Just to Stir Things Up A Bit... [Archive] - SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network

KidA

18 July 2008, 21:13

Topic: Beliefs and Values.

Question: Can belief- or faith-based values be adhered to, and followed, without necessarily affirming a divine being as the source?

I.e. Can one lead or follow a Christian lifestyle without acknowledging the existence of a Christian God? Judaism? Islamic? Sikhism?

Why or why not?

No, I'm not drunk, bored or looking for thesis material...;)

You mean loving one's neighbor as ones self? Laying down ones life for ones friends? Feeding the sick, the poor, taking care of the needy? Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Absolutely. Happens every single day.

What Jesus placed the greatest emphasis on was feeding the sick, the needy, visiting those in prison and clothing the unclothed - in fact he said those who did not do these things, even if they believed in Jesus, were the accursed and would be cast away from him.

Matthew 25:

[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
[44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
[45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Note he makes no distinction for those who believe or don't believe, only those who act and who did not act.

dougage

18 July 2008, 21:18

Most definitely.

To do things or not based on benevolent core beliefs, not because someone or something is watching - or being punished when youre dead:p - is entirely possible.

In fact, I believe the effect of being bombarded with guilt can make people go a little bat shit crazy, and has been known to create arrogance and general meanness.

Outofcontrol

18 July 2008, 21:23

Sure you can...Although they are becoming fewer and fewer, there are still some good good people that do not claim a particular "religion."

OOC, out

Frog

18 July 2008, 21:37

Sorry, I'm getting a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves, here I'll give you a topic. . .no wait you already have one. I'll go make some more coffee. And we'll talk. It's like butter.

mrwill

18 July 2008, 21:50

Does not partaking in religious ceremonies or strict adherence to religious activities make me prone to immoral beliefs?

When I led my platoon in OIF 1, our chaplain deeply expressed his worry and dissapointment in the fact that I had no set in stone religious beliefs. I am protestant because my parents told me I am long ago. I believe there may be a higher power at work, but I also look at things with a skeptical eye. But what I believe is the most important thing in governing yourself is the belief in living by good moral conduct, inspired by religion or not. The presence of religion is good, because without it, some people would see no other reason to live by moral standards. Myself, I would act the way I act because of my own standards, not because of a deity.

Trip_Wire

18 July 2008, 21:57

I guess you never heard the old saying 'To never discuss politics and religion' with others. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_politics

http://www.robertbreaker.com/Gospel/religion%20or%20politics.htm

0699

18 July 2008, 22:04

cb88

18 July 2008, 22:14

Kind of. I think it'd be hard to live a "Christian life" when the first commandment says something about have no god besides me. Seems like if you can't meet that, then by definition you're not living a Christian life.

I do believe that a person can live a virtuous life as defined by Aristotle without believing in a higher power. The virtues don't have anything to do with religion.

Not to nit pick, but the first commandment came from the Jewish faith -- living under "the law" -- Jesus replaced the law. ;) :D

Other than that, I agree with your second point. As a Christian, myself, I believe there will be a lot of awesome people that won't get into heaven because they didn't belive in Jesus. But, that's my beliefs, everyone else has to decide for themselves what they believe -- I still like that South Park episode "oh, I'm sorry, the correct answer was 'Morman'..." LOL :D

sailor99

18 July 2008, 22:40

Yes...

The life you live does not determine your level of religious-ness. I actually wrote a paper on this in college. I was writing about Islam and I stated that a Christian can take up several of the tenets of Islam and apply them to their Christian lifestyle and be a better Christian for it! Of course, you'd have to adapt several beliefs.

Anyway, if this was not true there would be two types of people: Good-religious ones or Bad-non_religious ones.

Note: I realize that reads kind of strange.

The Fat Guy

18 July 2008, 22:42

I think that the force of good (God, or whatever you call him) and the force of evil (Satan or whoever the fuck) exist whether or not you believe in them just like Night and Day. if you do not seek the light, the dark will prevail. Is it possible yes, my sister is one of them, very generous and kind, no use for God. I dont know if I could do it though. I function best when there is accountability, be it divine or not.

My .02

Bravo Five Romeo

18 July 2008, 22:53

You don't need religion to have empathy for your fellow man.

I don't rape the hot girl who passed out with no one around, or kill the guy with the new iphone because I fear being caught by the police or judged by God.

I don't do those things because they're terrible things and I have a basic empathy for my fellow man where, unless they did something to deserve it, I would not wish them any harm. I will help an injured person, stop to help a broken down motorist, go out of my way to help someone who looks lost... not because I'm religious, but because it's a good thing to do and I put myself in the other person's shoes.

---------------------------

But if you wish to stir things up a little, as the title of this thread suggests, let me stir things up with this question...

Who is more moral?
The non religious man who does not believe in divine judgment, but still obeys the law and is courteous and kind to his fellow man?
or
The religious man who only restrains himself because of fear of divine judgment?

Snake

18 July 2008, 23:05

I believe in 5.56, 7.62, 12.7 and 40mm. Most of my prayers are answered by 155mm.

Looon

18 July 2008, 23:07

regular.joe

18 July 2008, 23:16

I believe in 5.56, 7.62, 12.7 and 40mm. Most of my prayers are answered by 155mm.

A few of the bigger prayers have been answered by JDAM.:D

Snake

18 July 2008, 23:20

A few of the bigger prayers have been answered by JDAM.:D

Takes two goats and some joss to get any JDAM action.

Starlight

18 July 2008, 23:20

A few of the bigger prayers have been answered by JDAM.:D

You Sir, owe me a new computer monitor... :D

sailor99

18 July 2008, 23:30

---------------------------

But if you wish to stir things up a little, as the title of this thread suggests, let me stir things up with this question...

Who is more moral?
The non religious man who does not believe in divine judgment, but still obeys the law and is courteous and kind to his fellow man?
or
The religious man who only restrains himself because of fear of divine judgment?

#1 because it's truly in his heart. It's his automatic reaction w/o having to think about it.

But, what's really important is that the end result is the same. People's motivations don't matter as much in this fast paced world. Sadly IMO.

Terminator2

18 July 2008, 23:46

Immorality, apathy, hate, malice, lust, etc. are, IMO, evil and wrong no matter what the reason behind it. Evil is evil whether you do it in the name of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, atheism, or for no reason at all.

By the same token, should I, as a believer, condemn a non-believer for an act of kindness because he's a non-believer? The story of the Good Samaritan says otherwise.

Aside from Satanism and Nihilism, there are very few philosophies that condemn charity and selflessness.

Not to nit pick, but the first commandment came from the Jewish faith -- living under "the law" -- Jesus replaced the law.

Jesus said the law would not pass away. He said Himself that He did not come to replace the law but to fulfill it. The Jews have not been superseded.

stllearnin

18 July 2008, 23:49

JRB11

18 July 2008, 23:54

You'll have to define "christian" lifestyle me. I've never had any use for organized religion, and apart from some possibly immoral drunken activities while young, I've led a pretty damn decent life. I have nothing against anyone who is a christian, or anyone who isn't, until proven otherwise.

Greenhat

18 July 2008, 23:57

Who is more moral?
The non religious man who does not believe in divine judgment, but still obeys the law and is courteous and kind to his fellow man?
or
The religious man who only restrains himself because of fear of divine judgment?

If their actions are the same, they are both equally moral.

Follow up question...

What determines what is moral?

stllearnin

19 July 2008, 00:05

If their actions are the same, they are both equally moral.

Follow up question...

What determines what is moral?

*backs away veerrrryyyy slowly* I spend way too much time studying this in school and debating this on the internet... I'm ripping my hands away from the keyboard. HA!

sailor99

19 July 2008, 01:03

If their actions are the same, they are both equally moral.

Follow up question...

What determines what is moral?

"THEY" do...
They say this and They say that.

Seriously, what is moral depends on the environment. Morality is fluid, is adapts to it's environment.

Bravo Five Romeo

19 July 2008, 01:08

What determines what is moral?

That's a big question.

It's a complicated issue that people have written books trying to answer.
I'll give one small part of my beliefs.
One factor, to me, of what makes something moral is if my actions (or inactions) cause harm by intent.
Harm, of course, is measured in degrees, from emotional discomfort to death.

This is all just my opinion.
Moral actions are those meant to cause the least harm, or no harm at all.
Moral actions may cause unintended harm, but is their intentions that make them noble.

Lying, for example...
If I lie to a woman, implying I am seeking a serious relationship when all I want is a one night stand... that is immoral, intentionaly causing harm for personal gain.

If I lie to a child and tell him his recently deceased parent did not suffer, when I know the parent was in terrible agony in the end, I am causing harm by deceiving the child, but I am doing it with the intention of causing less harm by allowing the child a level of false comfort.

Greenhat

19 July 2008, 02:00

Religious people have a much simpler solution.

God determines what is moral. And historically, it is pretty hard to deny that most societies' morality is based on religious codes.

KS11

19 July 2008, 04:15

Living a moral life and a Godly life are two different things, although they overlap greatly in most areas. The difference, in my opinion, is that someone living a moral life is relying on his own judgment of what's right or wrong. Yes, morals are shaped by society and most originate from some type of religion...but it's still the human code of conduct. The person living a Godly life has submitted control to a higher power and lets the decisions of right or wrong be made for him.

I think the difference began when Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die, the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Bravo Five Romeo

19 July 2008, 04:33

Religious people have a much simpler solution.

God determines what is moral. And historically, it is pretty hard to deny that most societies' morality is based on religious codes.

My solution is simple as well.
Empathy for my fellow man and not wanting to kill, rape, steal, etceteras seems very obvious to me without religion.
There is no hesitation or deep introspection for me when it comes to most seemingly obvious questions of right and wrong.

Asking me to explain the intricacies of my decisions and define my morals would, of course, take time.
That doesn't mean saying God said so is simpler because it's a shorter answer.
If you were asked to explain and define God's specific moral beliefs... that would be a pretty long answer too.

I am not denying that many of our basic laws of what is right and wrong that have been passed down from civilization to civilization are not based on religious codes.
But that does not make them exclusively religious principles.

To me, these basic rights and wrongs are obvious, without religion.

If the Bible says "don't stick your hand in fire because it will hurt like a motherfucker"... the fact that I don't stick my hand in fire because I know it will hurt like a motherfucker doesn't mean I'm following a religious belief.

I learned my morals on my own and the basics were guided by my parents.
When I was a toddler and I pushed another toddler out of my way to go on a swing, if that toddler cried because of what I did, in addition to being scared of getting in trouble from my mom, I felt bad because I knew how bad it felt to cry and I felt awful that I made someone else do it.
I wasn't scared God was shaking his head and taking notes.

I watched my own children learn empathy and remorse the same way as small children.
Some things had to be taught and understood as they got older.
Most of the basic stuff they figured out on their own.

The Corporate Guy

19 July 2008, 09:15

The problem with morality is that it becomes quite malleable when ones own well being becomes challenged.

Greenhat

19 July 2008, 09:29

To me, these basic rights and wrongs are obvious, without religion.

If you had been raised by Thugs (referring to the Indian sect), you wouldn't find them so obvious. You are a product of your culture, whether you recognize it or not, and your culture is directly a result of Judaism/Christian beliefs.

Husker19D30

19 July 2008, 09:52

Religious people have a much simpler solution.

God determines what is moral. And historically, it is pretty hard to deny that most societies' morality is based on religious codes.

But the very fact that this complex question can be answered so simply ('God did it') should make one suspicious.

Then again my take on morality has always been that the basis of evil/sin/whatever lies in hurting others unnecessarily. The relativism comes in when determining what is necessary.

True morality is a complex question. Maybe I should study more philosophy. Folks a lot smarter than me are certainly confused (and confusing) regarding this topic.

SOTB

19 July 2008, 09:58

And historically, it is pretty hard to deny that most societies' morality is based on religious codes.Too true. But then we've only managed to move from horse-drawn transport to flying machines within the past 100 years, accept that the world is not flat within the past 500 years, and realize that the key to not dying from eating certain food products is through thorough cooking (we're still battling with that one). More time is needed -- which might not be available....

KidA

19 July 2008, 10:00

If you had been raised by Thugs (referring to the Indian sect), you wouldn't find them so obvious. You are a product of your culture, whether you recognize it or not, and your culture is directly a result of Judaism/Christian beliefs.

which is a product of (insert ancient culture here and repeat until you get back to cavemen who said "urgh" and worshipped thunder)

Bravo Five Romeo

19 July 2008, 10:14

If you had been raised by Thugs (referring to the Indian sect), you wouldn't find them so obvious. You are a product of your culture, whether you recognize it or not, and your culture is directly a result of Judaism/Christian beliefs.

I agree that my culture has had an effect on me, in direct and subtle ways, since I was a child.

But your example raises an interesting point.
Is empathy for your fellow man natural or learned?
We see carnivores in nature that do not kill and eat their own species and they have no religion.

Do we have natural morals, a natural empathy for our own species that has allowed us to live with each other and survive as a species... long before we had religion?

A child born into a Thuggee family may have natural morals and not want to harm or kill... but is raised in a culture that changes his natural morals.
Can religion or other factors in a child's environment skew a child's natural morals?

The Corporate Guy

19 July 2008, 10:15

Then again my take on morality has always been that the basis of evil/sin/whatever lies in hurting others unnecessarily.

I would venture that differences in values and morality have been the source of more conflict, war and death than oil and treasure ever will.

TPD1280

19 July 2008, 10:26

Not to nit pick, but the first commandment came from the Jewish faith -- living under "the law" -- Jesus replaced the law. ;) :D

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, love your neighbor even as you love yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:37-39

That was not replaced. The laws about burnt offering and sacrifice were. See Mark 12:33.

As for the topic as hand, I believe it is possible to incorporate different aspects of different systems of belief without espousing worship of the core diety.

I incorporate a number of Zen aspects into my life, but I do not believe that I will eventually be joined to the universal consciousness.

I know of people who are neither Jewish nor Muslim who do not eat pork.

Greenhat

19 July 2008, 12:07

which is a product of (insert ancient culture here and repeat until you get back to cavemen who said "urgh" and worshipped thunder)

Absolutely.

I agree that my culture has had an effect on me, in direct and subtle ways, since I was a child.

But your example raises an interesting point.
Is empathy for your fellow man natural or learned?
We see carnivores in nature that do not kill and eat their own species and they have no religion.

We also see carnivores that do kill and eat their own species, including man, indicating that either that is a "null" or that it is directly related to specie survival and since man continues to kill his own species (in rather large numbers) and survive, empathy for your fellow man is clearly not natural.

Do we have natural morals, a natural empathy for our own species that has allowed us to live with each other and survive as a species... long before we had religion?

History makes it more than evident that the answer to that question is clearly NO.

Greenhat

19 July 2008, 12:09

Too true. But then we've only managed to move from horse-drawn transport to flying machines within the past 100 years, accept that the world is not flat within the past 500 years, and realize that the key to not dying from eating certain food products is through thorough cooking (we're still battling with that one). More time is needed -- which might not be available....

No argument here...

Bravo Five Romeo

19 July 2008, 12:37

History makes it more than evident that the answer to that question is clearly NO.I'm not so sure.
The behavior of people as individuals is far different from the behavior of people in groups working together.

The history of man is filled with man killing man to survive.
But man killing man for pleasure or out of indifference to life is not so common.

My question still stands.Do we have natural morals, a natural empathy for our own species that has allowed us to live with each other and survive as a species... long before we had religion?That there have been men devoid of empathy is not proof that most men were.
For every tribesman who killed his neighbor for his shiny beads... there were probably many more who wouldn't.

guns

19 July 2008, 13:05

Do we have natural morals, a natural empathy for our own species that has allowed us to live with each other and survive as a species... long before we had religion?

On a very base level, I believe we do. Morality is a very subjective thing though. To Islamic extremists it's morally correct that a woman should be stoned for adultery. Western culture says that that is morally reprehensible and deserving of punishment. So the question is, who decides what's moral? I'm not trying to argue that the example I used is an acceptable action just because they believe it is, what I'm saying is that each culture sets its own moral codes. It's awfully convenient to just lay the onus on some type of all-powerful deity and say that whatever he/she/it says is moral is moral and what's wrong is wrong, period. It's a much more difficult proposition to decide on one's own what you really feel is moral and immoral. Now that doesn't excuse criminals from acting the way they do because "that's the way they were raised" because there have been laws made that dictate what is moral and immoral in a legal sense. But in an everyday sense, who decides what is moral? Take the example of a homeless man. The Bible says it's the right thing to do to feed and take care of that man to the best of your ability. Yet, who decides if he's worthy of such generosity? Is it moral to blindly believe that all homeless and poor are just down on their luck and in no way contributed to their current situation therefore meaning they all deserve charity? Or is it moral to not give to individual homeless people, but give to an organization that is set up to help the homeless so that some of your money helps the guy that's on the street because his bitch of an ex-wife took everything from him in a divorce and slapped him with domestic violence charges so that he can't get a job, but some of it also goes to the guy who's homeless because he spends every penny on drugs or alcohol and refuses to even try and help himself? So where does the line get drawn when it comes to smaller things like that? And what kind of moral is it that you can live a good life and be the nicest guy on earth, but because you didn't believe in some omnipotent guy in the sky you get damned to eternal fire? Is the same power that made that rule worthy of following when it comes to other moral codes? Ultimately, there is a base code in all of us that says murder (not killing, murder), rape, and robbery are wrong. Beyond that, each person has to decide for themself. Whether they do that by just following some ancient rulebook or by deciding for themselves based on life experiences and common sense is another personal choice.

KidA

19 July 2008, 13:26

Primates figured out that it's easier to survive as a group than it is singularly. So groups of primates hung out together and didn't kill each other. They would, however, kill others in different groups of primates who competed with them for food or mates.

Primates still do this to this day.

We do the same thing - our "morality" with regards to what we do or don't allow in society has grown out of figuring out that we do well as communities and don't do well as singles (for the most part). What we have not figured out, and are just kind of getting around to figuring out, is that communities can work with other communities for the benefit of our entire species.

However, unlike the lesser evolved primate species still around today, once we became more conscious our ancestors began looking for ways to manipulate people and keep them from leaving their communities, thus making them weaker and more able to be conquered by other communities - this is where we got Kings and Religion. Religion has always been a way to control a populace.

It's also been used (and still is) to conquer other communities to strengthen our own: Our invisible God no one has ever seen nor heard from is better than their invisible God no one has ever seen nor heard from, so let's go kill them and take what they have.

In many ways our lesser evolved ape cousins are smarter than we are.

rgrjoe175

19 July 2008, 13:46

Somebody needs to take away the Chief's shit stirring stick....LOL

mdb23

19 July 2008, 14:51

Somebody needs to take away the Chief's shit stirring stick....LOL

No shit. Why do I get the feeling that he is sitting back and watching this while doing his best Dr. Evil laugh.....

Red Flag 1

19 July 2008, 15:00

If their actions are the same, they are both equally moral.

Follow up question...

What determines what is moral?

Laws and morals are decided by society, as I understand. That makes sense to me. Society deals with transgressions in moral and legeal matters; up to and including forfit of mortal life as we understand it. These morals and laws may or may not be based in religion.

Some societies have a very direct connection to the ruleing religious beliefs, morals, and regional law. Religous law is a function of what the faithful believe to be a " sin " or a failuire to follow said laws, or interpretation of said laws. The end rewards or costs of life beyond the grave is a matter of faith and religous conviction.

The quote, " render unto Ceasar what is Ceasers', render unto God what is Gods'." is thought of as a financial arrangement (taxes); it is also a moral, legal, and religous arrangement as well. The founders of our nation were guided by this tennant in describing the seperation of church and state. The Muslim world has not been seen to include this idea in their society.

Morals are the rule of a society; religion CAN be a modifier!

IMHO!

RF 1

Billy L-bach

19 July 2008, 18:53

short answer-No

long answer; It cant be faith based without some sort of 'faith'. "Faith based" means just that "based on the affirmation of a divine being" and everything else just gets categorized as "being a nice guy" for no particular reason.

Do people live a good life without religion? Absolutely, everyday all over the world, but it isn't faith based unless there is some sort of deity hidden somewhere or else there would be no 'basis n faith".

so again, my short answer: no

Greenhat

19 July 2008, 22:33

But man killing man for pleasure or out of indifference to life is not so common.

Are you really that unaware of human history?

Most of the history of the human race is filled with man killing men with indifference to life.

Continuing right up to the present day.

Greenhat

19 July 2008, 22:37

Some societies have a very direct connection to the ruleing religious beliefs, morals, and regional law.

I would argue that all societies have a fairly direct connection between religious beliefs and morals. I would like someone to point to a society on Earth that doesn't. The two that I think are the most likely for the award are Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, neither what most of us would consider a moral society (and clear demonstrations of the brutality men are capable of, not for survival).

Greenhat

19 July 2008, 22:38

Our invisible God no one has ever seen nor heard from is better than their invisible God no one has ever seen nor heard from, so let's go kill them and take what they have.

Are you calling Moses a liar? :D

Red Flag 1

19 July 2008, 23:05

I would argue that all societies have a fairly direct connection between religious beliefs and morals. I would like someone to point to a society on Earth that doesn't. The two that I think are the most likely for the award are Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, neither what most of us would consider a moral society (and clear demonstrations of the brutality men are capable of, not for survival).

I agree with the religion to morals link. Where things fall apart is religion into law link. But, looking at your origional question, you are correct.

Intresting discussion!

RF 1

M.Pen

20 July 2008, 06:12

If their actions are the same, they are both equally moral.

Follow up question...

What determines what is moral?

Agreed. The differences between motives for behaviour only matter if they result in different behaviours.

NightLandNav

20 July 2008, 07:26

"...only matter..."

Not sure I'd go that far.

24/7

20 July 2008, 08:30

Religious people have a much simpler solution.

God determines what is moral. And historically, it is pretty hard to deny that most societies' morality is based on religious codes.

From G.W's Farewell address

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citicens....Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instrument of investigation in courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be concede to the influence of refined educaton...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Thought it was applicable to some of the discussion.

Purple36

20 July 2008, 09:18

I would argue that all societies have a fairly direct connection between religious beliefs and morals. I would like someone to point to a society on Earth that doesn't. The two that I think are the most likely for the award are Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, neither what most of us would consider a moral society (and clear demonstrations of the brutality men are capable of, not for survival).

Interesting point; the two countries that professed there to be no God and religion to be the "opiate of the masses," murdered the greatest number of their citizens.

KidA

20 July 2008, 09:59

Interesting point; the two countries that professed there to be no God and religion to be the "opiate of the masses," murdered the greatest number of their citizens.

And we slaughtered teepees full of Indians while going to church on Sundays...

Bravo Five Romeo

20 July 2008, 10:20

Are you really that unaware of human history?

Most of the history of the human race is filled with man killing men with indifference to life.

Continuing right up to the present day.

Your taking that sentence ourt of context with my post.
I'm not saying men wth indifference to human life are uncommon in history.
There have always been individual men who killed out of indifference, not for need.

What I was saying was that the majority of men did not.
There have always been men who lacked basic empathy, but they were not the majority of men.
In an age before laws they were more rampant, but they were not the majority of the population.

I'm not talking about killing and stealing to survive or provide for family.
I'm talking about lack of morals, lack of empathy... killing for no reason with indifference.
It's always been there, but I believe it's a recessive condition that only the minority of men have had.

Natural selection would do away with most animals that lacked empathy for fellows of their species, including man.
Just as short neck giraffes starve, men with no empathy don't provide for and protect their families so their genetic predisposition to indifference is not passed along.
More importantly, natural selection favored humans with a genetic predisposition for empathy for their fellow men because they raised their families and passed that empathy gene along.

The basic foundation for morality is natural.

So if you believe in God, you can say God literally gave us our basic moral foundation since natural slection is a part of nature and nature is God's creation.

HighDragLowSpeed

20 July 2008, 10:51

Do people live a good life without religion? Absolutely, everyday all over the world, but it isn't faith based unless there is some sort of deity hidden somewhere or else there would be no 'basis n faith".

There are a number of eastern religions that arguably have no deities at all.

Confucinists: no afterworld just a set of rules for interactions in everyday life

Theravada/Hinayana Buddists: They teach that Buddha was a man, a very special man, a very special person but nevertheless human.

These buddists believe that there is no reality corresponding to the concept of God that people can rely on for salvation. While working towards realization and enlightenment for themselves, the role of Theravada monks is to preserve and spread the Buddhist teaching (the dharma or "karma"). dharma literally is about breaking through the pain of life at death.

Just two examples of non-deity based reigions with a basis for faith

religion to be the "opiate of the masses"

I'm of the belief that television has replaced religion as the opiate of the masses. :D

Greenhat

20 July 2008, 11:36

Your taking that sentence ourt of context with my post.
I'm not saying men wth indifference to human life are uncommon in history.
There have always been individual men who killed out of indifference, not for need.

What I was saying was that the majority of men did not.
There have always been men who lacked basic empathy, but they were not the majority of men.
In an age before laws they were more rampant, but they were not the majority of the population.

And I'm saying that shows a fundamental ignorance of human history. Do a little research on the Mongols, the Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, etc. and if you still believe that, you can't be helped.

It's always been there, but I believe it's a recessive condition that only the minority of men have had.

No, for most of history, it has been the norm.

Natural selection would do away with most animals that lacked empathy for fellows of their species, including man.

Really? So, explain why grasshoppers survive? Or Praying Mantis? Fighting fish? Tigers? Cobras?

As for man, if we have such empathy for each other, how is it that we are capable of killing millions of each other? How does a Rwanda happen? Or a Killing Fields?

Just as short neck giraffes starve, men with no empathy don't provide for and protect their families so their genetic predisposition to indifference is not passed along.

There is a significant difference between caring for immediate family and empathy for fellow men.

More importantly, natural selection favored humans with a genetic predisposition for empathy for their fellow men because they raised their families and passed that empathy gene along.

So Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Dillinger, Mutsuo Toi, Tito, Jim Jones, Tojo, Milosovec, Goering, Eichmann, the Pakistani Army, the Indonesian Army, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Imperial Japanese Army, Lenin, the NKVD, etc... they're all throwbacks?

LMAO

The basic foundation for morality is natural.

So if you believe in God, you can say God literally gave us our basic moral foundation since natural slection is a part of nature and nature is God's creation.

That's one way to look at it. I'm pointing out something much more specific and accurate. Morality, worldwide, is based on religious beliefs. Not nature. Whether those religious beliefs are accurate or not is immaterial. What we think of as right and wrong is based on the beliefs that our ancestors had.

Greenhat

20 July 2008, 11:39

There are a number of eastern religions that arguably have no deities at all.

Confucinists: no afterworld just a set of rules for interactions in everyday life

Theravada/Hinayana Buddists: They teach that Buddha was a man, a very special man, a very special person but nevertheless human.

These buddists believe that there is no reality corresponding to the concept of God that people can rely on for salvation. While working towards realization and enlightenment for themselves, the role of Theravada monks is to preserve and spread the Buddhist teaching (the dharma or "karma"). dharma literally is about breaking through the pain of life at death.

Just two examples of non-deity based reigions with a basis for faith

Thank you. :D

Greenhat

20 July 2008, 11:42

And we slaughtered teepees full of Indians while going to church on Sundays...

Numbers aren't quite in the same ballpark... or even close. And while a great number of church-going Americans protested the trail of tears and other events, most Soviet and Chinese protesters found themselves in a gulag or worse.

SOTB

20 July 2008, 11:44

Interesting point; the two countries that professed there to be no God and religion to be the "opiate of the masses," murdered the greatest number of their citizens.As KidA stated, the societies that purported to have great devotion to their religions made it a practice of slaughtering those that did not....

Bravo Five Romeo

20 July 2008, 11:46

And I'm saying that shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of human history.

No.

SOTB

20 July 2008, 11:58

Are you really that unaware of human history?

Most of the history of the human race is filled with man killing men with indifference to life.

Continuing right up to the present day.I disagree. Man's ability to consciously override what may be a hardwired understanding that killing may not be "good" comes with the flip-side issue of now having to deal with the killing itself.

Perhaps religion -- the entire concept of deities, demons, and living gloriously in the next life -- are simply manifestations of man's guilt of killing. Even of killing animals. Whether one wants to believe in guilt as the motivator of religion (I personally believe the motivator was fear of the unknown), consider reading stuff by Walter Burkert....

Greenhat

20 July 2008, 12:15

I disagree. Man's ability to consciously override what may be a hardwired understanding that killing may not be "good" comes with the flip-side issue of now having to deal with the killing itself.

Perhaps religion -- the entire concept of deities, demons, and living gloriously in the next life -- are simply manifestations of man's guilt of killing. Even of killing animals. Whether one wants to believe in guilt as the motivator of religion (I personally believe the motivator was fear of the unknown), consider reading stuff by Walter Burkert....

Considering the sheer amount of bloodshed that is normal in most of human history with relative ease (I think the ability to consciously override the idea that killing is not good is a relatively recent part of the human experience and not one that is anywhere close to universal even today).

There is more than enough evidence that killing was done brutally and without much thought at all for most of recorded human history, from the treatment by the Egyptians of slaves and other nations to the total destruction of cities by multiple civilizations, to actions of the Mongols and the Huns, to the Chinese sacrifice of thousands upon thousands for numerous purposes (with people being valued significantly less than animals) to the raids by the Vikings and other Scandanavian peoples, to the rape, pillage and burn (with murder being an assumed and not even worth mentioning part of the plan) standard approach to conquest until sometime in the Renaissance, to the slave trade to the great purge, to Mao's five year plan, to the rape of Nanking, to the Killing Fields to the still ongoing approach to warfare that is common in Africa.

The "natural" state of man seems to be a rather brutal one. Not for survival's sake, but in a manner of exposing the natural brutality that is man's (and probably necessary given that a relatively soft animal has survived as long as we have).

As for the source of religion, there are a number of legitimate arguments that can be made. Which one is right? We'll never know (at least not in this lifetime) except via faith. I'm not arguing whether religion is right or not, just that morality is rooted in it.

JRB11

20 July 2008, 12:22

Morality MAY have some roots in religion, but for most of organized religions history, religion hasn't followed moralty. IMO.

Greenhat

20 July 2008, 12:26

but for most of organized religions history, religion hasn't followed moralty. IMO.

I don't know if that is so true. If a religion said it was moral to kill unbelievers and then did it, they were following morality as they defined it.

The Christian religion (and especially the Catholic Church) has not done a very good job of following the morality they preach, but I'm not sure that we can apply that caveat to all religions.

SOTB

20 July 2008, 12:48

There is more than enough evidence that killing was done brutally and without much thought at all for most of recorded human history, from the treatment by the Egyptians of slaves and other nations to the total destruction of cities by multiple civilizations, to actions of the Mongols and the Huns, to the Chinese sacrifice of thousands upon thousands for numerous purposes (with people being valued significantly less than animals) to the raids by the Vikings and other Scandanavian peoples, to the rape, pillage and burn (with murder being an assumed and not even worth mentioning part of the plan) standard approach to conquest until sometime in the Renaissance, to the slave trade to the great purge, to Mao's five year plan, to the rape of Nanking, to the Killing Fields to the still ongoing approach to warfare that is common in Africa.Looking at each one of your examples, they appear to still be possibly explained by the "in-group/out-group" concept. And for the most part, I agree. Man comes to the table uniquely talented for not only being technologically capable of killing, but being able to reason why it is acceptable. Still, the reasoning of this acceptability is based -- IMO -- on our avoidance (or desire to avoid) guilt.The "natural" state of man seems to be a rather brutal one. Not for survival's sake, but in a manner of exposing the natural brutality that is man's (and probably necessary given that a relatively soft animal has survived as long as we have)....Ironically, the desire of man to live with others -- society -- is exactly the reason (again, IMO) of why man is such a killer. With all of the cool things that come with "reasoning", come also such things as greed, envy, hate, etc.

Sometimes, you have to wonder how we'll be able to survive the invention of an AI that remains logical and unemotional (ASSuming that is possible). If I were the AI-bots, I'd be looking pretty hard at humans as in the "out-group"....

HighDragLowSpeed

20 July 2008, 14:05

Ironically, the desire of man to live with others -- society -- is exactly the reason (again, IMO) of why man is such a killer. With all of the cool things that come with "reasoning", come also such things as greed, envy, hate, etc.

Then it would follow that there would be a need for a set of rules to govern the behavior of individuals within a society to repress the things such as greed, envy, hate. You can start with oral histories of gods representing each of those bad traits or just jump right to the 10 commandments - what you'll end up with is a set of extragovernmental guidelines for successful interaction of individuals within a society.

Supress coveting your neighbor's wife and there is less overall need for a killin' (but obviously not from my area of WA state where sex with any one of my neighbors' wives could be legally considered a threesome) :D

Greenhat

20 July 2008, 14:50

Looking at each one of your examples, they appear to still be possibly explained by the "in-group/out-group" concept. And for the most part, I agree. Man comes to the table uniquely talented for not only being technologically capable of killing, but being able to reason why it is acceptable. Still, the reasoning of this acceptability is based -- IMO -- on our avoidance (or desire to avoid) guilt.

I don't disagree with the "in-group/out-group" concept... however, I do think that the guilt issue is off.

Consider that one of the striking things that psychologists have discovered in investigating events like the Rwanda massacre, the Killing Fields and a number of other similar events is the lack of feelings of guilt. Also consider how long slavery was a completely normal human institution. Although we have a limited amount of documentation the farther we go back, one of the striking things about what we do have is the lack of guilt issues about killing, slavery, etc. until sometime in the middle-ages. Consider that the one ancient conquerer who did demonstrate empathy for man was considered very, very strange (and also extraordinary). Alexander.

I don't think guilt is hard-wired. I think it is learned. I think cultural differences that are visible even today demonstrate that. It may be that guilt is a common tool to religions, and that religions evolved in order to provide rules so men can live together in more than a pack or pride as HDLS suggests.

SOTB

20 July 2008, 15:11

Consider that one of the striking things that psychologists have discovered in investigating events like the Rwanda massacre, the Killing Fields and a number of other similar events is the lack of feelings of guilt. Also consider how long slavery was a completely normal human institution. Although we have a limited amount of documentation the farther we go back, one of the striking things about what we do have is the lack of guilt issues about killing, slavery, etc. until sometime in the middle-ages. Consider that the one ancient conquerer who did demonstrate empathy for man was considered very, very strange (and also extraordinary). Alexander.But these are exactly what I mean -- man's ability to rationale his conduct -- including killing -- serves to prevent him from having even the "need" for guilt, let alone actual guilt. We aren't required to have remorse for the out-group, because well, they are the out-group. Anyway, I do agree with you that man is a pretty brutal creature -- but I think he carries some unwanted baggage in his brutality, that he is constantly trying to get rid of.It may be that guilt is a common tool to religions, and that religions evolved in order to provide rules so men can live together in more than a pack or pride as HDLS suggests.I believe, wholeheartedly, in the idea that religions became a strong tool to govern societies -- including even evolving with society as it became itself more advanced (we went from worshiping the animals and moon, to worshiping multiple gods, to one god -- with the Hollywierd crowd (T. Cruise, W. Smith, etc.) showing us the path towards worshiping 3-headed aliens). And guilt may indeed be a tool of religion, but I think religion's greatest tool is fear.

If the Pope wants to learn how to really use guilt, he needs to get a girlfriend or wife....:D

cb88

20 July 2008, 15:29

Jesus said the law would not pass away. He said Himself that He did not come to replace the law but to fulfill it. The Jews have not been superseded.

I stand corrected in my choice of words. The point was, Christians do not live by the law (i.e. circumsicion, kosher meat, sabbath, etc) and do not believe following the law gets you into heaven. It is my understanding in Judaism you still have to follow the laws, though I'm not as up on Judaism.

KidA

20 July 2008, 16:07

I stand corrected in my choice of words. The point was, Christians do not live by the law (i.e. circumsicion, kosher meat, sabbath, etc) and do not believe following the law gets you into heaven. It is my understanding in Judaism you still have to follow the laws, though I'm not as up on Judaism.

In my humble opinion the ones I've met don't live by the one thing that Jesus said would get you into heaven (the verses I posted from Matt. 25 earlier). They live by the things Paul said get you into Heave (believing in Jesus). Jesus was very clear - don't feed/visit/clothe the hungry, imprisoned, impoverished and your ass isn't getting anywhere near Heaven, no matter at all whether you believe in Him and asked him to be your savior, or not.

If this Jesus thing is true I want to be sitting up there watching millions of people who went to church every time it was open and who were "saved" and baptised get sent down to Hell because they never bothered to do the very clear thing he commanded.

I imagine it would be about like this:

Christian Dude:

"But Jesus! I devoted my life to you. I sang in the choir, I tithed 10 percent, I went to church every Sunday. I read the bible three times all the way through!"

Jesus:

"And you also had a 4 bedroom house, 3 cars, a boat, a motorcycle, a vacation every year, three televisions, clothes you wore once, a full pantry, and died with insurance and bank accounts amounting to $100,000, and this was just at the time you died, not counting all the stuff you had throughout your life. You couldn't be bothered to donate to a soup kitchen and wouldn't make eye contact with the bum on the street corner. Just so you know, I was that bum.

If you read the bible 3 times you would know I said the only thing that is going to get you in here is spelled out in my very own words. Get out of my sight."

And then he does that Spartan kicking into the hole thing.

MixedLoad

20 July 2008, 17:20

A few of the bigger prayers have been answered by JDAM.:D

I love this place. :D

Greenhat

20 July 2008, 19:39

If the Pope wants to learn how to really use guilt, he needs to get a girlfriend or wife....:D

Well, for the Pope it's fear... for Judaism it's guilt... ask any NY Jew with a mother... :D

Purple36

20 July 2008, 21:50

KidA

20 July 2008, 22:13

I agree with most of this except that Jesus did say: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. John 14.6

Which many take as his meaning you aren't getting to the Father unless you LISTEN to his teachings because he's bringing you the rulebook, you just have to follow it.

In other words "You want to get into heaven? Fine. You have to go through me, and I'm going to tell you exactly how to do it. I'll be clear about it, even, because ya'll seem to be confused as to what it is the Father wants."

Which then brings us back to Matt. 25 and him demanding people devote their lives to helping the less fortunate - then there's that thing about not laying up treasures on earth (having things), etc...

cb88

20 July 2008, 22:34

In my humble opinion the ones I've met don't live by the one thing that Jesus said would get you into heaven (the verses I posted from Matt. 25 earlier). They live by the things Paul said get you into Heave (believing in Jesus). Jesus was very clear - don't feed/visit/clothe the hungry, imprisoned, impoverished and your ass isn't getting anywhere near Heaven, no matter at all whether you believe in Him and asked him to be your savior, or not.

If this Jesus thing is true I want to be sitting up there watching millions of people who went to church every time it was open and who were "saved" and baptised get sent down to Hell because they never bothered to do the very clear thing he commanded.

I imagine it would be about like this:

Christian Dude:

"But Jesus! I devoted my life to you. I sang in the choir, I tithed 10 percent, I went to church every Sunday. I read the bible three times all the way through!"

Jesus:

"And you also had a 4 bedroom house, 3 cars, a boat, a motorcycle, a vacation every year, three televisions, clothes you wore once, a full pantry, and died with insurance and bank accounts amounting to $100,000, and this was just at the time you died, not counting all the stuff you had throughout your life. You couldn't be bothered to donate to a soup kitchen and wouldn't make eye contact with the bum on the street corner. Just so you know, I was that bum.

If you read the bible 3 times you would know I said the only thing that is going to get you in here is spelled out in my very own words. Get out of my sight."

And then he does that Spartan kicking into the hole thing.

It is not by works but by faith...however faith without works is dead.

M., one of these days when I'm in DC or your in Dallas, we'll have to have a real debate about this...you are very studied in the doctrine/scripture, however you choose to paraphrase out of the context of the entire background.

eg. the most misquoted scripture is "money is the root of all evil" (see your phrase above)....the real scripture is "the love of money is the root of all evil". The scriptural background is that anything that you put before Jesus is a "god" and evil...nothing should come before God/Christ/The Holy Spirit.

God blessed many people in biblical times with great wealth -- starting with Abraham. He also took great wealth away from people (Job) to teach them humility and then gave it back to them again. David was richly blessed by God.

Riches aren't bad -- enjoying your blessings isn't bad. It's "hoarding" or being selfish or worshiping your riches and not helping others that makes them evil. In otherwords, it's what's in someone's heart.

The Fat Guy

20 July 2008, 22:40

I think that morality is based upon normative behavior established by a given group of people. The key to where each of us gets our morality is on what faction of society do we place the most emphasis. A doctor who has sworn to prevent suffering sees euthenasia as a morally sound and acceptable decision if the patient is terminal and suffering, where the judge or attorney sees it as a violation of law and perhaps even immoral. Religion is also normative behavior and can also be a source of influence which in turn can be used to define morality. The parents of kids at risk of joining a street gang do all they can to teach their version of morality so these kids won't see selling drugs or putting in work as acceptable because its the only way they can make a living. I think religion plays a big role in almost every society in forming norms for a certain stripe of that society. I also think this is why tyrants kill in the name of God so that they leverage the thought that being "Godly" or religious is morally acceptable and that killing the infidel de jour is morally ok because it is cloaked in the religion assuming the religion is accepted as being good by the group. I also think that religion is the opiate of the masses and that it is an attempt by man to leverage the true power of God be it for good or bad, whatever the group accepts as "moral".

Ok, back on my head

cb88

20 July 2008, 22:45

The key to where each of us gets our morality is on what faction of society do we place the most emphasis.

Sometimes our own ethos are based on several codes with which we are bound to.

NightLandNav

21 July 2008, 01:49

But these are exactly what I mean -- man's ability to rationale his conduct -- including killing -- serves to prevent him from having even the "need" for guilt, let alone actual guilt. We aren't required to have remorse for the out-group, because well, they are the out-group. Anyway, I do agree with you that man is a pretty brutal creature -- but I think he carries some unwanted baggage in his brutality, that he is constantly trying to get rid of.I believe, wholeheartedly, in the idea that religions became a strong tool to govern societies -- including even evolving with society as it became itself more advanced (we went from worshiping the animals and moon, to worshiping multiple gods, to one god -- with the Hollywierd crowd (T. Cruise, W. Smith, etc.) showing us the path towards worshiping 3-headed aliens). And guilt may indeed be a tool of religion, but I think religion's greatest tool is fear.

If the Pope wants to learn how to really use guilt, he needs to get a girlfriend or wife....:D

This is a key point regarding this entire discussion.

As SOTB stated, "Normal" people are capable of horrible shit once the behavior is sufficiently rationalized.

Similar to the hypnotized girl in front of her Psych class...she won't follow the suggestion from the hypnotist to disrobe in front of her class, but when told she is getting ready to take a shower...she starts unbuttoning her blouse.

Circumstance.

...and no, she was told to stop after a couple of buttons.

I would have tackled the hypnotist before he stopped her if I had been seated closer. Still, it was a damn good tackle.

;) Circumstance. Situation dictates.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? ...depends entirely on your definition of "Chicken". The "first" chicken came from an egg, so what laid it? Is 99.99999999% chicken a chicken or not? Ethical questions are rarely "yes or no" considerations. As has been pointed out repeatedly, situation dictates what is or isn't ethical or "moral".

Religious morality? Definitely came after the egg. "Values" are learned, nothing so complex is hardwired into the human brain. Even fear must be learned.

In this respect, humans are unique.

Greenhat

21 July 2008, 04:26

"Values" are learned, nothing so complex is hardwired into the human brain.

And humans generally learn from experience...

NightLandNav

21 July 2008, 04:37

And humans generally learn from experience...

True...despite appearances. :D

Purple36

21 July 2008, 07:54

And humans generally learn from experience...

Except, it seems, when it comes to applying lessons learned in previous wars to current military operations....:cool:

Greenhat

21 July 2008, 10:01

Except, it seems, when it comes to applying lessons learned in previous wars to current military operations....:cool:

Maybe I should have been more specific: Humans generally learn by their own experience (not from other's experiences)... which is why as a race we tend to make the same mistakes over and over and over...

stllearnin

21 July 2008, 10:26

Which then brings us back to Matt. 25 and him demanding people devote their lives to helping the less fortunate - then there's that thing about not laying up treasures on earth (having things), etc...

Right. However, being a Christian does not necessitate that one do all those things. Like Purple36 quoted John 14:6, you also need to bear in mind Romans 3:28 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Rom&chapter=3&version=ESV#28) where Paul clearly says that it is faith and works that save man. Which is more important then the other?... can't really say.

If one is talking about Christianity (which seems to be where this conversation is heading), then one needs to clearly understand what makes a Chrisitian a Christian. It's not just works and it's not just believeing in God. It's in the relationship that comes from the divine revelation and submission of oneself to God. If one holds that one is "saved", you have to maintain that there has been some kind of transformation from which one would sacrifice oneself to do all the things that Jesus talks about in Matthew 25 (which, bearing in mind the context of the chapter, seems to indicate more so a reward in heaven then salvation). This is the whole point of the story of the Rich Young Ruler in Matthew 19:16 - 26 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=19&version=ESV#16). Nothing man can do can grant him salvation and eternal life.

Because Christianity is not the only religion that espouses that one should treat the poor well and take care of them. In fact, one of the biggest tenants of Islam is alms for the poor.

No, Christianity answers the question of morality not just through actions but through relationship, and ultimately origin of man. THIS is the one thing that Christianity has that is unique to it moreso then any other religion: that man is made in the image of God.

This is important to the idea of morality because it goes back to the "first cause" of morality. What makes right, right and wrong, wrong? It's clearly not culture and civilization, because time and time again throughout history what has been right for one culture has been fatal for another. For man to define morality inside himself is impossible because of the fact that man is clearly not the originator of morality. Morality comes from the thing that man comes from. That "Moral Law Maker" per se.

TJ2JM1783

21 July 2008, 10:48

Somebody needs to take away the Chief's shit stirring stick....LOL

The verbal equivalent of sucker's bait.:D I would not know, am not sure, it is possible, maybe even probable, that someone is trying to stir up the ass(itude).:D

Well. OK.:D

Can faith based values be adhered to, followed without necessarily affirming a divine being as a source?

Yes.

Can you follow a Christian lifestyle without acknowledging the existence of a Christian God?

Yes.

KidA

21 July 2008, 12:01

Right. However, being a Christian does not necessitate that one do all those things. Like Purple36 quoted John 14:6, you also need to bear in mind Romans 3:28 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Rom&chapter=3&version=ESV#28) where Paul clearly says that it is faith and works that save man. Which is more important then the other?... can't really say.

This is just me, but if it came down to two different statements, one said by the Son of God and the other stated by a guy who never met Jesus (even though they were around at the same time), originally killed Christians, and had repeated disagreements with Jesus' apostles over Jesus' true message, I'd be inclined to believe the Son of God...

stllearnin

21 July 2008, 12:18

This is just me, but if it came down to two different statements, one said by the Son of God and the other stated by a guy who never met Jesus (even though they were around at the same time), originally killed Christians, and had repeated disagreements with Jesus' apostles over Jesus' true message, I'd be inclined to believe the Son of God...

Which would be true, except for the Acts 9 account of the Road to Damascus conversion, the apostles accepted him as one of their own, and he went from killing Christian's to becoming one and eventually dying for it. Also, nothing Paul says in any of his writing contradict anything Christ taught.

Plus, you are forgetting what Jesus said in Matthew 16. Also, Jesus expressly addresses the issue of works without faith/relationship with the Father in Matthew 7:21-23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=7&version=ESV#21), when he says "...Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ (23)And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"

GreenWarrior

21 July 2008, 12:41

Topic: Beliefs and Values.

Question: Can belief- or faith-based values be adhered to, and followed, without necessarily affirming a divine being as the source?

I.e. Can one lead or follow a Christian lifestyle without acknowledging the existence of a Christian God? Judaism? Islamic? Sikhism?

Why or why not?

No, I'm not drunk, bored or looking for thesis material...;)

Now I am not a "bible-thumper" Christian (no offense to those who are), but I am Catholic (and no my priest did not molest me when I was younger :D ). I say to answer the question, it depends on the religion, because take many Judeo-Christian religions that believe in the 10 Commandments. With some variance, the first 3 commandments are:

1. I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vein.
3. Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy.

So in order to adhere to this religion, you must accept the existence of a Christian God, otherwise you are already in violation of the first three rules.

I don't think you need to follow a religion to be a good person of course but to follow the religion itself, you should accept its beliefs or otherwise simply don't associate with it. Just my .02 cents.

KidA

21 July 2008, 13:05

Also, nothing Paul says in any of his writing contradict anything Christ taught.

Not true by a long shot.

Here's a good start on some reading on the subject - of which there are volumes.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

Purple36

21 July 2008, 18:49

I think this should be a separate thread..since the question is about Morality separate from religion. I suggest rather than pointing out what others have written, we could ourselves pull apart the differences between Paul and Jesus. I don't have much use for others interpretations..I think it would be more interesting to see what we discover ourselves. I clicked your link KidA and immediately disagreed with one of the first assertions of the author. Isaiah 53 is a far better source for the description of the Messiah, not what that website or even what the people of the day thought.

KidA

21 July 2008, 19:36

Isaiah 53 is a far better source for the description of the Messiah, not what that website or even what the people of the day thought.

The problem with Isaiah 53 is that the "prophesy" is about Israel, not about a Messiah. Read it in correlation to Isaiah 52, and 54, also Jesus did not suffer any disease as was prophesied in 53:10...did he?

http://www.thejesusmyth.com/essays/isaiah-53-more-mel-gibson-than-messianic

And while it may be a different discussion, if we are discussing whether people can be moral without religion I think it stands to reason that we have to decide what religion is, and where it came from?

My assertion is that it is man-made, therefore people can be moral without it, because it only exists in the minds of men.

21 July 2008, 19:44

I like lamp...

Purple36

21 July 2008, 20:08

The problem with Isaiah 53 is that the "prophesy" is about Israel, not about a Messiah. Read it in correlation to Isaiah 52, and 54, also Jesus did not suffer any disease as was prophesied in 53:10...did he?

http://www.thejesusmyth.com/essays/isaiah-53-more-mel-gibson-than-messianic

And while it may be a different discussion, if we are discussing whether people can be moral without religion I think it stands to reason that we have to decide what religion is, and where it came from?

My assertion is that it is man-made, therefore people can be moral without it, because it only exists in the minds of men.

Sorry Bro, once again..I just read the bible...not all the websites you are referring to. Is 53 speaks to a man, not the country. I have read the previous and post..I love the book and I love how God speaks through Isaiah, it is one of the most powerful faith builders for me and was central to bringing me to Christ.

KidA

21 July 2008, 21:06

Sorry Bro, once again..I just read the bible...not all the websites you are referring to. Is 53 speaks to a man, not the country. I have read the previous and post..I love the book and I love how God speaks through Isaiah, it is one of the most powerful faith builders for me and was central to bringing me to Christ.

If you say so, I don't see how anyone can read Isaiah 52, 53, and 54 and see it as referring to a man rather than Israel, but ....

...about that disease thing...why do only "some" parts of Isaiah 53 apply, but not all, if it is all about man? Keep in mind in the original texts it wasn't broken up into convenient chapters in order to solidify a belief man wanted others to believe...

TJ2JM1783

22 July 2008, 01:35

Not true by a long shot.

Here's a good start on some reading on the subject - of which there are volumes.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

VERY FEW Christian and Biblical scholars take Hyam Maccoby seriously. His theories and presentation are often brought into question. I agree they are interesting, but not at the height of scholarship. This point is not my opinion, but the consensus of those that write extensively on the subject and whose reputations as experts are validated by those of both the Jewish and Christian faiths.

TJ2JM1783

22 July 2008, 03:09

I do not believe there is any single event or person that is not connected to religion in some way.

IMO, beliefs, values, standards, virtues, ethics, rights, wrongs, morality, decency, empathy, respect, good, bad, consequences, accountability,guilt, punishment and laws (to name a few) are all concepts evolved from man's relationship with God. From the beginning. As civilizations became more sophisticated, the medium for documenting those beliefs became more absolute. As one of the wisemen said "it's complicated". In the simplest sense, there are only three kinds of people, those that believe, those that are ignorant of the influence and those that live in denial.

Examining these three groups, you find subcategories of all different kinds of people. In the believer group, you have those that have varying degrees of commitments to their belief, i.e. I only have to follow the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments, or I have to follow both the Word and do good works, etc. However, there is a general acknowledgement that their life is influenced significantly by God. (aka The Believer/Follower Group) In the ignorant group, you have those that have not been exposed or had a significant experience affirming God's existence. (aka The Primitive Group) In the denial group, there is a variety of reasons why they reject God's existence. Logic and reasoning might suggest that it is guilt, or I don't give a shit, ME, MYSELF and I is all the "religion" I need, or I have chosen to believe in the preeminence of People Law (societal dictates) versus God Law, etc. (The "I Make All My Own Choices" or "I Hate Being A Follower" or "It is Very Important to Me That I Have The Illusion of Control" Group). People have been known to go from one group to another and back.

All assaults on the concept of religion have been be doomed to failure. For example: relativism, age of reasoning, hidden curriculum, psychology (in group/out group bias theories), existentialism, subjectivism, bandwagon effects, popular opinion versus personal opinion debates, cultural and legal community definitions, so on . . . have all tried to set a human standard of "superiority" with only temporary successes. The longest lasting empire in the world is the Vatican Empire. I do not see it ending any time soon. Likewise with the Christian civilization (regardless of any attempts of population control).

Why do bad things happen to good people?
Are people born genetically bad? Did they know right from wrong when they committed the crime and is it important to know this in order to administer justice?

Who sets the standards of right and wrong (and the degrees of each thereof)? People/Societies who are influenced by their ancestry of belief in God (and/or rejection of same). Whether they acknowledge this fact or not.

As another wiseman said, "it's amusing". IMO.

Bravo Five Romeo

22 July 2008, 03:54

In the ignorant group, you have those that have not been exposed or had a significant experience affirming God's existence. (aka The Primitive Group) In the denial group, there is a variety of reasons why they reject God's existence. Logic and reasoning might suggest that it is guilt, or I don't give a shit, ME, MYSELF and I is all the "religion" I need, or I have chosen to believe in the preeminence of People Law (societal dictates) versus God Law, etc. (The "I Make All My Own Choices" or "I Hate Being A Follower" or "It is Very Important to Me That I Have The Illusion of Control" Group).

Wow.
You have really simplified the views of people who don't believe in God with the most negative condescending stereotypes.
Your religion is right and everyone else is wrong and people who don't believe in God are either vain, stupid, or deluded.
That was a line that should not have been crossed.

How about... some people who don't believe are people that do serious soul searching, but just find it difficult to believe in a supreme creator that is concerned with the matters of men... or find themselves sickened and pushed away by the hypocricy and self denial in the religions of men?

Purple36

22 July 2008, 07:04

If you say so, I don't see how anyone can read Isaiah 52, 53, and 54 and see it as referring to a man rather than Israel, but ....

...about that disease thing...why do only "some" parts of Isaiah 53 apply, but not all, if it is all about man? Keep in mind in the original texts it wasn't broken up into convenient chapters in order to solidify a belief man wanted others to believe...

Hah! I was just going to say the same thing about how can you possibly consider it to refer to a nation rather than a person. How do you get "A of sorrows," to mean a country. The bible just isn't that complicated. I'm thinking hey, when you head to Philedelphia-make sure you take your GPS!;)

He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53 is markedly different than 52-there is a topic shift. Prophets shifted back and forth-Jeremiah does so quite remarkably.

Greenhat

22 July 2008, 08:00

And while it may be a different discussion, if we are discussing whether people can be moral without religion I think it stands to reason that we have to decide what religion is, and where it came from?

My assertion is that it is man-made, therefore people can be moral without it, because it only exists in the minds of men.

A pretty good argument can be made that any moral code is a religion.

Greenhat

22 July 2008, 08:07

The longest lasting empire in the world is the Vatican Empire.

I am very curious as to how you define empire, and if the "Vatican Empire" qualifies, why doesn't Buddhism (which is older than Christianity) or Judaism or Hinduism?

KidA

22 July 2008, 08:40

Hah! I was just going to say the same thing about how can you possibly consider it to refer to a nation rather than a person. How do you get "A man of sorrows," to mean a country.

Hmm, a metaphor, maybe?

You didn't answer why only "some" of Isaiah applies (mainly the parts people can make fit) but not all of it...

You do realize Israel is the "suffering servant" right? I mean how can a country be a suffering servant? Metaphor? I know people say it is Jesus and use the phrase to justify a prophesy, but they also pick and choose and conveniently ignore this:

Isaiah 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.9 Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.

and this

[/quote][44:21] Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.[/quote]

God clearly names Israel as the suffering servant.

Which brings us to Isaiah 52 (again, remember it was not broken up into chapters originally)

Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. 2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion. 3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.

To use your argument, how can a nation "sit down" or "shake itself" or "loose thyself from bands"? Clearly they are talking about Israel, he even states "Put on thy strength, O ZION"

The lord goes on and on and on about Israel in Ch 52 - all the things they should do it will do, what will become, and verse runs into verse, until someone decided to make Chapter 53 completely separate - divided it up, because a snippet of it can be used to justify a man - despite God uses metaphors to describe Israel as a man (as is clear in 52) - suddenly Isaiah is divided into a separate chapter and you get Isaiah 53 - 1 - 12, and then suddenly it goes right back into (another conveniently divided chapter), Isaiah 54, where the Lord speaks of Israel as a barren woman (had to divide it because it clearly can't mean Jesus if now the Lord is talking about a barren woman)

Sing, O barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
burst into song, shout for joy,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband,"
says the LORD.
2 "Enlarge the place of your tent,
stretch your tent curtains wide,
do not hold back;
lengthen your cords,
strengthen your stakes.

3 For you will spread out to the right and to the left;
your descendants will dispossess nations
and settle in their desolate cities.

and so on.

So in a dozens and dozens of verses that everyone agrees is speaking about Israel, suddenly there's a passage that can be justified to make Jesus into the Christ, so the entirety of Isaiah is broken up into chapters and people point to these scant few verses (out of dozens) and say "See? Prophesy!" and then ignore everything else...

SOTB

22 July 2008, 08:55

In the simplest sense, there are only three kinds of people, those that believe, those that are ignorant of the influence and those that live in denial....And in the simplest SOCNET sense, there are only three types of posters -- those that are contributing, those that are wanting to contribute -- but haven't quite figured out how to, and those that are trolls.

You appear to be a troll.

You've shown your poor grasp of SA previously -- and while there is some entertainment value as we watch you back-peddle and try to recover from stepping on your virtual peepee, I find it less and less amusing to have to shadow your posts, knowing what is going to occur.

Let me put this VERY clearly -- so that even someone with such a poor grasp of where you are posting will understand: you don't rate to condescend here, or use sarcasm, or your attempts at wit. Now you might not feel I am being fair -- but then I can only point you to my reference to your lack of SA.

Now to use your own wording, you can choose to believe I am serious and will not tolerate your ASSitude any longer, or you can be a dumbass and not understand my post -- making you possibly ignorant of the message, or you can simply believe that you have a right to free speech and by golly, that means you can write anything you like and there is nothing that can be done about it.

I'm really, really, hoping you go for the denial mode....

Husker19D30

22 July 2008, 09:19

I do not believe there is any single event or person that is not connected to religion in some way.

You don't? Really? This statement right here pretty much gives lie to the rest of your argument, and better board members than I have responded to that.

But you do refer to belief as a choice further on in your post. Do you feel that people choose to believe or not believe?

My lack of faith is no more a choice to me than was my hair color (back when I had hair). I simply do not believe. Not because I'm trying to be divergent, not to piss off my family (and it does), not because it's 'cool' to be an atheist. But in examining the evidence I have found nothing that I feel is credible enough that allows me to have faith in a higher power.

Matchanu

22 July 2008, 09:49

Sorry, I'm getting a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves, here I'll give you a topic. . .no wait you already have one. I'll go make some more coffee. And we'll talk. It's like butter.

Your coffee is like butter?

This thread is sucks donky balls.

mdb23

22 July 2008, 10:09

Your coffee is like butter?

This thread is sucks donky balls.

You do realize that you can't suck donkey balls without being religious, don't you?

Matchanu

22 July 2008, 10:20

You do realize that you can't suck donkey balls without being religious, don't you?

Jerimia 23:16. "Thou shalt taketh the testies of thee breying jackass into thine mouth and sucketh"

ET1/ss nuke

22 July 2008, 16:06

A society's morals are normally based on the traditional religious beliefs of the society. That doesn't mean everyone in the society actively follows that religion, just that they can agree on a system of right and wrong based on what was considered OK in preceding generations ad infinitum. Cutting off an infant's foreskin is a requirement of Jewish culture and is considered morally OK in western Christian culture. Cutting off a girl's clitoris is considered morally OK in much of Africa and the Middle East where Islam, Yoruba, and assorted pagan beliefs are the norm. In the USA, having your infant son circumcised is an elective outpatient procedure that nobody bats an eyelash at, while having your daughter circumcised should land you in prison.

If a culture's God or gods is the source of their morals, then where do atheists fit in? An atheist believes that morals are invented by mankind for their own purposes; a radical atheist (Nietzschean nihilist) would say that each person invents their own morals or will have a stronger individual's morals imposed on him. In other words, the atheist appoints himself to be God. A culture based on atheism (like the Soviet Union) adopts a moral code set up by men playing God.

Purple36

22 July 2008, 20:19

Senor KidA, I simply do not read Isaiah as you do. I do understand what you are saying and have heard those arguments. I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation. Which is ok. I can't even make myself interpret them that way. I don't read it to say what you mean. So I guess there's no sense in continuing this. On to the rest of the topic.
Aloha.

TJ2JM1783

22 July 2008, 21:14

And in the simplest SOCNET sense, there are only three types of posters -- those that are contributing, those that are wanting to contribute -- but haven't quite figured out how to, and those that are trolls.

You appear to be a troll.

You've shown your poor grasp of SA previously -- and while there is some entertainment value as we watch you back-peddle and try to recover from stepping on your virtual peepee, I find it less and less amusing to have to shadow your posts, knowing what is going to occur.

Let me put this VERY clearly -- so that even someone with such a poor grasp of where you are posting will understand: you don't rate to condescend here, or use sarcasm, or your attempts at wit. Now you might not feel I am being fair -- but then I can only point you to my reference to your lack of SA.

Now to use your own wording, you can choose to believe I am serious and will not tolerate your ASSitude any longer, or you can be a dumbass and not understand my post -- making you possibly ignorant of the message, or you can simply believe that you have a right to free speech and by golly, that means you can write anything you like and there is nothing that can be done about it.

I'm really, really, hoping you go for the denial mode....

Understood.

Purple36

22 July 2008, 22:03

ONDON (AFP) - A climate change protester unsuccessfully tried to superglue himself to Prime Minister Gordon Brown at an event in the leader's residence, a government spokesman said Tuesday.

Dan Glass, a 24-year-old member of Plane Stupid, which campaigns against airport expansion, tried to attach himself to Brown's suit as he was about to shake hands with the premier at his Downing Street residence.

Greenhat

23 July 2008, 06:09

Talk about plain stupid...

Billy L-bach

23 July 2008, 07:49

...requesting a quick azimuth check from Tracy:

Who's winning?

I am still trying to find a way to link religion, morals and law with skydiving.
Then I'll make my final argument.

Tracy

23 July 2008, 08:14

...I am still trying to find a way to link religion, morals and law with skydiving.
Then I'll make my final argument.

If you're in freefall under 100 feet AGL, you'll probably see Jesus.

CPTAUSRET

23 July 2008, 08:16

If you're in freefall under 100 feet AGL, you'll probably see Jesus.

And most likely would have converted from Atheism, instantly!:D

KidA

23 July 2008, 08:45

I can't even make myself interpret them that way. I don't read it to say what you mean.

So then the prophesy was also for a woman? :D

Guy

23 July 2008, 08:54

If you're in freefall under 100 feet AGL, you'll probably see Jesus.Can you see Jesus if your eyes are closed?

Stay safe.

Husker19D30

23 July 2008, 09:01

And most likely would have converted from Atheism, instantly!:D

Well, either that or converted TO atheism instantly, and very briefly.

(sorry, Sir...couldn't resist)

Purple36

23 July 2008, 09:59

So then the prophesy was also for a woman? :D

Well the first person to see Jesus resurrected was a woman....;)

poison

23 July 2008, 10:59

I don't really care what peoples motivations are for doing good. Whether they're motivated by God, Xenu, fear, love, or common sense, as long as the end result is good, who cares?

SOTB

11 December 2008, 21:20

Relax Christians, we atheists have our sights apparently set on Muslims (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465650,00.html).

Umm, someone forgot to send me the memo -- I don't think it will work, except a very small minority of those that have access to money....

Matt_

11 December 2008, 21:58

I took a philosophy course in college and I remember the argument against God was actually the argument for God.

It goes something like this...If there was a god than he/she would never allow a Hitler situation. But because there is a God a Hitler situation will never be allowed to succeed.

So it follows that because there is a deity, Hitler’s democratically elected "man-law" will never be able to supersede Gods law.

...or something like that.

mdb23

11 December 2008, 22:11

SOTB

11 December 2008, 22:15

You might want to look at the argument again......I'm just saying....No kidding. +1

Dude, you might want to look hard at who made up the debating team in that class -- from your post, I think they were somewhat weak in discussion talents....

Matt_

11 December 2008, 22:17

mdb23

11 December 2008, 22:46

Oh I'm sure there are all kinds of flaws with said argument.

I sucked at philosophy. I lost interest when my professor tried to explain to me that if I was not directly looking at something than it didn't exist.

So I asked him if he was looking in the other direction and I had a baseball bat...

You kinda missed the point of this argument as well....... It's ok, only freaks and weirdos end up majoring in Philosophy....:biggrin:

Matt_

11 December 2008, 22:59

When I took Logic I was so completely dumbfounded by the nonsense that was the final exam I just wrote my name on the test and turned it in blank.

But I got a C+ so that kept the train a rollin'!!!

redhawk

11 December 2008, 23:26

I consider myself an agnostic who appreciates the secular (public domain) Christan (private domain) way of life.

Why I will never cross the threshold to atheism?...
The universe is billions and billions of light-years in length, width, and depth. There are a trillion stars bigger than the one that provides us with heat every morning. The universe is shaped like a soccer ball and when you go out one end you pop out from a corresponding hexagon. That is, you would never know when you actually popped out because you're seeing a giant reflection when you're approaching it and also when you're leaving it. And this all is nonsense because it would take you around 1/2 the time that the universe has existed just to accomplish this task (assuming that the universe is not expanding at a rate faster than light, and assuming you don't get sucked into a black hole).

Big bang? What caused it? What was there before it? Where are we? How far can you go until you come out the other side? Why am I able to contemplate the self? How much more is there that we don't know?

If anyone has the answers to these questions, please write it on a giant sign and yell it from a busy street corner.
"You will all pay for your sins! The day of redemption is here and God will punish us all for the sins of a few! It is incumbent upon your to accept Christ as your savior!"
:biggrin:
When I took Logic I was so completely dumbfounded by the nonsense that was the final exam I just wrote my name on the test and turned it in blank.

But I got a C+ so that kept the train a rollin'!!!
To get the answer right you have to write it down.
You did not write anything down.
Therefore you did not get the right answer.

Outofcontrol

12 December 2008, 00:19

To get the answer right you have to write it down.
You did not write anything down.
Therefore you did not get the right answer.

Great...now we're pulling out proofs! I hated that portion of logic! :biggrin:

OOC, out

mdb23

12 December 2008, 00:47

When I took Logic I was so completely dumbfounded by the nonsense that was the final exam I just wrote my name on the test and turned it in blank.

Logic is one of the more straightforward, and useful, aspects of philosophy.... it teaches one to recognize "sound" and "unsound" reasoning.....

For example, if we were to say that all ducks are birds, and that George is a duck, then it logically follows that George is also a bird. However, if I say that George is a bird, it does not logically follow that George must also be a duck. Of course, in a syoblic logic course, we replace "George, duck, and bird" with symbols, but the goal remains the same......to see if an argument or statement is "sound."

The ability to recognize flawed reasoning is extremely helpful when taking the LSAT, GMAT, or any number of federal entrance exams.....look at the published data regarding test scores among various majors....I think you would be surprised at how well those who major in "nonsense" consistently do.....

However, I am sorry that you felt the course was a waste. Most people who have taken and understood the course find it to be extremely beneficial.... from your answers in this thread, it appears that you either had the worst professors in history, or put no effort into the class.

redhawk

12 December 2008, 01:09

So if all police officers follow logic then I should not have gotten a ticket for going 5 mph above the speed limit. Because driving 5 mph over the speed limit is logical.

I'll let you finish this one mdb. :biggrin:

Greenhat

12 December 2008, 02:27

It may be logical, but it is also illegal.

SOTB

12 December 2008, 08:23

So if all police officers follow logic then I should not have gotten a ticket for going 5 mph above the speed limit. Because driving 5 mph over the speed limit is logical....Easy, and if MDB doesn't mind, I'll take a crack at this one:

If we were to say that all drivers must follow the posted speed limits or expect that they will be ticketed, and that George drives 5mph over the posted speed limits (perhaps even continuously, affecting the statistical probability of this example as well), then it logically follows that George expects to be ticketed, and that police officers know this, and are therefore acting logically....

Matt_

12 December 2008, 08:29

Logic is one of the more straightforward, and useful, aspects of philosophy.... it teaches one to recognize "sound" and "unsound" reasoning.....

For example, if we were to say that all ducks are birds, and that George is a duck, then it logically follows that George is also a bird. However, if I say that George is a bird, it does not logically follow that George must also be a duck. Of course, in a syoblic logic course, we replace "George, duck, and bird" with symbols, but the goal remains the same......to see if an argument or statement is "sound."

The ability to recognize flawed reasoning is extremely helpful when taking the LSAT, GMAT, or any number of federal entrance exams.....look at the published data regarding test scores among various majors....I think you would be surprised at how well those who major in "nonsense" consistently do.....

However, I am sorry that you felt the course was a waste. Most people who have taken and understood the course find it to be extremely beneficial.... from your answers in this thread, it appears that you either had the worst professors in history, or put no effort into the class.

I'm not putting down any bodies course of study. I did find the course usefull and I 100% see the merits of Philosophy and encourage people to study what they are interested in.

In regards to me paying attention in class, I didn't b/c I was "seeing" two of the young ladies in that class and my focus was on not letting either of the them know while keeping them both interested...which of course was an utter failure!

:biggrin:

mdb23

12 December 2008, 08:44

In regards to me paying attention in class, I didn't b/c I was "seeing" two of the young ladies in that class and my focus was on not letting either of the them know while keeping them both interested...which of course was an utter failure!

:biggrin:

That is completely understandable.:biggrin:

Oldpogue

12 December 2008, 10:21

mdb23

12 December 2008, 10:27

Reading Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" finished off my philosophy days. I'll agree that studying logic is important but I'd rather stick to studying science. If I want to fry my brain I'll go back to "A Brief History of Time" by Steven Hawking or "The Quark and Jaguar" by Murray Gel-Man. Some day I may actually get quantum mechanics but Existentialism gets me nowhere.

Ahhhh, but philosphy is a science, my friend. It is the science of critical thought and reasoning, of what we can know and how we can know it. Without that, the rest of the sciences are kinda screwed....

You know, I used to feel exactly the same way about Sartre.....but the older I get, the more existentialism seems to make sense..... and if that isn't depressing, wow......:biggrin:

Matt_

12 December 2008, 10:36

Existentialism- A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

So I'm accountable for my own actions than, this is alarming!

Oldpogue

12 December 2008, 10:37

{You know, I used to feel exactly the same way about Sartre.....but the older I get, the more existentialism seems to make sense..... and if that isn't depressing, wow......:biggrin:[/QUOTE]

I'll agree that there is sense to it. I just rather not spend my time dwelling on the nihilist aspect of it. That gets me depressed.

mdb23

12 December 2008, 10:38

{You know, I used to feel exactly the same way about Sartre.....but the older I get, the more existentialism seems to make sense..... and if that isn't depressing, wow......:biggrin:

I'll agree that there is sense to it. I just rather not spend my time dwelling on the nihilist aspect of it. That gets me depressed.[/QUOTE]

True, it isn't a "pick me up" by any stretch of the imagination....

redhawk

12 December 2008, 10:52

SOTB:

I'm a little rusty but I think it goes like this...

Premise 1: All police officers follow logic
Premise 2: Driving 5 over is logical
Conclusion: I did not get a ticket (false)

So if the argument is sound (in form) but the conclusion is false, one of the premises is false.

Either some police officers do not follow logic.
or
Some driving 5 over is not logical.

mdb23

12 December 2008, 11:09

SOTB

12 December 2008, 11:14

So if the argument is sound (in form) but the conclusion is false, one of the premises is false.

Either some police officers do not follow logic.
or
Some driving 5 over is not logical.Driving 5 over is not logical....

Greenhat

12 December 2008, 11:16

CPTAUSRET

12 December 2008, 11:27

Philosophy addresses the questions that science is unable to.

Our youngest daughter combines/addresses both...Department of Linguistics & Cognitive Science
Department of Philosophy

redhawk

12 December 2008, 12:02

Wow, how did I end up quoting myself? Weird......

Redhawk,

The problem you are going to run into is that your basic premises are too vague, undefined, and unsupported to be utilized in any logical proof. What does "all police officers follow logic" actually mean? How have you defined "logic?" That is like my saying, "All men should do the right thing." What the hell is "the right thing?" LOL

Get where I am going?
Definitely. I was just trying to come up with a syllogism using logic, my ticket, and police. I'm still trying to figure one out using my original statement. But it's actually irrelevant considering I was only 17 at the time and technically I was 15 mph over. :D

Edit: Here is the sound logic behind the simpler question via Modus Tollens

If driving over 5 is logical then I was not ticketed
I was ticketed
Therefore driving 5 over is not logical

if p then q
not q
therefore not p

Panda

12 December 2008, 12:54

I have the Logic class coming up this next semester, if it doesn't get canceled again for lack of students.. I bought the text last year because of that and already read through most of it. Have to say I wasn't nearly as bored as with the Intro to Phil.

To get the answer right you have to write it down.
You did not write anything down.
Therefore you did not get the right answer.

Its just that simple too!! :biggrin:

TJ2JM1783

16 December 2008, 00:02

Logic is one of the more straightforward, and useful, aspects of philosophy.... it teaches one to recognize "sound" and "unsound" reasoning.....

And, that is why most attorneys majored in either Philosophy or English (or both). Is that a good thing?:biggrin:

For example, if we were to say that all ducks are birds, and that George is a duck, then it logically follows that George is also a bird. However, if I say that George is a bird, it does not logically follow that George must also be a duck. Of course, in a syoblic logic course, we replace "George, duck, and bird" with symbols, but the goal remains the same......to see if an argument or statement is "sound."

Syllogisms 101: "I feel like shit. I look like shit. Therefore, I must be shit." ;)