Religion Let's argue about religion

[Terthna]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that if God doesn't allow you to do anything you want to do, then there is no such thing as free will? That's a clearly fallacious argument. There's nothing about moral rules that bars the existence of free will. In fact, the very ideal of morality presupposes that humans have free will. So your non-sequitur makes zero sense.

If you are not allowed to make mistakes, and make your own path in life, than your choices have no meaning; and what we see as moral can and does change, due to our choices. From my point of view, your belief that "You are not allowed to do anything in order to avert death" is evil. First of all, to say that you are not "allowed" to do anything implies that there are restrictions on free will; in which case, it isn't free will. Secondly, you are asserting that doctors, firefighters, sanitation workers; that they are all evil occupations.

You dress it up by saying it is god's will; but in reality it is your will, your beliefs on what is right and moral, that you are trying to impose on others. You are invoking his name to try and take away the right of others to choose for themselves what is right and moral.

You seem to conflate "natural order" with "anything that happens in nature." What I'm referring to is the idea of natural law, the idea of there being a moral law inherent to nature. Surely you've heard of this concept, correct?

Of course; but I reject the concept. There is no such thing.

You seem to have a problem with my strong bioconservative stance. Why?

Because I find it immoral.

Look I'll be honest; I don't think god is impressed with your brown-nosing. He probably just finds it creepy. He didn't put you here to be a kiss ass, and make assumptions about what he wants of you; he did it so that you would learn, grow, and become something more than what you started as.

 

[The Name of Love]

If you are not allowed to make mistakes, and make your own path in life, than your choices have no meaning; and what we see as moral can and does change, due to our choices. From my point of view, your belief that "You are not allowed to do anything in order to avert death" is evil. First of all, to say that you are not "allowed" to do anything implies that there are restrictions on free will; in which case, it isn't free will. Secondly, you are asserting that doctors, firefighters, sanitation workers; that they are all evil occupations.

You dress it up by saying it is god's will; but in reality it is your will, your beliefs on what is right and moral, that you are trying to impose on others. You are invoking his name to try and take away the right of others to choose what is right and moral.

Now you are just being ridiculous.

The Principle of Consistent Ends and Means, the idea that “the ends don’t justify the means” is a time-honored moral principle. If you don’t believe this (I’m guess you’re some kind of utilitarian), then you think that anything is justified as long as it’s accomplishing your preferred goal of “preserving human life.” So anything, including murder, rape, theft, lying, and fornication, is justified so long as it “preserves human life”? To say that my position is that preserving human life is immoral is either a deliberate strawman or an uncharitable misreading.

Your stance on freedom is also nonsensical. Moral rules presuppose humans can choose, so they cannot limit free will. If you think that moral laws limit license, then you are correct, but license isn’t freedom. You don’t have the moral right to do whatever you want.

Let me make this clear: you don’t decide what is right or wrong, just as you don’t decide what is true or false. What’s right or wrong is such because that’s the way the world is, and you can no more decide that bioconservatism is immoral any more than you can decide that the Earth is flat. Your moral relativism is not only obviously false, but also self-contradictory. If you are correct, - if we all have a right to decide what is right and moral, - then I can decide that such a right doesn’t exist. And if you claim that, then you are violating my “right.”

Your positions are ridiculous, and you aren’t very charitable to your opponents. I kindly suggest you rethink your worldview until it’s free of such obvious contradictions before passing moral judgment against me.

 

[Terthna]

Now you are just being ridiculous.

I know what you are, but what am I?

The Principle of Consistent Ends and Means, the idea that “the ends don’t justify the means” is a time-honored moral principle. If you don’t believe this (I’m guess you’re some kind of utilitarian), then you think that anything is justified as long as it’s accomplishing your preferred goal of “preserving human life.” So anything, including murder, rape, theft, lying, and fornication, is justified so long as it “preserves human life”? To say that my position is that preserving human life is immoral is either a deliberate strawman or an uncharitable misreading.

What about telling people "You are not allowed to do anything in order to avert death" has anything to do with preserving life? If anything, from my perspective, you seek to preserve death. Of course the ends don't justified the means; but that applies to you as well, and preserving how you think the world should be is not worth the countless lives that could be saved.

Your stance on freedom is also nonsensical. Moral rules presuppose humans can choose, so they cannot limit free will. If you think that moral laws limit license, then you are correct, but license isn’t freedom. You don’t have the moral right to do whatever you want.

Who gets to decide what those moral laws are; you? No thank you; I rather like doctors, and living longer than the roll of the dice would otherwise allow. Both my mother and my father would be dead from cancer right now, if they hadn't sought to preserve their live beyond some "natural" limit. If you have a problem with them still being alive, then you can just go suck eggs for all I care.

Let me make this clear: you don’t decide what is right or wrong, just as you don’t decide what is true or false. What’s right or wrong is such because that’s the way the world is, and you can no more decide that bioconservatism is immoral any more than you can decide that the Earth is flat. Your moral relativism is not only obviously false, but also self-contradictory. If you are correct, - if we all have a right to decide what is right and moral, - then I can decide that such a right doesn’t exist. And if you claim that, then you are violating my “right.”

Now you're getting it; the only thing you're missing is the fact that you don't have the right to decide that transhumanism is immoral either. It doesn't change that you will regardless though;

Your positions are ridiculous, and you aren’t very charitable to your opponents. I kindly suggest you rethink your worldview until it’s free of such obvious contradictions before passing moral judgment against me.

Case in point. You think I'm nuts, I think you're nuts; welcome to the human condition. It's not about agreeing with each other, because we never will; it's about tolerating each other's worldview just enough so that we're not declaring Jihad on one another every other Sunday. But you cannot expect to spout your crazy nonsense without at least a little push back, and neither can I for that matter; there is a difference between tolerance and respect, and I sure as hell am not going to respect an ideology that demands the death of my parents, or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Terthna]

Just as a side note; nearly every single person I've seen who denounces Moral Relativism, immediately goes on to prove it's validity, by trying to enforce their morals on everyone else. Newsflash; not everyone is Christian. Even among those who are, most of them don't ascribe to your particular brand. You and your ideology do not have a monopoly on all the good in the universe; that is what Moral Relativism is about. Or at least, it's the part I've chosen to incorporate into my own philosophy.

Not that good and evil don't exist, but that we each decide what they are for ourselves; and yes, much of the time we agree. Murder is bad, because nobody wants to die. Thievery is bad, because nobody wants to be stolen from. Life is good, because everyone wants to live. There is one thing, however, you and I do not agree upon. That death is good, because everyone is supposed to die. Death is not good, not in my books; or indeed, in most people's. So you see @The Name of Love; in your own little way, you practice Moral Relativism.

 

[Scottty]

Alright right people - what does "not allowed" mean for each of you here?
English usage tends to be a bit sloppy on this sort of thing.

Literally speaking, God plainly does allow His creatures to do a wide variety of things that He commands against. If you and a friend get into a heated argument and one of you grabs a brick with the intent of cracking the other person's skull with it, an angel probably isn't going pull the brick out of your hand.
That does not mean that your impulsive action will not have consequences.

 

[The Name of Love]

I'm not bothering to argue against you. You seem intent on misinterpreting my arguments and not addressing any of your own self-contradictions.

What about telling people "You are not allowed to do anything in order to avert death" has anything to do with preserving life? If anything, from my perspective, you seek to preserve death. Of course the ends don't justified the means; but that applies to you as well, and preserving how you think the world should be is not worth the countless lives that could be saved.

You keep interpreting "you are not allowed to do anything in order to avert death" as "averting death is immoral." I never did say that, I already corrected you, and that you keep on this line of reasoning shows you aren't serious.

Now you're getting it; the only thing you're missing is the fact that you don't have the right to decide that transhumanism is immoral either. It doesn't change that you will regardless though;

This shows that you don't know the ridiculousness of your own position. "you don't have the right to decide anything is immoral" is in itself a moral statement. You are declaring that violating your so-called "right" is immoral... somehow.

Just as a side note; nearly every single person I've seen who denounces Moral Relativism, immediately goes on to prove it's validity, by trying to enforce their morals on everyone else. Newsflash; not everyone is Christian. Even among those who are, most of them don't ascribe to your particular brand. You and your ideology do not have a monopoly on all the good in the universe; that is what Moral Relativism is about. Or at least, it's the part I've chosen to incorporate into my own philosophy.

Not that good and evil don't exist, but that we each decide what they are for ourselves; and yes, much of the time we agree. Murder is bad, because nobody wants to die. Thievery is bad, because nobody wants to be stolen from. Life is good, because everyone wants to live. There is one thing, however, you and I do not agree upon. That death is good, because everyone is supposed to die. Death is not good, not in my books; or indeed, in most people's. So you see @The Name of Love; in your own little way, you practice Moral Relativism.

This just sells it. You caricature my position as being "death is good" and then claim that I'm a moral relativist because... I argue for my moral principles? What, does the fact that I argue for something and someone else disagrees means that moral relativism is true? That's not a serious argument. People disagree on all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean that there is no right answer. But then, you'd only know this if you were anything more than a disgusting troll.

Alright right people - what does "not allowed" mean for each of you here?
English usage tends to be a bit sloppy on this sort of thing.

Literally speaking, God plainly does allow His creatures to do a wide variety of things that He commands against. If you and a friend get into a heated argument and one of you grabs a brick with the intent of cracking the other person's skull with it, an angel probably isn't going pull the brick out of your hand.
That does not mean that your impulsive action will not have consequences.

@Terthna apparently believes that God saying "you aren't allowed to do X" contradicts free will... somehow. I don't know how because he literally has no argument for it. He just stamps his foot and argues against strawmen. Well, he can go do that. I'm not responding to him anymore.

 

[Terthna]

I'm not bothering to argue against you. You seem intent on misinterpreting my arguments and not addressing any of your own self-contradictions.

You keep interpreting "you are not allowed to do anything in order to avert death" as "averting death is immoral." I never did say that, I already corrected you, and that you keep on this line of reasoning shows you aren't serious.


This shows that you don't know the ridiculousness of your own position. "you don't have the right to decide anything is immoral" is in itself a moral statement. You are declaring that violating your so-called "right" is immoral... somehow.



This just sells it. You caricature my position as being "death is good" and then claim that I'm a moral relativist because... I argue for my moral principles? What, does the fact that I argue for something and someone else disagrees means that moral relativism is true? That's not a serious argument. People disagree on all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean that there is no right answer. But then, you'd only know this if you were anything more than a disgusting troll.



@Terthna apparently believes that God saying "you aren't allowed to do X" contradicts free will... somehow. I don't know how because he literally has no argument for it. He just stamps his foot and argues against strawmen. Well, he can go do that. I'm not responding to him anymore.

I'm not trolling; that would imply I'm having fun. I just think you're insane. You keep trying to invalidate what I'm saying, by pointing out perceived contradictions and inconsistencies, but you never do any self-reflection on your own position. This isn't an argument or a debate to you; this is an inquisition, and I am the heretic. If this is what you're bringing to the table, good riddance. I want nothing to do with your fanatical ass.

 

[Scottty]

@Terthna apparently believes that God saying "you aren't allowed to do X" contradicts free will... somehow. I don't know how because he literally has no argument for it. He just stamps his foot and argues against strawmen. Well, he can go do that. I'm not responding to him anymore.

Are we talking about free will in the sense of being internally able to choose whether or not to obey a Divine command?

 

[Terthna]

Alright right people - what does "not allowed" mean for each of you here?
English usage tends to be a bit sloppy on this sort of thing.

Literally speaking, God plainly does allow His creatures to do a wide variety of things that He commands against. If you and a friend get into a heated argument and one of you grabs a brick with the intent of cracking the other person's skull with it, an angel probably isn't going pull the brick out of your hand.
That does not mean that your impulsive action will not have consequences.

Yeah like shaving our beards; that is in the old testament you realize, that you're not allowed to shave your beard. But then again the bible is not the word of god; but rather the word of a guy, who heard it from a guy, who said it was the word of god. Of course, there's a lot more than just two guys in that incredibly long chain of hearsay, but you get my point. Even if one assumes it to have been originally the word of god (which is crazy, considering how many different religious texts the bible was sourced from, not to mention all the ones that were excluded in its creation), the many transcriptions and translations the bible was subjected to until the printing press was invented, is guaranteed to have significantly altered it from the original text over time; it doesn't even have to have been intentional.

Seriously, the number of things proscribed against in the bible is crazy, when you actually look at it. Much of it likely has to do with enforcing rudimentary sanitation, and otherwise reducing health risks from a primitive understanding of them, like the ones against eating pork and shellfish; which itself should be evidence enough that it was written by men who knew nothing of what they did not know, rather than some omniscient god. But others? It's been a while since I last looked, but I think there's a proscription against crop rotation, or something like that somewhere in there; which means that modern agriculture is against the will of god. Isn't that nuts?

No, when people talk about what "god commands" it is, in my opinion, nothing more than putting words in his mouth; using him as a shield for what they themselves believe. Everyone has this idea about what god wants from them, what he wants from all of us; but the truth is? Nobody actually knows anything about god; they just want to convince themselves otherwise, because the truth is that terrifying to them. That none of us have as sure a footing on how things are as we think we do. Or at least, that's what I, as an agnostic theist, believe.

As for how I interpret "not allowed", as determined by god; it's different from what's wrong. Moving faster than the speed of light, using our current understanding of science, is "not allowed"; hitting your friend with a brick is wrong.

 

[Nitramy]

On a different tack, I do think Atheism is not the way to go for humanity.

Removing something as vital as faith from the human experience will make human beings want to replace that with something else.

This is what you get from that. Note the similarities?

 

[CarlManvers2019]

On a different tack, I do think Atheism is not the way to go for humanity.

Removing something as vital as faith from the human experience will make human beings want to replace that with something else.

This is what you get from that. Note the similarities?

Ayn Rand was an atheist

And the atheists you deacribe are hypocrites who would give Islam and Sharia Law a free pass and go “But the crusades and inquisition and Westboro Baptist church”

 

[Terthna]

On a different tack, I do think Atheism is not the way to go for humanity.

Removing something as vital as faith from the human experience will make human beings want to replace that with something else.

This is what you get from that. Note the similarities?

I used to be an atheist, but it never really sat well with me. I didn't believe in Christianity anymore; but did that necessarily mean that god did not exist? No; all it meant was that one theory was wrong. We used to have so many stories, explaining how the sun works; and yet, once science got around to explaining it, turns out all of them were wrong. But, did that mean the sun did not exist? No, of course not; I think god is similar.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

On a different tack, I do think Atheism is not the way to go for humanity.

Removing something as vital as faith from the human experience will make human beings want to replace that with something else.

This is what you get from that. Note the similarities?

I am pretty sure that this is very unfair towards Christianity, but I can see where they are going. And thew 6k years thing is only some parts of the religion, the other ones are going to believe what science tells them about the universe. Especially Catholicism.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I used to be an atheist, but it never really sat well with me. I didn't believe in Christianity anymore; but did that necessarily mean that god did not exist? No; all it meant was that one theory was wrong. We used to have so many stories, explaining how the sun works; and yet, once science got around to explaining it, turns out all of them were wrong. But, did that mean the sun did not exist? No, of course not; I think god is similar.

Agnostic? How about believing in something similar to the Godhead from Elder Scrolls?

It fascinates me to think we’re all a dream or simulation by some highly advanced machine god

 

[Terthna]

Agnostic? How about believing in something similar to the Godhead from Elder Scrolls?

It fascinates me to think we’re all a dream or simulation by some highly advanced machine god

That's one possibility; personally though, until I see concrete evidence, I'm comfortable acknowledging my own ignorance. In fact, it's entirely possible that we will never know what god is; and I'm okay with that.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

That's one possibility; personally though, until I see concrete evidence, I'm comfortable acknowledging my own ignorance. In fact, it's entirely possible that we will never know what god is; and I'm okay with that.

I'd prefer an explanation that can sort of show "God" as a being that could to an extent to be understood by science.

 

[Terthna]

I'd prefer an explanation that can sort of show "God" as a being that could to an extent to be understood by science.

It's entirely possible that one day, science will discover god, the afterlife, and everything else; but we're not there yet, and it could take quite a while until it does.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

It's entirely possible that one day, science will discover god, the afterlife, and everything else; but we're not there yet, and it could take quite a while until it does.

The moment we do.....none of that will truly be divine anymore

 

[Nitramy]

As for me, I'd like to believe that God is not a spoiled child playing with toys that throws a tantrum and kicks everything down when the toys don't move the way He wants to.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

As for me, I'd like to believe that God is not a spoiled child playing with toys that throws a tantrum and kicks everything down when the toys don't move the way He wants to.

I prefer an Eldritch Abomination with a thought process so complex and ability to warp reality such that 2+2=5 actually occurs would explain how it’s morally right all the time