|
|
| Page 5 of 8 |
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
 Posted: Tue, 5th Mar 2013 18:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: |
“All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God” - Voltaire |
Wait, you said god wasn't needed, then use a quote saying god is needed for morality...which is it?
And murder isn't 'right or wrong' in nature. Its only wrong because we say it is, and deem it an undesirable action. literally millions of animals murder other animals everyday, even their own kind. Its not 'right or wrong' for them to do this..is it? No..its called 'nature in action'. You are putting the cart before the horse. Its not that God gave us the moral that murder is wrong. Its when we envisioned a loving god, and explained how he would be. we imposed upon him our trait of thinking it was wrong. Isn't it a bit odd that everything we agree with, Is a trait 'our' god has?
Thats the great thing about a 'god' he always seems to like whatever you like, and dislike whatever you dislike.
You think gays are evil? what luck so does your god. You think killing jews is ok? What a stroke of luck! so do your god. You think that working on the sabbath is evil...wow, so does your god!
Now you might not think gays are bad, so your god doesn't have a problem with it. hes pretty easy going on the things you personally dont have a problem with 
Its amazing how there is such a HUGE variety of morals out there, yet everyone that holds a different one claims that their mirror their gods. How can that be? that everyone wth a slightly different set of morals, all have the same ones that this 'swiss army knife of morals' god has?
Show me where god is proven to give the morals, and I will admit that they come from him. Just because an animals instinctual reactions are basically universal at the root, doesn't mean it takes a supernatural force to explain why that's so.
I think what Voltaire is explaining is what Frant said..just using 'god' as the 'fill in the unknown'.
to put it in correct terms:
"All customs and cultural differences are different, because they come from men of different upbringings; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from common instinctual nature"
Explain to me how we need a man in the sky for us to have morals. Point to me where it shows that our morals come from a god, or even better, that its actually 'the god' you say it is, and not a giant space kitten that imposed its morals upon us. Can you anymore prove its the god you think it is, than disprove its the space kitten you say its not?
I say our morals come from the giant ceiling cat in the sky, that said "We needz 2 get along, k? thx!" and made it so.
Got any proof showing its something other than that in the sky? if not...then your assumption of what being we get them from is no more valid (based on its equal proof) than my just madeup on the spot cat being explanation.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Tue, 5th Mar 2013 18:58 Post subject: |
|
|
DXWarlock .. where do you get the idea God is somebodies name .. its not somebodies name to me .. to me its a word for objective realities authority ... ie your house gets smashed by a tree in a hurricane = act of God on the insurance papers .. only crackpots hung up on bible construe that as meaning some big super dude dun threw a tree @ your house.
Your misunderstanding of the word Gods practical use in every day natural religious thought is much like your misunderstanding of faiths role in every day scientific study .. there appears to be a blind spot where normal observance of reverence for objective reality should be .. a blind spot in the form of a bible.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 5th Mar 2013 19:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | DXWarlock .. where do you get the idea God is somebodies name .. its not somebodies name to me .. to me its a word for objective realities authority ... ie your house gets smashed by a tree = act of God on the insurance papers .. only crackpots hung up on bible construe that as meaning some big super dude dun threw a tree @ your house. |
So then explain what it is..quit telling us what you think its not.
So to you god is an abstract word that means whatever you need it to mean for an explanation of cause and effects along the timeline of space?
What I mean is its nothing more than 'everything that happens'.
Oooor in other words, "things I cant explain I call god"....
You sound a lot like the ones that like saying "I'm not religious, but I am spiritual".
And im not downing you for it. If you want to think there is meaning to life, and there is some sort of moral imposer out there..all the better for you.
But quit telling me that because I don't believe in calling 'things I cant explain a term called god' that IM the one that's lost here...
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 5th Mar 2013 19:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: |
Your misunderstanding of the word Gods practical use in every day natural religious thought is much like your misunderstanding of faiths role in every day scientific study .. there appears to be a blind spot where normal observance of reverence for objective reality should be .. a blind spot in the form of a bible. |
How am I the one with a blind spot when you are the one using the word 'god' as a 'fill in the blank' for everything you cant think of how to explain in non-spiritual terms.
What exactly is 'god' to you then? is it nothing more than nature? why does nature need another name than other than nature? because it sounds more mystical and awe inspiring to call it something else? It gives a sense of "order" to it by giving it a comforting name? Using a name such as that makes it seem as if there is a purpose and reason for it all? Why would changing what you call it make it have more reason behind it unless you are implying the new name is something different than the old one?
| ChinUp wrote: | ie your house gets smashed by a tree in a hurricane = act of God on the insurance papers .. only crackpots hung up on bible construe that as meaning some big super dude dun threw a tree @ your house.
. |
NO i say its "wind blew hard enough to overcome the tensile strength on the tree trunk" No god or acts involved..simple cause and effect, nothing more.
But that's a GREAT example I agree, explain to me why that god needs to be in the sentence of "force exerted upon wood was greater than its breaking point"
Not that the word 'god' is bad...just why is it needed there? I mean adding it to the reason makes no more sense than saying it was "an act of Thor'. Unless you are calling any action in nature 'god' ..and again I ask why does nature need a second name...why not just say nature? or universe..the tree falling on my house was an act of the universe or a (re)act of the universe actually...no reason to give it such a 'personal' name as God.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Wed, 6th Mar 2013 00:45 Post subject: |
|
|
DXWarlock .. Just because the word God makes the sentiment personal doesn't mean its a reference to a person .. thinking it does is the sickness spread by theism .. a sickness used to get people to hand natures authority over to people.
Frant .. thinking morality is subjective is the mentality of the vindictive.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Wed, 6th Mar 2013 02:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | DXWarlock .. Just because the word God makes the sentiment personal doesn't mean its a reference to a person .. thinking it does is the sickness spread by theism .. a sickness used to get people to hand natures authority over to people.
Frant .. thinking morality is subjective is the mentality of the vindictive. |
then what IS it then? you refuse to say what it is..just what it isnt.
Im beginning to think you dont even know what it is, you just know what you dont like it being.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Thu, 7th Mar 2013 15:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | then what IS it then? you refuse to say what it is..just what it isnt.
Im beginning to think you dont even know what it is, you just know what you dont like it being. |
Clearly you have an issue with being expected to make up your own mind on things .. could it be you lack faith in your own ability to think ?
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 01:10 Post subject: |
|
|
You need to separate "God" from "Organised Religion". Religion is a control mechanism that uses fear (of God's wrath) to control the ignorant masses. A perfect example of this ignorance are the natural "wonders" once attributed to being the power of God(s). Thunder, lightening, flooding ect ect. None of which are the result of an angry vengeful God tired of mans usury and infidelity. There ain't some dude standing on a cloud throwing lightning bolts at the peasants. But it the thought of it being punishment for "crimes against god", well that's just social engineering.
Take the control aspect away from the concept of God and look at (it) as an entity/power/force. I think people in general sort of have a feeling that there's something bigger. A bigger picture so to speak. We know only a fraction of our capacity, and it within that untapped majority "God" exists. Some feel it more than others. Very few, I think, have the capacity to understand it. We have not quite evolved that far as a species. I do believe what some call "God", it isn't some interdementional dictator sending out edicts for bearded zealots to record in stone. That's just man controlling man.
Many religious teachings say that you find God inside yourself. I believe this to be perhaps the only truth any religion speaks. From there it is often misinterpreted. I think mankind is capable of amazing feats, telepathy and psychokenesis but to name a couple. These truly would be godly powers. But you wont find them in a church. You wont find them in the sky either.
Mankind has the ability to be Gods, in the classical sense of the word. This is why organised religion has supressed science over the milenia. If people figure out what they can do, they wont need religion any more.
That's my take on the whole God theory anyhoo.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 01:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | Frant .. thinking morality is subjective is the mentality of the vindictive. |
What makes morality objective? Are we born with the morals we still have as adults? Obviously not, we're born with the basic instincts and children tend to be cruel to each other until they've reached a certain point where they develop a sense of post-ego. Morality is shaped by cultures, society, parents, schools, behaviour etc... And I have no idea what you meant with the use of the word "vindictive" in this context. There's no universal moral code. We have survival instincts that guide us in some ways to make sure the group you live in prospers for the good of the group (what's good for the group is also good for you). But that's not morality.
Yet again I suspect this is a question of language barrier/definition/semantics.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 02:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | There's no universal moral code. |
I don't believe this to be true. Morals are very basic things. Like not wishing harm to someone else unless they have wronged you in some way. This one basic principal could be described as THE universal moral code. It is from this which all other "Rules of society" come from. Religion, culture ect, they are "rules of society" not morals. People know when something is inherently wrong, immoral, this can supersede any cultural or religious dogma. In fact it is often these things, these prejudices, that make us an immoral society.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 02:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: | You need to separate "God" from "Organised Religion". Religion is a control mechanism that uses fear (of God's wrath) to control the ignorant masses. A perfect example of this ignorance are the natural "wonders" once attributed to being the power of God(s). Thunder, lightening, flooding ect ect. None of which are the result of an angry vengeful God tired of mans usury and infidelity. There ain't some dude standing on a cloud throwing lightning bolts at the peasants. But it the thought of it being punishment for "crimes against god", well that's just social engineering.
Take the control aspect away from the concept of God and look at (it) as an entity/power/force. I think people in general sort of have a feeling that there's something bigger. A bigger picture so to speak. We know only a fraction of our capacity, and it within that untapped majority "God" exists. Some feel it more than others. Very few, I think, have the capacity to understand it. We have not quite evolved that far as a species. I do believe what some call "God", it isn't some interdementional dictator sending out edicts for bearded zealots to record in stone. That's just man controlling man.
Many religious teachings say that you find God inside yourself. I believe this to be perhaps the only truth any religion speaks. From there it is often misinterpreted. I think mankind is capable of amazing feats, telepathy and psychokenesis but to name a couple. These truly would be godly powers. But you wont find them in a church. You wont find them in the sky either.
Mankind has the ability to be Gods, in the classical sense of the word. This is why organised religion has supressed science over the milenia. If people figure out what they can do, they wont need religion any more.
That's my take on the whole God theory anyhoo. |
Again, this is defining what 'god' isn't..without defining what is it.
Its like me saying a Bird doesn't have fur, or lips, or horns..and it been misunderstood to have 6 legs by twists of manipulation of the story....but if I never define what a bird 'is' to you... you'd have no clue to its definition other than it DOESN'T have those things on it. It could be anything super vague long as it doesn't have fur, lips, horns, or 6 legs.
An 'amazing feats' by whos standards? ours? we could be the only intelligent life in the universe that DOESN'T sees these things as the most simplest of tasks. 300 years ago flying would have been a 'godly feat'. it doesn't mean we achieved godhood by reaching that milestone of progress.
You are just saying 'anything we cant do' is godly powers. By that very fact, 300 years ago, us now would be true gods to them. They would be saying 'I think mankind is capable of amazing feats, Flight, the ability to map the mind, and the ability to leave the planet and visit the moon, but to name a couple. These truly would be godly powers'
Does that mean we are gods now? no. It just means they had REALLY low standards of a god, in retrospect...just like 300 years from now, your will be.
it just means that we got SLIGHTLY farther along at beating rocks together than before.
To say god is 'what we can be' is just saying that we will be doing things later that we cant now...thats not god, that progress.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Fri, 8th Mar 2013 02:53; edited 7 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 02:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | There's no universal moral code. |
I don't believe this to be true. Morals are very basic things. Like not wishing harm to someone else unless they have wronged you in some way. This one basic principal could be described as THE universal moral code. It is from this which all other "Rules of society" come from. Religion, culture ect, they are "rules of society" not morals. People know when something is inherently wrong, immoral, this can supersede any cultural or religious dogma. In fact it is often these things, these prejudices, that make us an immoral society. |
Yet almost any person can be made kill another person if their morality is manipulated.
And as I said, we're taught from early years what's right and wrong. Basically every soldier or fighter in the world think they're morally right to do what they do.
Morals evolved out of necessity and philosophy and have been tweaked and changed throughout the centuries and millennia. It's usually against human nature to kill another human being, but that's really a psychologically instinct based emotion, not part of a moral code. But again, it's a matter of definition.
Just because many people share similar moral norms and views doesn't make it objective, it just makes it normative. How it's experienced and used is still subjective.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 02:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: | | [quote="Frant" This one basic principal could be described as THE universal moral code. |
Then if its universal, why does it only apply to 0.0000001% of the animals on the planet (us)? Id say the 99.99999999% would be more the norm.
And whos to say those morals would even be slightly close to anything wed find other intelligent life in the universe having?
I'd say the instincts of 1 species out of billions on one tiny random speck of rock in space is far from 'universal'.
Could it not be that we find these morals favorable and 'good' because they are what we desire? and not merely that we desire to have the ones that are 'good'?
In other words they are labeled 'good' because we like them..not that we like them because they are good. And dislike the others because they are bad. They are bad because we dislike them.
Much like food for an example. You find some tastes you like, and some you don't..so you have some you call good, and bad. Its not that they are 'good or bad' tastes in themselves..they are just tastes, you call the ones you like good. Its not that your tastes have 'strive' to enjoy tastes that was already defined and 'good' and 'bad' before you got to them.
And there is where people put the cart before the horse. it is not that the good in man is the sign of morality. its Morality is defined by what mankind says is good.
2000 years ago it was morally just, and praised. To kill a man with stones caught cheating on his wife. It was a highly moral thing...now not so much.
So the universal morals changed? or is it simply what we decided we wont do anymore (ie is bad) is no redefined as not moral?
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Fri, 8th Mar 2013 03:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 03:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: |
Again, this is defining what 'god' isn't..without defining what is it. |
I defined what God is, as I understand it to be.
| Quote: | | You are just saying 'anything we cant do' is godly powers. |
That's not what I said. In fact you just said exactly what I said it wasn't. Back in the day it is how these things would have been perceived by those who did not possess them and who could not understand them. At one time people like this were considered gods amongst men, in latter history they were burned as heretics or witches.
| Quote: | | To say god is 'what we can be' is just saying that we will be doing thinks later that we cant now...thats not god, that progress. |
Im saying the whole concept of what "God is" is wrong. It is the epitome of ignorance. It is explaining what you cannot understand by explaining it in the simplest of terms. We havn't figured it out yet, which is why we have little else but fantastical stories of mythical sky men who you must worship on penalty of spending eternity in fire and brimstone.
As for beings coming from the sky, well at least this is somewhat possible. Plenty of weird cave paintings about to suggest this might be true. Are they Gods? I can certainly see how someone of a simpler mind might see them as such. By all accounts aliens use telepathy, and can "move things with their minds" that's if the stories are to be believed.
What if it really is as simple as that. We're not from this planet. Would explain the utter lack of proof for human evolution. There is no missing link. Who brought us here? Well, I guess that would be god/aliens. For what purpose? Maybe we fucked up somewhere else and we got a second chance. Sounds like science fiction but it is a story similar to the root of most religions past and present. Maybe we are much older as a species than we think. We are far more evolved than our nearest " "Darwinian" ancestor. Personally I think we will find the "power" of god in the advancement of technology (we are still cavemen relatively speaking), and in realizing the potential of our own minds when freed from the shackles on religious dogma and an outdated concept of something we don't quite understand.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 03:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: |
What if it really is as simple as that. We're not from this planet. Would explain the utter lack of proof for human evolution. There is no missing link. Who brought us here? Well, I guess that would be god/aliens. For what purpose? Maybe we fucked up somewhere else and we got a second chance. |
I think that's as far as we need to take this conversation..obviously your lack of understanding brings about a sense of "lack of information spurs the imagination" for you.
You cannot make defines of one thing, and call it correct when its foundation is based on a totally lack of understanding, information, and speculation in the face of facts.
And you still havent define anything of what god is..other than 'inner mankind' of some sort. What are the details of god, its characteristics, its specifications..This one "god is everything we cant see and measure, as part of mankind's essence' type karma fluff don't cut it. All that's saying is god is whatever you don't have words for.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 03:21 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: |
Yet almost any person can be made kill another person if their morality is manipulated. |
People kill for many reasons, rarely is morality a factor,
| Quote: | | And as I said, we're taught from early years what's right and wrong. Basically every soldier or fighter in the world think they're morally right to do what they do. |
I would say they are rules not morals. Morals might be encorporated into a particular culture or religion, but the tend to pick and chose what is and what is moral, what is and what is right or wrong. Right and wrong are as self evident at truth and untruth. Where things go awry is when wrongs are excused as being morally right.
| Quote: | | Just because many people share similar moral norms and views doesn't make it objective, it just makes it normative. How it's experienced and used is still subjective. |
Therein lies the logical fallacy of morality. It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true, it does not make it true. Just because the majority believes something to be "moral" doesn't make it so.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 03:23 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: |
Therein lies the logical fallacy of morality. It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true, it does not make it true. Just because the majority believes something to be "moral" doesn't make it so. |
And just because many people think there is more to us than just clumps of carbon doing complex reactions to justify calling it mystical, and applying a god to it, doesn't make it so.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 03:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | | And you still havent define anything of what god is... |
Yes, I have. It is not my fault you do not seem to comprehend what it is I said.
| DXWarlock wrote: |
And just because many people think there is more to us than just clumps of carbon doing complex reactions to justify calling it mystical, and applying a god to it, doesn't make it so. |
Never said it did. What exactly is your claim?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 03:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Then explain it to me again, in a simple post. just the definition of it, without clouding it with other info in the post.
spell it out to me as if I'm a child..obviously its a universal concept innate to all of us..this god thing right?, it should be easy to explain to a child so he could understand.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 03:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | Then explain it to me again, in a simple post. just the definition of it, without clouding it with other info in the post.
spell it out to me as if I'm a child..obviously its a universal concept innate to all of us..this god thing right?, it should be easy to explain to a child so he could understand. |
I'm not a parrot. Go back and read. Re-read. Take as many times as you need.
You start a thread with a loaded question. The presumption is that there is a God (I'm assuming in the biblical sense). This of course is baseless speculation. You then ask us to define what this God is. Fair enough. Given the lack of a definitive agreement on what God we're even talking about you're going to get little more than subjective answers of what it might be or might not be. Which I did.
You then moan about the quality of the answers you are getting, when your question is a ridiculous one to begin with.
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 03:39 Post subject: |
|
|
I mean in ANY sense..any sense at all. not biblical. I mean if there is ANYTHING to us other than the results of random reactions of complex compounds that create complexity that we are.
Give me ANY definition that suits whatever you deem god to be beyond that. its a simple question.
If god in anyway equals more than the sum of the parts of our chemical makeup. please explain.
That specific enough for you?
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14344
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 08:20 Post subject: |
|
|
DXWarlock: You are indeed asking for the impossible.
You could aswell ask: What is art? What truth does Bach transport with his music, something that is so subjective, yet many people relate to it in a different fashion. What is the truth behind this?
While there will be many positivists stating that you can indeed see chemical/neuronal reactions in your brain etc. Those obseverations only give an explanation "from outside" from the materialist point of view, its images we talk about. The inside, the psychological (not using the term as reference to the science) point of view is by definition neither communicable nor reproductible. (Experiencing a music will be different every time, because you will have the memories of the former time added to your experience, and you will experience in another way, obviously) But does that make it unreal? No, it doesnt. It just scares people who need to either have a materialist or rationalist explanation for everything, otherwise they seem to feel empty. (At least thats the feeling I get, speaking to such people) Its good to have such people, otherwise science would be stalling. Still, they should not fall for the illusion that they will find an explanation for everything, commiting the error of confusing the method of understanding with the object they try to understand. There is more to life than the words we use to describe it. But it can only be experienced by yourself.
So you cant explain it, you cant explicitly define the feeling of Bach. Any defintion of it, by the nature of language alone, must be wrong.
On one hand, everyone can listen to or (with enough training) play Bach, but on the other hand everyones experience of it will be completely different.
This was about art. I suppose you could say the same about religion.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24640
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 09:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: | | Frant wrote: |
Yet almost any person can be made kill another person if their morality is manipulated. |
People kill for many reasons, rarely is morality a factor,
| Quote: | | And as I said, we're taught from early years what's right and wrong. Basically every soldier or fighter in the world think they're morally right to do what they do. |
I would say they are rules not morals. Morals might be encorporated into a particular culture or religion, but the tend to pick and chose what is and what is moral, what is and what is right or wrong. Right and wrong are as self evident at truth and untruth. Where things go awry is when wrongs are excused as being morally right.
| Quote: | | Just because many people share similar moral norms and views doesn't make it objective, it just makes it normative. How it's experienced and used is still subjective. |
Therein lies the logical fallacy of morality. It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true, it does not make it true. Just because the majority believes something to be "moral" doesn't make it so. |
Then we basically agree. Morality isn't absolute/objective.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 12:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | DXWarlock: You are indeed asking for the impossible.
You could aswell ask: What is art? What truth does Bach transport with his music, something that is so subjective, yet many people relate to it in a different fashion. What is the truth behind this?
While there will be many positivists stating that you can indeed see chemical/neuronal reactions in your brain etc. Those obseverations only give an explanation "from outside" from the materialist point of view, its images we talk about. The inside, the psychological (not using the term as reference to the science) point of view is by definition neither communicable nor reproductible. (Experiencing a music will be different every time, because you will have the memories of the former time added to your experience, and you will experience in another way, obviously) But does that make it unreal? No, it doesnt. It just scares people who need to either have a materialist or rationalist explanation for everything, otherwise they seem to feel empty. (At least thats the feeling I get, speaking to such people) Its good to have such people, otherwise science would be stalling. Still, they should not fall for the illusion that they will find an explanation for everything, commiting the error of confusing the method of understanding with the object they try to understand. There is more to life than the words we use to describe it. But it can only be experienced by yourself.
So you cant explain it, you cant explicitly define the feeling of Bach. Any defintion of it, by the nature of language alone, must be wrong.
On one hand, everyone can listen to or (with enough training) play Bach, but on the other hand everyones experience of it will be completely different.
This was about art. I suppose you could say the same about religion. |
I agree to an extent colour, but I still think its putting too much 'grandeur' into things that don't need it, for the fact of making one feel self worth. It's confusing 'meaning' and 'purpose', confusing "explanation' for 'excuse' so to speak.
It's False, hollow, self worth. Its powerful yes! but doesn't make it anymore based in reality.
I'm not saying people cannot have a feeling of self worth. But to assign grandeur terms to simple mechanics to do so is not better than claiming religious god gives your life a purpose...its a false and erroneous assumption of a 'safety blankie' to cuddle. its applying metaphysical term to purely physical aspects in an attempt to give them some 'culture'..to make mankind 'special and transcendent' of the animals.
To ask what art is? its a mix feeling that stimulus input gives you that you deem pleasing, or invoking, causes yearning or such..based on a level of past experiences, personal memories, or memory triggering parallels between it and yourself. Sure it can be other, or different responses it causes in someone. As its person to person based..But what is art? simply a personal opinion of what invokes emotions in you and why/how.
This does not define something undefinable..its merely defining something that varies from person to person. its not abstract, or mystical, or metaphysical. Its not 'undefinable', its simply individualism. That requires no metaphysical definition of self to do that.
Like the Bach example, Not everyone likes Bach, but everyone can explain there individual feeling of Bach. Or at least project them in a meaning full way to give the impression on if they like it or not.
If they cannot, its not the lack of being able to understand it, its lack of knowing words to do it. And as its true you cannot explain the feeling of Bach universally..just as you cant explicitly define the comforting and soothing properties of the color baby blue on some people. Or the savoriness and feeling of pure delight that eating sour goose eggs gives to some. Its dependent on the person, Whatever personal stimuli for them causes the trigger of either pleasurable (rewarding), or unpleasurable (punishment) chemicals in the mind.
Whatever your brain deems good, and rewards you with positive emotions to encourage experiencing more of it, deems indifferent and could do with or without it, or deems harmful, undesirable, or offensive and causes negative emotions to encourage avoiding it in the future.
If by the that that means god..then god is nothing more than individual emotions that for a lack of description we slap 'god' onto and call it a day.
And if that's so...again, why does emotions (nature, the universe, us..or whatever you are sticking it on) need a new word? Only because that word is more fuzzy feeling, comforting, self personable and give the impression of self? It gives a sense of 'culture' and 'refinement' to simple things so iti fits with the human ego?
Its just being tossed around like an adjective now since its so ingrained into culture:
Its not my emotions its my 'god emotions' its not my feelings its my 'god feelings', its not my moral its my 'god morals'. Its doing nothing more than putting a word that cannot be defined but used as a noun/verb/adverb/whatever when needed, as an explanation of how we rationalize the universe. Like I said before, its the humans version of 'smurf'. I have a smurfy feeling, I am staying smurfy in the face of aversity, I'm hoping that smurfy things happen. Its a nonsense word that we have used so much that we just imply and infer it means whatever we need it to.
Do you see my point? its a Swiss army, universal, undefined, 'widget' of a word that is used to try to make anything non physical seem more majestic to the human race, more sophisticated than it is..that sort of "Surely humans are the peak of existence and the state of 'being', it needs big powerful obscure words that go beyond what everything else uses to define it. It makes us feel unique, special, different than the rest. we have a 'gift' no one else can claim that we can have self satisfactions and smugness that only we can possess it.."
I am not saying people cannot come to this conclusion, and embrace it, and let it give them some sense of 'high plane of existence'. It gives them comfort that its universe isn't just a cold expansive space of random events of cause and effect, that we try to rationalize to make some sort of sense from our own perspective, and nothing more...They are entitled to. But it doesn't change the fact that it is. its just tossing a fuzzy blanket over it so its less rough on the skin.
But like I said, assigning god to explain what goes on internally..or labeling that the 'self god' is no different or better than labeling an external god as the purpose and meaning that drives your life.
Im really just trying to get a feel for why people do it. Any all I get is the usual reply when it comes to god "I cant pinpoint how to explain it, but all i DO know is I'm the only one doing it right, everyone else's god is slightly wrong on its basis."
Which EVERYONE does to everyone else when it comes to them having a personal god. Everyone thinks everyone's elses isn't quite 'right'.
Both OC and Chinup did this "My personal god is for the right reasons, everyone elses personal god is usually for the wrong ones as they are being lead astray".
Then if thats what it is..that everyone holds thier own dear, while agreeing no one elses is exactly the same, but thiers is 'better'..Thats nothing more than opinions on life, and how you perceive the things in it.
And opinions on life (and opinions on the things you experience during it) surely doesn't need to be labeled any type of transcending, metaphysical term? (beyond doing so to self justify why yours are better than others..as opinions sounds so 'iffy')
And I'm not really trying to stop anyone from doing it...Just really grasping at straws trying to understand why humans keep perpetuating this concept. What long term gain does it give us? What benefit does it have that out weights the cons that it hasn't been phased out of us yet. What purpose does made up feelings of self important grandeur we have serve?
(or may I'm just being too egotistical, and its going to be later on down the line. its still a 'kink' or 'bug' that hasn't been worked out of us).
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 14:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | What makes morality objective? Are we born with the morals we still have as adults? Obviously not, we're born with the basic instincts and children tend to be cruel to each other until they've reached a certain point where they develop a sense of post-ego. Morality is shaped by cultures, society, parents, schools, behaviour etc... And I have no idea what you meant with the use of the word "vindictive" in this context. There's no universal moral code. We have survival instincts that guide us in some ways to make sure the group you live in prospers for the good of the group (what's good for the group is also good for you). But that's not morality.
Yet again I suspect this is a question of language barrier/definition/semantics. |
Morality develops from ones ability to comprehend the effects of ones actions .. to think you get to pick & chose the effects of your actions is silly.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14344
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 14:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: |
I agree to an extent colour, but I still think its putting too much 'grandeur' into things that don't need it, for the fact of making one feel self worth. It's confusing 'meaning' and 'purpose', confusing "explanation' for 'excuse' so to speak.
It's False, hollow, self worth. Its powerful yes! but doesn't make it anymore based in reality.
I'm not saying people cannot have a feeling of self worth. But to assign grandeur terms to simple mechanics to do so is not better than claiming religious god gives your life a purpose...its a false and erroneous assumption of a 'safety blankie' to cuddle. its applying metaphysical term to purely physical aspects in an attempt to give them some 'culture'..to make mankind 'special and transcendent' of the animals. |
1. Why do you see simple mechanics everywhere? I would like to point out that your mechanistical way of explaining reality is everything but simple. On the contrary, the deeper you peek into reality, the more complex it gets. It is obvious that trying to explain all of reality with a materialistic and static point of view leads to an infinitely complex system. It is, by no means, easy. It never will be. Guess why only the greatest minds of this planet can get a partial grasp on all of what science has achieved today. Its like trying to count the number of mathematical points on a line AB.
2. And why do you think it is a saftey blanket to feel otherwise about life and existence than in mechanistical terms? I could very well say, that it is a saftey blanket to have this need for reality to be just a mechanistical thing, void of any meaning and purpose. Because of the irrational need to be in control through concept.
Both points of view are a matter of will anyway. I can very well be open to science and at the same time feel more about life than what my scientific methods can show. Like I said before. Stop mixing up your method of understanding with the thing you are trying to explain. Any explanation will always be reduced to static terms and cannot fully account for what something really is.
| DXWarlock wrote: |
To ask what art is? its a mix feeling that stimulus input gives you that you deem pleasing, or invoking, causes yearning or such..based on a level of past experiences, personal memories, or memory triggering parallels between it and yourself. Sure it can be other, or different responses it causes in someone. As its person to person based..But what is art? simply a personal opinion of what invokes emotions in you and why/how.
This does not define something undefinable..its merely defining something that varies from person to person. its not abstract, or mystical, or metaphysical. Its not 'undefinable', its simply individualism. That requires no metaphysical definition of self to do that. |
Again, why the need of reduction? Because you do that alot. I suppose humanity does that out of fear. I also never said art was metaphysical.
But it still is not just "individualism", the artist has the gift to transport some meaning, some truth in some completely different way than we are used to normally. People may have an individual grasp on it, and still get partly the same message.
Art (especially music) cannot be reduced, f.e. to its atoms. You can only experience a musical piece as a whole, in its duration. Every moment of this experience leads to the next, it is completely fluid.
Now, again, you can bring as many explanations as you like, sociological, physical, biological, etc. Yet you will never be able to reduce the whole experience of f.e. a piece of music. Any explanation from outside, can never account for the inner experience of this whole duration of a piece. In other words, we all agree that we can talk about art and its message, but we will never share the same experience.
I didnt make this example of Art, to say it has something metaphysical about it. Sorry, but that was your conclusion. I merely took the example of art to say that there is a whole lot more to reality than the mechanistical/physical/positivist point of view, who, in my eyes, make the naive mistake of taking reality for what they interpret from it through their reson-glasses.
Yet, whether reality in itself is reasonable or not, we dont know. We never will. It does not have any reason to. And the deeper you look, the more complex the concepts and maths you need to explain it all become. And this will likely go on in infinity. But what you see there is not reality, what you see is what you put into reality to be able to grasp it. Sometimes though, someone really gifted shows up and has a intuition beyond what has been known up until that point, and he/her will design a new understanding of some part of reality.
edit: Sorry, DX, I responded a little too fast. I just want to add that I dont discuss what other people say or do about god/religion. Those concepts do not hold a lot of meaning for me. I just like to point out how we can open up a space for a different experience of reality here.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 15:02 Post subject: |
|
|
(damnit this was suppose to be a short reply...I cant seem to do one of those)
OH yea, i think its just the differences of opinion.
its not that I try to reduce everything down to mechanics. Its that I see it as that's all it is..its not the fact that I try to rationalize everything with an excuse of it. its more than the heart of it is nothing more than that. Without us (or life) here in the universe, its just mechanics of itself at work. I fail to see how adding a few tons of carbon mass to the universal process makes it fundamentally different.
I guess its the ideal that I have of to truly understand something and have a grasp of it, is not to see how complex you can make the explanation while still understanding it, but to see how simple you can reduce it down to while it still holding true.
I think its the opposing concepts of how you say that making it about math makes it Infinity more complex. It makes it more complex in explanation, but not definition. its a matter of its can all be summed up, and explained with simple cause and effect. The math of that may be complex. But the idea of the reason is as simple as it gets.
We may be WAY over complicating it, and some other form of life has made a simple elegant from of relative concepts that explains/predicts/defines the possible outcomes with such simplicity, and is able to be used to share personal experiences with such detail and personal inner detail. that its almost as 'natural' to understand as the events it predicts. Then we would go "oh it wasnt that complex, or deep, or mysterious..we just never knew how to share it"
I think Im still failing to try to get what I mean actually across..We make it complicated to be able understand it in terms we can grasp using our very limited and primitive forms of communication, not that its complicated in and of itself.
its like trying to imagine the complex math needed to understand the interactions of 2 atoms over time..its ONLY complex for us to make it where we can understand it, There is nothing complex about doing it to the atoms themselves..
So thats my point, we are being egocentric to say that such things are beyond definition...they are not. They are just beyond OUR ability to define because we arent really that smart, we just having nothing to compare to to show how silly, limited intellect, stuck in our limited view, and ape like we are..So to get around that ego deflating concept, we just label some things are "too hard to ever define" or "undefinable". Because to us its like trying to grasp at smoke..
So I group all of it like that. Our lack of being able to define personal experiences, thoughts, and memories in simple terms that can be related to others, doesn't mean that them themselves are in nature complex.
Its just that our troglodyte minds when inventing language and communications have never found a way to simply share such things. Since our entire concept of communication revolves around making sound waves, and simple physical symbols to represent them that others can understand. That limits out ability to share with each other information a LOT. we are barely past the point of grunts and yells as warnings or greetings as far as 'complexity of communication types' go. I say we are hardly beyond chest beating, and angry looks as a way of sharing ideas. just we have memorized noises to share with each other.We still rely on making noises to do it.
Every bit of any type of communication we have is purely physical based be it voice, music, art, math, etc..(even such as art, still relying on only a VERY limited range of sensory input sensitive to waves, to try to convey a thought by physically putting down patterns to mimic what you want to express). And this is the problem..not that its hard to explain, its hard to share. Our lack of being able to share it doesn't make it deep and profound..it just makes us ignorant/incapable of how to.
So again its not that these things themselves are hard to understand. Each person naturally knows them with great ease, every person has an innate ability to understand his own experiences well...its our inability to somehow naturally share them among ourselves that's the hard part. And since we never evolved, created, or know of any such concept of how to do that..its now a 'not definable'.
Such as the hive like mind of the borg would have no issue at all sharing and exchanging thoughts and experiences in their pure personal context. Why since we lack this ability means that its the abilities problem, not our own shortcoming?
Why does it become so profoundly complex and philosophical just because we have no way to relay the simple information in our minds to others well?
I think to say that perception of experiences is philosophical because it cannot ever be expressed to others, is like saying an ape wanting to share seeing a big flying bird hes never seen (airplane), and not being able to find a way to express it to others as a concept directly would be philosophical.
Both are simple ideas and experiences in one minds, that the holder just isn't smart enough or have the ability to get across due to his physiology. The only difference is we can explain we saw a plane, just not smart enough to know a way to convey the actual experience itself..only the sounds we memorized as words to physically describe the plane and where it was.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Fri, 8th Mar 2013 17:53; edited 6 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 5 of 8 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
