Talking Religion...

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I appreciate only being called a fool as I've been called much worse by others.

And it frightens me to share this planet with so many others who think this life is just a throw-away and that there is something even better after you're dead. That as long as you repent and accept Christ you are forgiven for all the bad shit you do in this life.

Now, Brewtus,
I certainly hope you understand that the use of fool was only in context of the conversation at hand. And you completely avoided the point I made.

Furthermore I certainly don't believe that life spent on terra firma is a throw away. I do certainly believe that choices made on this earth directly affect what happens after it for better or worse.

 

[muffler dragon]

That may be so, but can't you be selfish and moral at the same time?

I apologize for not stating that they are not mutually exclusive. My intent was a statement based more on what may be the most underlying motivation.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Then we're still only talking about pleasure aren't we? It makes him feel good to help mankind. It makes Jeffrey Dahmer feel good to eat mankind. So you would conclude, I think, universally speaking of course, that Jeffrey Dahmer is not morally wrong? Right?

Correct.

There is no universal good or evil. This does not mean I agree with Dahmer's decisions, of course. It's that I do not believe he is burning in hell, as I don't believe in any such "place." His activities as a human on this planet are of no consequence, universally...

Or... leaving hell and heaven in the equation...

Suppose Dahmer kills an innocent. What happens to that innocent? He goes to heaven, no? Isn't heaven where we all want to be? Isn't that returning to God? What could be better than that?

So... I ask.... what has Dahmer done that's so evil? Sent the innocent to heaven?

To believe in evil, you have to believe that there's really no such thing as life after death. (in my opinion)

If you believe in life after death, on the other hand, then dying here on earth is no big deal. Don't get me wrong, I love life, but as a believer in an afterlife, I'm not going to be upset when this life is over either. If someone kills me... no harm... no foul.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Correct.

There is no universal good or evil. This does not mean I agree with Dahmer's decisions, of course. It's that I do not believe he is burning in hell, as I don't believe in any such "place." His activities as a human on this planet are of no consequence, universally...

Or... leaving hell and heaven in the equation...

Suppose Dahmer kills an innocent. What happens to that innocent? He goes to heaven, no? Isn't heaven where we all want to be? Isn't that returning to God? What could be better than that?

So... I ask.... what has Dahmer done that's so evil? Sent the innocent to heaven?

To believe in evil, you have to believe that there's really no such thing as life after death. (in my opinion)

If you believe in life after death, on the other hand, then dying here on earth is no big deal. Don't get me wrong, I love life, but as a believer in an afterlife, I'm not going to be upset when this life is over either. If someone kills me... no harm... no foul.

You're right the only way any of this matters is if there is a higher authority (one not of this earth) deems that killing someone else is wrong. Which is what Christian's have been saying all along.

 

[buckeyegrad]

If god were proven to not exist, would you immediately revert to killing, stealing and screwing over people to obtain power?

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I would like to answer the question from the perspective of non-theistic morality:

I would say that I don't believe I would revert to killing, stealing, or hurting others to obtain power...it just isn't in my individual nature to strive for or assert power over others. However, what this would do is make me an immoral person in such a world. This is what Nietzsche was trying to show in his writings. To believe that it is not immoral in such a world is to be delusional according to him.

I recommend reading George Bernard Shaw's Major Barbara for anyone who would like to better understand Nietzsche's point on what is moral and immoral in a non-theistic world.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You're right the only way any of this matters is if there is a higher authority (one not of this earth) deems that killing someone else is wrong. Which is what Christian's have been saying all along.

Having a higher authority making the judgment that sending someone to heaven is "wrong" strikes me as problematic, though.

A) Since we all die eventually anyway - and assuming it was God's design - doesn't that make God culpable in our earthly deaths (of old age, for example).

B) If returning to God is not objectionable, what is there to judge in he which was the catalyst for the ticket back home?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I would like to answer the question from the perspective of non-theistic morality:

I would say that I don't believe I would revert to killing, stealing, or hurting others to obtain power...it just isn't in my individual nature to strive for or assert power over others. However, what this would do is make me an immoral person in such a world. This is what Nietzsche was trying to show in his writings. To believe that it is not immoral in such a world is to be delusional according to him.

I recommend reading George Bernard Shaw's Major Barbara for anyone who would like to better understand Nietzsche's point on what is moral and immoral in a non-theistic world.

Doesn't that simply show that you don't share Nietzsche's concept of morality... or... in other words, that morality itself is not an absolute concept.... there is no universal morality?

I mean.. I know you and Nietzshe would be in disagreement as to what is or is not moral... but that disagreement itself is evidence that neither of you has obtained some "truth" no?

 

[muffler dragon]

BKB:

Does the philosophical discussion of "right/wrong" ever cause issues in your line of work?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Doesn't that simply show that you don't share Nietzsche's concept of morality... or... in other words, that morality itself is not an absolute concept.... there is no universal morality?

I mean.. I know you and Nietzshe would be in disagreement as to what is or is not moral... but that disagreement itself is evidence that neither of you has obtained some "truth" no?

You and I work the exact same math equation. We get different answers. Does my incorrect answer invalidate yours?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Doesn't that simply show that you don't share Nietzsche's concept of morality... or... in other words, that morality itself is not an absolute concept.... there is no universal morality?

No, I use Nietzsche to understand what a non-theistic morality would look like if it were possible for such a thing to exist. However, since I think that is a fantasy land that cannot exist, it is nothing more than intellectual exercise.

As for the difference between you and me on the existence of universal morality, that stems from our disagreement on the nature of the divine as does all debates on what is the universal morality.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Having a higher authority making the judgment that sending someone to heaven is "wrong" strikes me as problematic, though.

A) Since we all die eventually anyway - and assuming it was God's design - doesn't that make God culpable in our earthly deaths (of old age, for example).

B) If returning to God is not objectionable, what is there to judge in he which was the catalyst for the ticket back home?

I think we've gone through all this before. And I was only trying to make the point that there is no such thing as a theistic-less morality as a response to the book being posted earlier.

Now, I realise you would espouse the idea of a, how should I try to say it, theistic a-morality with the is = is not thrown in that I haven't been able to wrap my brain around, but I think most people reject the notion that there isn't morality yet reject a morality giver.

This is why the subject is so important to atheists and believers alike.

 

[Brewtus]

Now, Brewtus,
I certainly hope you understand that the use of fool was only in context of the conversation at hand. And you completely avoided the point I made.

Furthermore I certainly don't believe that life spent on terra firma is a throw away. I do certainly believe that choices made on this earth directly affect what happens after it for better or worse.

No worries, I understood what you meant by "fool". But to address your point, "because when you're dust none of it matters and you can't prove that it does". On the contrary it matters very much to me - this life is all I have so my actions and the way I live my life means everything to me. The consequences of me acting in an immoral and criminal way are much more significant than a religious person who believes they will go to heaven after they receive any worldly punishment.

And I'm glad you don't believe your life is a throw away. :) But isn't the primary teaching of Christ forgiveness? Isn't it possible for someone to commit a horrific crime and so long as they repent and accept Christ they have a possibility of going to heaven? Seems to me like the religious have less motivation to live a moral life since they can always repent on their deathbed than the non-religious who would spend their life in prison and then die into nothingness.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

No worries, I understood what you meant by "fool". But to address your point, "because when you're dust none of it matters and you can't prove that it does". On the contrary it matters very much to me - this life is all I have so my actions and the way I live my life means everything to me. The consequences of me acting in an immoral and criminal way are much more significant than a religious person who believes they will go to heaven after they receive any worldly punishment.

All you've proven is that it matters to you. But that means nothing to anyone else. Why does it matter to you and why should it matter to me? Ultimately if you're talking about being a criminal we're still just talking about what pleases or pleasures you because you don't want to be in jail or some other form of punishment. What if furthering mankind became more of a burden than a benefit? Morality based on my benefit isn't morality at all.

And I'm glad you don't believe your life is a throw away. :) But isn't the primary teaching of Christ forgiveness? Isn't it possible for someone to commit a horrific crime and so long as they repent and accept Christ they have a possibility of going to heaven? Seems to me like the religious have less motivation to live a moral life since they can always repent on their deathbed than the non-religious who would spend their life in prison and then die into nothingness.

Dang it I meant to answer this too. I will in a minute.

Here it is

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, ?Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,? but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

What these and some other passeges say is that we now have the power to do good because of faith. If one has the power to do good then one will do good. And if one doesn't have the power to do good then one doesn't have faith.

I certainly believe an attitude of easy Grace is being taught in some churches. I do not beleieve the Bible teaches it though.

I don't think one can classify a person as religious his whole life if he repented on his death bed. I'm not saying a person can't repent and believe on his death bed. I believe a person can ber truely repentent on the deathbed. But a person who knows the truth and chooses to walk in direct opposition to it doesn't truely have faith. I certainly don't believe my faith is a get out of jail card. I don't see it described that way in the scriptures.

Much like the math example earlier though, Christrians being wrong about morality doesn't automatically make atheists wrong too, but it certainly doesn't make them automatically right, either. Though I do believe that if Nietzshe is right about God then he's right about morality too.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB:

Does the philosophical discussion of "right/wrong" ever cause issues in your line of work?

No. I follow whatever is the law. I have been in the position of having to argue in support of law I don't agree with. I don't like doing that. But... alas.. I do it.

You and I work the exact same math equation. We get different answers. Does my incorrect answer invalidate yours?

A good point. But, morality isn't like math, is it? I mean - who is to say if holding belief A is right or belief B? There are arguments for both. There is no argument that will defeat adding the number 1 to the number 1 will result in the number 2.

No, I use Nietzsche to understand what a non-theistic morality would look like if it were possible for such a thing to exist. However, since I think that is a fantasy land that cannot exist, it is nothing more than intellectual exercise.

You don't know any atheists? Every atheist you know is in prison? I'm not following how you can think it (non-theistic morality) fantasy. It seems rather blatant to me. I know several atheists and they all seem to care about people, have well adjusted senses of right and wrong... and so on. Are you arguing they gain this sense of morality from God even if they reject the idea?

As for the difference between you and me on the existence of universal morality, that stems from our disagreement on the nature of the divine as does all debates on what is the universal morality.

No need to rehash all that, of course.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I think we've gone through all this before. And I was only trying to make the point that there is no such thing as a theistic-less morality as a response to the book being posted earlier.

Same question I had for bgrad - how can you say that when Brew is here talking about being an atheist who behaves morally? Have neither of you ever met an atheist who isn't in prison? I'm not trying to obtuse, but I just don't understand how you can deny evidence that sits right before your faces. (assuming you believe Brew, of course).