
-
I believe.... if God exists, he's not neurotic, so he won't be bothered whether he's worshipped by me or not. And also that there's no reason not to be nice to people, so I don't feel i need to go by the morality code defined by any particular religion.
And if there's no heaven.... frankly, i doubt i'll be all that bothered when I find out if there is or is not. (because i'll be dead)
-
Megadude has hit one point that I like in particular and that is that most religions are (for the most part) a collection of morals placed in a package and shipped out as a religion, sure there may be more to them than that (especially from the POV of those who believe in them) but at their base value that is what they are. They are also a crutch to help people through hard times (usually) but this isn't always the case.
However most people should be able to work the morals in religions out for themselves as part of common sense, putting them in a religion just makes them that little bit more "carved in stone" than they would normally be.
-
I think this is more due to a mutual interest that developed from the intelligence. Here's a quick example: two prehistoric cavemen went out to hunt and gather food, and when their hands were full, they returned to their caves, stored it there and went back out to get some more. However, each one noticed that his food stockpile kept being stolen every now and then by the other guy. After several days of this, they got fed up and after talking it over, reached the following agreement: each guy will not steal from the other, and thus neither guy will have to worry about his food being stolen while he is not around. This was the benefit of the new law, and one of the incentives to stick to it. The punishment for breaking the law here, and the other incentive to abide by it, was that if one guy broke the agreement and stole the other guy's food, his own food would be stolen out of retaliation. Anyway, all the morals developed in a similar manner.
Now the problem is that, over the course of many thousands of years, these moral ideas have become probably the main central part of the cultural systems; people no longer follow them because they realize that it is in their direct interests to do so, but they simply do it because the culture has so finely ingrained it into their heads that they cannot imagine acting otherwise. However, we are approaching an interesting point in history where the morality is heading towards it's climactic point; the more heavily these ethical rules are obeyed and followed, the more rigid and specialized they become and the more incompatible with other changing systems of history. This is what is causing the divisions to form, and as the system continues to "break apart under its own weight," the divisions will continue to collapse into further divisions until what is left is the lone individuals, each with their own ideas of morals. At this point, the only system to hold everyone together will be the laws of the state.
Most of the common moral rules can be derived directly from the logic assumptions and the survival assumption, but there are quite a few out there that are largely useless. In any major choice situation, it helps to map out a logical path between the objectives and the morals, since the conditions are different for every situation; for example, this is exactly what the pacifistic guys of today are failing to do, and they casually assume that the morals must hold just as well in this situation as they did ten thousand years ago in completely different situations, when this is many times not the case.
These rules will remain for our lifetimes and quite a bit longer, but they will fade away eventually. (Neitzche got this part right ;))
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And if there's no heaven.... frankly, i doubt i'll be all that bothered when I find out if there is or is not. (because i'll be dead)
TRUE DAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i don't believe in heaven and hell either
Originally posted by CP5670
I think this is more due to a mutual interest that developed from the intelligence. Here's a quick example: two prehistoric cavemen went out to hunt and gather food, and when their hands were full, they returned to their caves, stored it there and went back out to get some more. However, each one noticed that his food stockpile kept being stolen every now and then by the other guy. After several days of this, they got fed up and after talking it over, reached the following agreement: each guy will not steal from the other, and thus neither guy will have to worry about his food being stolen while he is not around. This was the benefit of the new law, and one of the incentives to stick to it. The punishment for breaking the law here, and the other incentive to abide by it, was that if one guy is broke the agreement and stole the other guy's food, his own food would be stolen out of retaliation. Anyway, all the morals developed in a similar manner.
I don't believe in evolution either... i don't believe man was once a fish that developed legs that then became a vegetarian gorilla or something like that, that then became a caveman that went around knocking women on the head with clubs and dragging each other around by the hair
These rules will remain for our lifetimes and quite a bit longer, but they will fade away eventually. (Neitzche got this part right )
you forgot the part at the end that says "in my opinion"
-
We are trying to reduce our opinions into objective constructs, so that opinions make no difference anymore; that's the whole point of an argument. Heck, I could say that, in my opinion, the purple dragon will come and destroy the world exactly one year from now, but unless I give some reasoning behind it, it is a useless statement.
-
ok ok, don't say "in my opinion"... i wouldn't take offense, cause i don't take offense THAT easy :D lol ;) but just mentioning it.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
you forgot the part at the end that says "in my opinion"
Oh, please - don't get him started.... drat, too late. :blah:
-
sorry, already got the comment in... ;7 :D
-
I agree with CP, everything is always in motion, and for our morals and laws to survive as the way they are, they must also be in motion. But the ploblem is, as you have said CP, religions and morals were created under specific circumstances. People forget that the Christian teaching of turning the other cheek was for people who were very poor and in completely different circumstances than anyone is now.
Still, morals are important when the logic behind it is sometimes not easily understandable. Ex. At the moment, in my opinion at least, cloning should not be performed because it may damage a newborn compared to a natural birth(that will probably change as our understanding of cloning grows). But not everyone may see that, so morals can provide a substitute saying it is unethical to clone.
-
But you see, what's wrong with damaging a newborn in that way? (this is what I mean when I talk about this stuff finely embedded into us)
-
hmm I guess I can see the logic in you're theory
but you are neglecting (at least in this example) that this requires rational thought, something our ancestors didn't always have, and there ar many many examples of other primates with very similar ethical systems,
it also some what ignors the fact that humans have been socal sence before they were humans, our race didn't start out as a bunch of solitary humans that came together, socal life has been a facit of I think all primates (those relitivly colsely related to us anyway) so it wouldn't be such as two cave men comeing together to make hunting easier, as a bunch of people in some sort of tribe (sort of famely groupe type thing probly between 6 and 30) and those that stole or broke what we would consider basic morals were killed or exiled, this would all be on instinct, eventualy a "you shouldn't steal from your tribe" instinct would develop, in fact I would think it would be there by the time our ansestors reached a chimp level,
there is also compasion wich insures that you're frends and\or mate and\or childeren survive, this is the "I like you" emotion and also has a "I want you to be happy" and "I want to do nice things for you" instinct, stealing would counter this by causeing harm to people in you're tribe people covered in your compasion emotion\instinct
nothing of our basic ethical system is any diferent than most other primates
now as for moral diferences, I don't see it, the two sides say the same thing about each other, things like they don't care about other people, they don't love there childeren
things like religous wars are brought about by useing the instinctive basic moral system and artfully manipulateing it along with the "us and them" instinct and sheer fear (of god, and more over death) to controle people.
basicly religon uses emotions to controle people,
including the people running the religon
-
but you are neglecting (at least in this example) that this requires rational thought, something our ancestors didn't always have
This type of thought only needs enough rationality to prolong survival (which you have said that all animals instictually have), and that is what our ancestors did have and other animals did not, which is why we are still around and at this stage today.
nothing of our basic ethical system is any diferent than most other primates
Still, humans definitely have these "morals" in them far, far more prominent than do any other species on the planet. (e.g. animals have some empathy feelings towards their closest family members, although way less than humans do, but they will not care much if another similar looking animal gets shot or something next to them, which does not hold for the human) The point I am trying to make here is that the moral system will continue to rise until it becomes so rigid, specialized and inflexible to change that it breaks into pieces, namely various institutions having their own slightly different version of the morality. The cultural inertia will keep the system going down, so these factions will go down pretty quickly, but in the end all you will have left is the governmental law.
now as for moral diferences, I don't see it, the two sides say the same thing about each other, things like they don't care about other people, they don't love there childeren
things like religous wars are brought about by useing the instinctive basic moral system and artfully manipulateing it along with the "us and them" instinct and sheer fear (of god, and more over death) to controle people.
What I mean here is their core objectives; according to, say, some Al Qaeda officer, the US is the greatest evil (and I mean this in a literal sense) that has ever existed on the planet, and it is the highest ethic to rid the world of this evil and save the human race.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Still, humans definitely have these "morals" in them far, far more prominent than do any other species on the planet. (e.g. animals have some empathy feelings towards their closest family members, although way less than humans do, but they will not care much if another similar looking animal gets shot or something next to them, which does not hold for the human) The point I am trying to make here is that the moral system will continue to rise until it becomes so rigid, specialized and inflexible to change that it breaks into pieces, namely various institutions having their own slightly different version of the morality. The cultural inertia will keep the system going down, so these factions will go down pretty quickly, but in the end all you will have left is the governmental law.
Until some new religion reinstates morals. If morals sprung from rational laws, whats to stop them from forming again?
-
I think this is more due to a mutual interest that developed from the intelligence. Here's a quick example: two prehistoric cavemen went out to hunt and gather food, and when their hands were full, they returned to their caves, stored it there and went back out to get some more. However, each one noticed that his food stockpile kept being stolen every now and then by the other guy. After several days of this, they got fed up and after talking it over, reached the following agreement: each guy will not steal from the other, and thus neither guy will have to worry about his food being stolen while he is not around. This was the benefit of the new law, and one of the incentives to stick to it. The punishment for breaking the law here, and the other incentive to abide by it, was that if one guy is broke the agreement and stole the other guy's food, his own food would be stolen out of retaliation. Anyway, all the morals developed in a similar manner.
Isn't that what i post?
Besides, who knows what to believe. Ever watch a movie called "The Matrix?" I mean we could be like that. For all we know we could be some superbeing's science project. We could be a disease on this world. We can be like viruses feeding off of this planet, reproducing at an amazing rate, and exploding out into space searching for new hosts. If u start to think about all the explanations honestly, u would relize that none of them is truly false. If u do see them as false, most likely, ur view is tainted.
L'Etoile Noir
-
What I mean here is their core objectives; according to, say, some Al Qaeda officer, the US is the greatest evil (and I mean this in a literal sense) that has ever existed on the planet, and it is the highest ethic to rid the world of this evil and save the human race.
That is a matter of opinions not ethics. Their opinion is that the US is evil, ours is not. Simple as that.
-
chimpanses will show greafe and sorrow for dead members of there groupe, they defend injured and weak members, they share, they form frendships and rivals based on past behavior, and they return favors.
the Alquada thing
they see america as a threat to them and fear that we will corupt them and end up causeing them and there famelies into hell
there is a religus overhead but it is all controled and moved by low level emotional instincts
they think that we will result in (eternal) pain to them and there famelies
they buy into Islam, wich has many rules, some of them are based on natural ethics (be nice to you're fellow muslums (you're tribe)), others are based on God (he's realy big and powerful and you should hold him as the boss, so anything he says you do) Muhamed's personal biases, prexsisting cultural practises, there are also rules saying that "we are right, and everyone else is wrong" and many rules on very specific requirements for behavour (much of wich was inherited by the pre-islamic cultures), and rules for dealing people who don't follow the rules (kill the infedel!!!)
they have identified us as people who don't follow there rules (given to them by God, and are the right ones remember) and we are thus bad. so we must be dealt with in the manner that they are to deal with rule breakers :headz:
this is all heald together largly by fear and fear for there loved ones
this system will shater
I make a distinction between ethics and religon
morality is part of religon, but it is not made by religon, religon is sort of a ethical expantion pack that also gives you a beter feeling of importance, controle, and above all means you won't realy die.
ethics are seperate from religon and are instinctive, people will still love and hate and fear and care after the fall of religon
-
religon is sort of a ethical expantion pack that also gives you a beter feeling of importance, controle, and above all means you won't realy die.
There u go, Bob has just struck the spot.
-
Until some new religion reinstates morals. If morals sprung from rational laws, whats to stop them from forming again?
Because the laws and the technology are now in place. I said this several times already: the laws will be the new morals at this time.
Isn't that what i post?
A slight variation; your post (as I read it) was more to the effect that the morals were consciously invented as a group of laws to ensure the survival of mankind as a whole, while I thought that they gradually came up over many thousand years from situations of individual survival.
Besides, who knows what to believe. Ever watch a movie called "The Matrix?" I mean we could be like that. For all we know we could be some superbeing's science project. We could be a disease on this world. We can be like viruses feeding off of this planet, reproducing at an amazing rate, and exploding out into space searching for new hosts. If u start to think about all the explanations honestly, u would relize that none of them is truly false. If u do see them as false, most likely, ur view is tainted.
Some are more likely then others though if we assume the fundamental rules of logic and some problem-solving methods; they are not all of the same probability.
That is a matter of opinions not ethics. Their opinion is that the US is evil, ours is not. Simple as that.
Ethics are just as much opinions too, if you think about it.
chimpanses will show greafe and sorrow for dead members of there groupe, they defend injured and weak members, they share, they form frendships and rivals based on past behavior, and they return favors.
Well, they only "grieve" for their closest family members, and they are much, much more likely to get into a deadly fight with other chimps than humans are. (especially if the other guy has some food or something; they do not share as humans might)
there is a religus overhead but it is all controled and moved by low level emotional instincts
Which is precisely what ethics are controlled by.
ethics are seperate from religon and are instinctive, people will still love and hate and fear and care after the fall of religon
The majority of the ethics we are speaking of here are most certainly not instinctual; there are a few basic rules that humans started off with, but most of the things we see today were created by procedures similar to those which I stated earlier. Also, I guess one could argue that religion is indirectly formed from instinct as well to some extent because of the main purposes of religion I gave earlier and the fact that the human species displays the unsatisfaction behavior, which makes it necessary for something to fulfil those purposes. These moral rules will stay on for quite a bit longer than religion, but ethics must fall too later on for the reasons I gave before.
I don't understand this; why do people say that religion is all illogical and then cling to ethics more closely than they would any religion? at least be consistent... :p :D
-
why do people say that religion is all illogical
1. heaven
2. god
3. hell
4. creation in 7 (or was it 6 coz i've no idea) days
5. have u read the crucible by Arthur Miller? Read that book and it angers u
6. what more do i neeed to say?
Also, religions try to give explanation for the unknown. That means it's ficticous, created to suit someone's purpose, to make some one feel better about themselves, to give them a sense of purpose. I have no such needs.
People use to believe in wiches (Salem, massacusetts in 1600-1700's). Now they don't. I think more and more, such things will drop.
-
The ethics have similar problems though. I quite agree with some of the ethics as being general guidelines that may or may not work in specific situations but are usually applicable to human affairs in the long run. Most of them can indeed be derived from the starting assumptions, but this is not how people obey them; they follow these rules blindly and ungrudgingly, just like with any religion. Following anything unquestioningly like this is a road to ignorance. :p (add this to the fact that they both involve lots of emotional thought in the way people follow them, which tends to really skew absolute logic)
-
Ethics, i think is derived, as i posted earlier, from the will to survive. I already said advanced species care about more things and thus greatly expand his will to survive to the things to care about. Most people have similar interests, so they band together and form laws. I think ethics are already ingrained into our minds. The earliest animals have ethics, but at a lower level. They don't have the mind to do what an intelligent mind (ours being the basis) might do. We started small, but eventually we added and added till we have what we have now. It was always about survival and our enhanced view of it.
-
But in that case the same principle would apply to everything, and therefore religion and just about anything really would also be contributing to our survival. As I said, it is not the original ethical rules themselves that will fade away (others will, though), but the almost religious manner in which people follow them.
-
I've already stopped following it religously. Most of the people in the world have. Most business men have. I admit, the world is not an ethical place anymore, it's becoming more selfish. I see so many examples each day that i have become a very very cynical person.
I'm not arguing that people are following ethics religously, because i know most don't. I'm just arguing that living in an a completely ethicless socirty is impossible. It will never disappear as some religions might (i.e. the Greeks or the Romans).
-
Well, from what I have seen, most people do indeed follow them like strict rules, and the younger generation of today is especially being influenced by moralistic ideas. A society without morals will have the laws instead, and these would have been rationally deduced and proven from the starting assumptions. (basically, there will be no cultural conditioning in the human brain that emotionally prevents it from doing immoral things) Also, very, very far into the future, when humans would have essentially combined into one organism, there would be need for neither ethics nor laws.
-
consider this, CP. How many people download music from the internet? All of those have stopped following ethics religously. I bet most people would cheat a little.
When i say stop following ethics religously, i talk about small harmless stuff. When u say, it's as if ethics is falling apart.
Sorry, if i'm sort of incomprehensible. It's getting late.
-
eh...that isn't so much of an ethic as a contemporary corporate restriction (and since it is very recent, it definitely has not had time to work its way into the cultural system); these guys all think they ethically right in doing this, and thus do not have to work against their emotions. Here is a better question instead: how many people donate to charitable causes and such things while not consciously thinking about the well-being of society as whole but rather because they feel emotional sympathy for the causes?
Anyway I need to go sleep now, but we can continue this in a few hours. ;7
-
perhaps u should refresh the page and read what i edited.
-
done...the principle must apply to everything though, including more "serious" ethical issues, or you reach an inconsistency; one must stop following all ethics like that and not just the "harmless" ones.
-
maybe i'm not so well informed or its getting late, but name some ethical issues
-
hmm lets see...refraining from murdering everyone in sight, not because it is against the law and will be punishable, but instead because life is "precious" (note that this only applies to certain kinds of life :p) and thus it is the "right" thing to do. If you ask most people whether or not they will kill someone if they would not get punished for it, they would almost certainly refuse; heck, even I would probably say the same thing, since I am controlled by these morals just as much as any of you are. :( (at least I can still think hypothetically with rationality though)
anyway I'm getting tired (been up since 6AM yesterday), so see you in a few hours. :D
-
Now selfishness is something that is without a doubt self-destructive. Selfishness reaches a point where it becomes irrational, so you don't need ethic to really get rid of that.
Still morals are still needed, it is much easier to enforce a moral than a law.
Must sleep......:sigh:
-
Now selfishness is something that is without a doubt self-destructive. Selfishness reaches a point where it becomes irrational, so you don't need ethic to really get rid of that.
That depends on your objectives; I can certainly see unlimited selfishness being a great virtue based on other conditions.
Still morals are still needed, it is much easier to enforce a moral than a law.
not necessarily; actually, law and law enforcement is more reliable, since the morals deal with the brain on an emotional level and there is thus always a significant element of uncertainty in how severely a person's action will be controlled by the morals.
-
selfishness is indeed a very important attribute of humans (as well as any other life0. Without it we wouldn't care about anything. The will to live is selfish. There are many levels of selfishness.
1. unselfish only with yourself, everyone else is game
2. unselfish with your family
3. unselfish with your friends
The following levels are not in order
a. unselfish with community
b. unselfish with class of people
c. unselfish with race of people
there are others...
-
1. No, I mean, selfishness leads to greed. You end up blinding your self unaware of the consequnces of your action(not morally, I mean Enron style)
2. Since it is emotional it carries with it uncertainty AND a greater motive for those who do not see the reasoning behind the laws(which is very common).
Please stop refuting my arguements. I have to sleep sometime.
-
You are all assuming that every person who performed a selfish act thought it out and planned it. There are never perfect situations. NO. Selfishness all to often, does not ccome with rationality.
Looks like I actually get to sleep tonight.
-
selfishness is greed
-
selfishness might not be planned and premeditated, but it is thought about. In a split second the pros and cons are weighed out.