# Agnostics



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 27, 2012)

You guys give me some input on this thought:  I think the reason that we have many agnostics is that they sense that their must be some higher power holding it all together, but that they have understandable reservations in believing that any one belief system has it figured out. Thoughts


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 27, 2012)

Great question.

.


----------



## Four (Feb 27, 2012)

I would speculate that agnosticism is easier. There are many reasons i'm sure, pascals wager appeals to some (even though it doesn't hold much intellectual water. It could also be non-interest.

Personally, when i was agnostic, it was mostly due to not looking into it enough. I rejected religion that i was introduced to, but never looked at any of the base assumptions. Also, on a certain level it didnt much matter to me, i thought at time:

"well if there is a god and he's not evil, im sure it'll be fine if i just live a decent life and don't act like a jerk"

Also, i thought arrogantly that agnosticism was the correct position to take as it was a more open minded, intellectual position. I was also a moral relativist at the time.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 27, 2012)

Four, does that indicate you are now an atheist?  

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but agnostics say the answer is unkowable, and atheists say there is no God....is that the best way to summarize it?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2012)

It's the first step after someone is convinced that their religion is not what they always believed it was.


----------



## Four (Feb 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Four, does that indicate you are now an atheist?



Correct



JB0704 said:


> And, correct me if I'm wrong, but agnostics say the answer is unkowable, and atheists say there is no God....is that the best way to summarize it?



That's somewhat correct. But to clarify, agnosticism doesnt make any theistic assumptions. You can be agnostic about climate change.

I would be a Gnostic Atheist. Were as from what i've gathered with our discussions, you would be an agnostic theist.

Here is a good image to explain.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 27, 2012)

Ok. And this is just for discussion purposes, I am not trying to "trap" you or start a debate, I am very curious.  What is it that gives you certainty that there is no God?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 27, 2012)

Four said:


> I would speculate that agnosticism is easier. There are many reasons i'm sure, pascals wager appeals to some (even though it doesn't hold much intellectual water. It could also be non-interest.
> 
> Personally, when i was agnostic, it was mostly due to not looking into it enough. I rejected religion that i was introduced to, but never looked at any of the base assumptions. Also, on a certain level it didnt much matter to me, i thought at time:
> 
> ...



Where does your moral allegience fall now?


----------



## Four (Feb 27, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok. And this is just for discussion purposes, I am not trying to "trap" you or start a debate, I am very curious.  What is it that gives you certainty that there is no God?



No problems 

Let me preface by saying that the Gnosticism about my atheism relies on definitions, just like.. darn near anything. So, this means that I am certain you or I could re-define god to be something that could exit. For instance, if you were to assert that god is energy, or the universe, or a tree, I would not be able to claim that a god doesn't exist. As I recognize the truth that a tree exists, and that energy exists, etc. This is a common tactic that i will run into when debating theists, I will assert that god doesn't exist, then the definition of god will change such that it "could" exist.

This is difficult because god is a concept, we dont have a representation of it to point to, i can point and say "that is a rock" but that doesn't work well with concepts like god.

Anyhoo, I assume something cannot exist, if the definition is paradoxical. For instance, a square circle is paradoxical. The definition of a square and the definition of a circle are mutually exclusive, therefore we can say with certainty that a square circle does not exist.

That being said my working assumptions about how a god is defined are the following.


Omnipotent - unlimited power / can do anything. This is paradoxical. The old standby example is "Can god create  a rock so heavy he cannot lift?"

Omnipresent - Exist everywhere, this goes along with can do anything. To be everywhere you must be everything. Total, strict, omnipresence is paradoxical because to be everywhere you must occupy  all space simultaneously. (yes, i get that this strict definition might not be what is implied about some gods)

Omniscience - This is mostly invalidated by Omnipotence. To know the future you negate your own free will. You can either know the future, or be able to affect the future. You cannot have both. for insance, if god "knows" X will occur, can god chance X?, if so, then god didnt know for certain it will occur, if not, then that's something god can't do.

Consciousness without matter  - this is akin to software without hardware. Consciousness is an effect of matter, much like gravity is an effect of matter.

I hope you found that interesting 

edit: i forgot the whole problem with creation "who created the creator" as well as complexity that wasn't developed from something more simple (everything complex, developed from simplicity)


----------



## Four (Feb 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where does your moral allegience fall now?



I don't know if allegiance is the correct word... I do believe in objective morality.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 27, 2012)

Four said:


> I hope you found that interesting



I did, and thanks for taking the time to type it all out.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 27, 2012)

Four said:


> No problems
> 
> Let me preface by saying that the Gnosticism about my atheism relies on definitions, just like.. darn near anything. So, this means that I am certain you or I could re-define god to be something that could exit. For instance, if you were to assert that god is energy, or the universe, or a tree, I would not be able to claim that a god doesn't exist. As I recognize the truth that a tree exists, and that energy exists, etc. This is a common tactic that i will run into when debating theists, I will assert that god doesn't exist, then the definition of god will change such that it "could" exist.
> 
> ...



In your quest for the truth, did you look at other Gods? Did the similarities of the other Gods have a part in your decision?


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 27, 2012)

Four said:


> No problems
> 
> Let me preface by saying that the Gnosticism about my atheism relies on definitions, just like.. darn near anything. So, this means that I am certain you or I could re-define god to be something that could exit. For instance, if you were to assert that god is energy, or the universe, or a tree, I would not be able to claim that a god doesn't exist. As I recognize the truth that a tree exists, and that energy exists, etc. This is a common tactic that i will run into when debating theists, I will assert that god doesn't exist, then the definition of god will change such that it "could" exist.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your thoughts. It was well described. I cannot help but perceive that the paradoxes exist in our own human rules. If X=Y, then Y cannot =Z, unless Z=X. This is a pigeon hole of OUR knowledge. You attempt to invalidate concepts about God that cannot begin to be explained by human rules. Perhaps you will feel that I am changing the rules on what God is, but all I am saying is that God is something that human rules cannot describe or validate.

The "cloud" is a perfect description of software without hardware. You must have hardware to access it, but it exists regardless of the existence of your hardware. So, I believe that God exists (particular religion excluded) despite your hardware to recognize or run the software.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 28, 2012)

*New question*
In view of so many different religions, and so many different variations, would you say that you have no problem with those who explain God like the wind. I can't see him, but I can feel him, in my life. No proof, no reasonable way of explaining, not even if I wanted too. Thinking of my kids, I have trouble trying to convey that it is God who blesses us. But this has lost it's credability since so many differing claim the same thing. So I guess my question is that, would you as an athiest or agnostic, if your child claimed this, would you welcome it [assuming they did not become one of those who try to force feed their own view] or would you try to steer them away from this viewpoint? Or another thought, would you ask questions to try to better understand what has lead them here? Or, ???? No agenda here, probably will not even respond to a response, just interested in others opinions. [the wind is the best way I know how to describe my view of God. I can't see him but I can see the effect the wind has on things around me, sometimes a light breeze, other times a strong wind.] Does this sound foolish?


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> In your quest for the truth, did you look at other Gods?



Well, there were different steps, there was the rejection of judao christian deities which came first, mostly because that's what i was introduced to most. I had already rejected ancient gods before that, as most already recognize them as myths. I only went back and looked at some other deities later, generally the more eastern religions, which are interesting, but some of them are more of a philosophical ruleset rather than religious. For instance, it is acceptable in some forms of buddhism & hinduism to be atheist.

It's rather hard to point to this god vs. that god. IS the jewish god different from the christian god? or Muslim god? That's why i preferred to tackle the generic definitions first. 

So, yes and no.  I looked at different forms of Christianity, that's for sure. Mostly because that has the biggest impact on my life, culturally and geographically.



Artfuldodger said:


> Did the similarities of the other Gods have a part in your decision?



Perhaps to a degree. I recognize the thought that "if triangles had a god it would have three sides" Which is why i think so many deities are alike. Also i enjoy the history of the myths being passed down, even seeing similarities between the epic of Gilgamesh and the creation myth of the old testament. Recognizing that Christianity isn't that original helped reinforce my position.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Thank you for your thoughts. It was well described. I cannot help but perceive that the paradoxes exist in our own human rules. If X=Y, then Y cannot =Z, unless Z=X. This is a pigeon hole of OUR knowledge. You attempt to invalidate concepts about God that cannot begin to be explained by human rules. Perhaps you will feel that I am changing the rules on what God is, but all I am saying is that God is something that human rules cannot describe or validate.



Well, i dont remember if i mentioned it, paradoxes only exist as concepts, in our minds. So yea, we can say Z = X & X = Y, but Z != Y. But this couldn't exist in real life.

You can always come back and say "well god is above logic" or "you cant understand or try to rationalize god" But if i can trust my sight and my mind, then what do i have? Something that is unknowable is meaningless. If god is outside of logic / observation, then it is as good as non-existence to me, why care about it or even think about it if it's impossible to make sense of.

I am reminded by a quote that i THINK was from einstien that said something to the effect of "i refuse to believe that a god that (allegedly! ) gave us wisdom and logic would want us to ignore it"



ted_BSR said:


> The "cloud" is a perfect description of software without hardware. You must have hardware to access it, but it exists regardless of the existence of your hardware. So, I believe that God exists (particular religion excluded) despite your hardware to recognize or run the software.



This is concept vs. reality. Even "thinking" about the cloud, or any software is putting it to hardware (your mind!) I think it's incorrect to say that the cloud exists independent of hardware.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't know if allegiance is the correct word... I do believe in objective morality.



You agree that there is an objective moral law. Do you just stop there, or do you believe there is an objective moral law giver or explanation of where those objective morals come from?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> Well, i dont remember if i mentioned it, paradoxes only exist as concepts, in our minds. So yea, we can say Z = X & X = Y, but Z != Y. But this couldn't exist in real life.
> 
> You can always come back and say "well god is above logic" or "you cant understand or try to rationalize god" But if i can trust my sight and my mind, then what do i have? Something that is unknowable is meaningless. If god is outside of logic / observation, then it is as good as non-existence to me, why care about it or even think about it if it's impossible to make sense of.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your time. It's interesting to ponder over others views


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> *New question*
> In view of so many different religions, and so many different variations, would you say that you have no problem with those who explain God like the wind.



I'm going to assume this is directed towards me. 

There is a big difference between saying god = wind, vs. saying god is LIKE the wind. Saying god is the wind is pretty benign, although i think people do things like this to put god somewhere "safe" It's a moving goalpost. I don't have much of a problem with that, it's just a bit disingenuous. The wind doesn't indoctrinate children or ascribe how to live your life, so if someone wants to say god = wind, or something equally benign (a tree / energy, etc) so be it.

Now, if you say god does ascribe how to live, and things like heaven / - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - etc, then that's a different story. I think the wind metaphor only holds water to a degree. Unlike wind, we cannot simulate or create god, or measure it directly. We know plenty of how the wind works...



1gr8bldr said:


> I can't see him, but I can feel him, in my life. No proof, no reasonable way of explaining, not even if I wanted too.



To me, this is the same as non-existence. If there is no proof, nor chance for proof (un-provable) and the effects are such that it can be explained just as easily as something else, then why even think about it? I would say that this is just your mind using a placeholder to fill in a lack of understanding, it just so happens to be that you are filling it in with a deity, likely because that's what you've been taught culturally.



1gr8bldr said:


> Thinking of my kids, I have trouble trying to convey that it is God who blesses us. But this has lost it's credability since so many differing claim the same thing. So I guess my question is that, would you as an athiest or agnostic, if your child claimed this, would you welcome it [assuming they did not become one of those who try to force feed their own view] or would you try to steer them away from this viewpoint? Or another thought, would you ask questions to try to better understand what has lead them here? Or, ???? No agenda here, probably will not even respond to a response, just interested in others opinions. [the wind is the best way I know how to describe my view of God. I can't see him but I can see the effect the wind has on things around me, sometimes a light breeze, other times a strong wind.] Does this sound foolish?



Hmm, that's a rough one, I don't think i would welcome it, that's not to say i would be hostile towards it... I see attributing things to god as not giving credit were credit is due. The common example is thanking god for saving your life when it was really a team of doctors that spent decades of there lives educating themselves and practicing so they could keep you alive. It belittles your own accomplishments, as well as others to just say "oh well god did it".

I would definitely ask questions, I have a very inquisitive philosophical approach to parenting. (i am not a parent though, i just read a lot) The Socratic method is often times the best approach to helping others figure out something they already know. I of course would still try to steer the child in a certain direction, through logic / rationality. I would want my child to be a skeptic, and learn to use his/her mind. I don't like giving away the answers, so to speak when it comes to a child learning.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You agree that there is an objective moral law. Do you just stop there, or do you believe there is an objective moral law giver or explanation of where those objective morals come from?



I came to objective morality much like i got to my proofs about the non-existence of god, by a strict logical rule set and observation.

I do not believe in an objective moral law giver.

I feel obligated to say that morality is also a term much like god that people define differently, so my position depends much on definition. 

If you define morality as adherence to gods will, then i would naturally not believe in objective morality, as i don't believe in god

Also, am i just very popular today? I'm getting a typeing workout.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> *New question*
> In view of so many different religions, and so many different variations, would you say that you have no problem with those who explain God like the wind. I can't see him, but I can feel him, in my life. No proof, no reasonable way of explaining, not even if I wanted too. Thinking of my kids, I have trouble trying to convey that it is God who blesses us. But this has lost it's credability since so many differing claim the same thing. So I guess my question is that, would you as an athiest or agnostic, if your child claimed this, would you welcome it [assuming they did not become one of those who try to force feed their own view] or would you try to steer them away from this viewpoint? Or another thought, would you ask questions to try to better understand what has lead them here? Or, ???? No agenda here, probably will not even respond to a response, just interested in others opinions. [the wind is the best way I know how to describe my view of God. I can't see him but I can see the effect the wind has on things around me, sometimes a light breeze, other times a strong wind.] Does this sound foolish?



My goal is to teach her (I have a 3 year old girl) how to think critically and objectively.  She gets more than enough exposure to religious iconography (mangers and crosses) and rituals (grace before meals) at her grandparent's houses.  To be honest, I feel as though I'm doing her a disservice, the same disservice done to me by my parents, by not exposing her to religions other than Christianity.  I can't shield her completely from it, it's on our money after all.  I'm pretty sure that if I asked her right now if donkeys talk she would say "No!  Silly Daddy!".   I'd prefer it stay that way.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> Something that is unknowable is meaningless.


 
Correct, but you _can_ know Him. Just not necessarily with your 5 senses. Spirit, or spiritual communication can happen because we are also spirt (and soul and body).

For further study...
*1 Corinthians 2:13*
which things we also speak, not in words taught by human
 wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining *spiritual* 
thoughts with *spiritual* words.
*Colossians 1:9*
For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not 
ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the 
knowledge of His will in all *spiritual* wisdom and understanding

http://forum.gon.com/passage/?search=1 Peter+2:5&version=NASB


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> My goal is to teach her (I have a 3 year old girl) how to think critically and objectively.  She gets more than enough exposure to religious iconography (mangers and crosses) and rituals (grace before meals) at her grandparent's houses.  To be honest, I feel as though I'm doing her a disservice, the same disservice done to me by my parents, by not exposing her to religions other than Christianity.  I can't shield her completely from it, it's on our money after all.  I'm pretty sure that if I asked her right now if donkeys talk she would say "No!  Silly Daddy!".   I'd prefer it stay that way.



You and that donkey.....


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Correct, but you _can_ know Him. Just not necessarily with your 5 senses. Spirit, or spiritual communication can happen because we are also spirt (and soul and body).
> 
> For further study...
> *1 Corinthians 2:13*
> ...



If "spirit" is a way to measure / observe something, than it is a sense, and whatever we can measure / observe with "spirit" is knowable. Scientifically speaking, I don't believe "spirit" is a recognized sense; and personally, I think it's just a way to try to assign objective value to an opinion.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Correct, but you _can_ know Him. Just not necessarily with your 5 senses. Spirit, or spiritual communication can happen because we are also spirt (and soul and body).
> 
> For further study...
> *1 Corinthians 2:13*
> ...



 Bible verses don't support an apologetic argument.



stringmusic said:


> You and that donkey.....



We can discuss a great fish or a big ol' boat if you prefer.  By the way, I think that the idea of a talking donkey is funny.  I don't think the belief in one is any laughing matter.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> I'm going to assume this is directed towards me.
> 
> There is a big difference between saying god = wind, vs. saying god is LIKE the wind. Saying god is the wind is pretty benign, although i think people do things like this to put god somewhere "safe" It's a moving goalpost. I don't have much of a problem with that, it's just a bit disingenuous. The wind doesn't indoctrinate children or ascribe how to live your life, so if someone wants to say god = wind, or something equally benign (a tree / energy, etc) so be it.
> 
> ...


Not directed at you specifically, but hopeing that you would give us your view and still hopeing for others. I never heard that phrase "moving goal post" that's a good one. I'll have to remember that one.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Bible verses don't support an apologetic argument.


Scripture can't appeal to anyone's flesh. If ones senses got all happy & right-side up over faith, it wouldn't profit them anything.



Four said:


> Scientifically speaking, I don't believe "spirit" is a recognized sense; and personally, I think it's just a way to try to assign objective value to an opinion.


Got it.  But see above.  

------
The word of God, on it's own, will speak truth into a heart that hears.  I'm no judge for when and how that happens... just a derailer I guess for using what works best. 

*Hebrews 4:12*

.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> Scripture can't appeal to anyone's flesh. If ones senses got all happy & right-side up over faith, it wouldn't profit them anything.
> 
> 
> Got it.  But see above.
> ...



Asserting one's non-belief would not be so readily accepted in any of the forums above.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Asserting one's non-belief would not be so readily accepted in any of the forums above.


 
But it happens. As long as forum rules are held up. 

Anyway, Josh McDowell extensively used scripture for his apologetic series "Evidence that Demands a verdict".


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You and that donkey.....



Run it until they stop it.......


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Run it until they *stop it*.......



Thats kinda hard to do when the premise of the explanation is not accepted.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> I came to objective morality much like i got to my proofs about the non-existence of god, by a strict logical rule set and observation.
> 
> *I do not believe in an objective moral law giver*.
> 
> ...



Where did the objective moral law come from, and how is it objective?

If someone told you that murdering people is not immoral, how would you explain to them that it is immoral.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where did the objective moral law come from, and how is it objective?
> 
> If someone told you that murdering people is not immoral, how would you explain to them that it is immoral.



Situational.......

Yeah slashing hookers in alleys is probably gonna fall on the immoral side, but carpet bombing a village can and is justified. So it all depends on the situation.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Where did the objective moral law come from, and how is it objective?
> 
> If someone told you that murdering people is not immoral, how would you explain to them that it is immoral.



Here is a pretty good outline of the position i subscribe to.

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

String where do you think we get morals from? Who do you think possesses absolute morals?
Before you say God, are you prepared to defend his actions in the Bible?


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Situational.......
> 
> Yeah slashing hookers in alleys is probably gonna fall on the immoral side, but carpet bombing a village can and is justified. So it all depends on the situation.



Hmm, i know sarcasm is often lost in text... So, are you joking?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> Hmm, i know sarcasm is often lost in text... So, are you joking?



No.
There are people that will justify each as being moral.

I didn't say where I stand....


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No.
> There are people that will justify each as being moral.
> 
> I didn't say where I stand....



Ahh, ok. So you're a moral relativist?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

I guess we could move it down to the morality thread if needed.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Situational.......
> 
> Yeah slashing hookers in alleys is probably gonna fall on the immoral side, but carpet bombing a village can and is justified. So it all depends on the situation.



Lets take one at a time. When is it ok to slash a hooker to death, even if she hasn't done anything wrong?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> Ahh, ok. So you're a moral relativist?



In a way we all are.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Lets take one at a time. When is it ok to slash a hooker to death, even if she hasn't done anything wrong?



Personally, I think never.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Lets take one at a time. When is it ok to slash a hooker to death, even if she hasn't done anything wrong?



Aren't the terms 'hooker' and 'slash' red herrings?

Lets ask 

Is it ever ok to kill somebody?

If so, why?

If not, why?


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I guess we could move it down to the morality thread if needed.



Yea.. i wasn't really digging the vibe i was getting from the morality thread


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Lets take one at a time. When is it ok to slash a hooker to death, even if she hasn't done anything wrong?



For the person doing the slashing.....they will justify it morally for whatever reasons they have.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Personally, I think never.



Then you have a moral absolute.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> Aren't the terms 'hooker' and 'slash' red herrings?


Possibly, I was just using his examples.



> Lets ask
> 
> Is it ever ok to kill somebody?
> 
> ...



I think murder and killing are two different things, so to answer your question, yes, it is sometimes ok to kill someone.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Then you have a moral absolute.



It is personal not universal. I might think it is immoral where as someone else does not.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> For the person doing the slashing.....they will justify it morally for whatever reasons they have.



Does that make it then moral, because it is justified, even if the justification fails to meet the definition of justification?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Possibly, I was just using his examples.
> 
> 
> 
> I think murder and killing are two different things, so to answer your question, yes, it is sometimes ok to kill someone.



How do the 9 other commandments stack up for you? Obey them sometimes?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Does that make it then moral, because it is justified, even if the justification fails to meet the definition of justification?



It depends on which society we live in. Here in America I would have to say it is not moral. if you live where a good stoning is not only encouraged but is LAW, then it is considered moral.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Does that make it then moral, because it is justified, even if the justification fails to meet the definition of justification?



Are you familiar with the Donner Party? I am not 100% sure but I think it is more likely than not that all of them would have morally objected to eating human flesh prior to their trip out west. One shortcut later and it is SAMwiches for weeks. Even so much so that when rescuers finally found them and brought animal meat to hold them over until they could make a return trip to take the rest to safety, the animal meat was left untouched and the party that was left continued to eat the human flesh.
Time, place, situation.


----------



## Four (Feb 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Are you familiar with the Donner Party? I am not 100% sure but I think it is more likely than not that all of them would have morally objected to eating human flesh prior to their trip out west. One shortcut later and it is SAMwiches for weeks. Even so much so that when rescuers finally found them and brought animal meat to hold them over until they could make a return trip to take the rest to safety, the animal meat was left untouched and the party that was left continued to eat the human flesh.
> Time, place, situation.



When morality is relative it becomes meaningless. What is the use of even using the word when it changes to suit any situation.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> When morality is relative it becomes meaningless. What is the use of even using the word when it changes to suit any situation.



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 28, 2012)

Four said:


> Well, i dont remember if i mentioned it, paradoxes only exist as concepts, in our minds. So yea, we can say Z = X & X = Y, but Z != Y. But this couldn't exist in real life.
> 
> You can always come back and say "well god is above logic" or "you cant understand or try to rationalize god" But if i can trust my sight and my mind, then what do i have? Something that is unknowable is meaningless. If god is outside of logic / observation, then it is as good as non-existence to me, why care about it or even think about it if it's impossible to make sense of.
> 
> ...



Is the cloud not a reality? It is by definition "space". There are plenty of people on the planet that have no idea about or have never heard of the cloud. If you tried to explain it to them, they would think you were crazy. Their lack of knowledge does not make it non-existent.

As for the (maybe) Einstein quote, I don't think God wants us to ignore those gifts. But we should recognize their limitations.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It depends on which society we live in. Here in America I would have to say it is not moral. if you live where a good stoning is not only encouraged but is LAW, then it is considered moral.



Bullet, you seem to be under the impression that if someone thinks that something is moral, then it somehow makes that particular action moral. Why is that?

If your neighbor decides that the molesting of his kids is moral, does that make that action moral?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 29, 2012)

Four said:


> Here is a pretty good outline of the position i subscribe to.
> 
> http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/



So you think morals are intrinsic? That we are just born not wanting to commit violence on others?

What do you think makes one commit to following a moral code? Surely the indifferent universe that we somehow spawned from didn't care if we had morals.


----------



## Four (Feb 29, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Is the cloud not a reality? It is by definition "space". There are plenty of people on the planet that have no idea about or have never heard of the cloud. If you tried to explain it to them, they would think you were crazy. Their lack of knowledge does not make it non-existent.
> 
> As for the (maybe) Einstein quote, I don't think God wants us to ignore those gifts. But we should recognize their limitations.



The cloud is a concept, just like ASCII, or quick-sort, or any algorithm.  Numbers also don't exist, they're just concepts. You can write numbers on a piece of paper, and the writing exists, the paper exists, but the concept of numbers is a mental construct of man.


----------



## Four (Feb 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So you think morals are intrinsic? That we are just born not wanting to commit violence on others?



When we have a society, we have to interact with each-other successfully. A peaceful society is a prosperous society for all. So... I think they're intrinsic in a sense that if you're not born with them, you wont get far in life. murderers / thieves tend to not survive as long. I do believe we evolved to have these things intrinsically, but we can identify them logically.. if that makes sense.

I do think we're born not wanting to commit violence . . . really we're born not wanting anything but subsistence / compassion. However i think morality appears as the child develops empathy. However, it can be distorted, and I think using logic we can use a framework like the one i showed you.



stringmusic said:


> What do you think makes one commit to following a moral code? Surely the indifferent universe that we somehow spawned from didn't care if we had morals.



I think interaction between people. People naturally want to do what is 'right'. People want to  be 'good'. If you can define in a person what is good and bad, you can change what they do. Just like with that Nepal story posted earlier. Those people thought they were good, because there religious beliefs defined for them what was good and bad. (religion certainly isn't the sole ownership of this)It's a testament to people wanting to be good that if you can convince them that murder is good, they'll do it.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, you seem to be under the impression that if someone thinks that something is moral, then it somehow makes that particular action moral. Why is that?
> 
> If your neighbor decides that the molesting of his kids is moral, does that make that action moral?



I don't think that any more than what you think is moral is accepted as moral worldwide.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I don't think that any more than what you think is moral is accepted as moral worldwide.



It seems as though you do, according to the post below.

BTW, moral absolutes don't really have anything to do with whether people adhere to them or not.



bullethead said:


> It depends on which society we live in. Here in America I would have to say it is not moral.* if you live where a good stoning is not only encouraged but is LAW, then it is considered moral*.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 29, 2012)

Four said:


> When we have a society, we have to interact with each-other successfully.


Says who?



> A peaceful society is a prosperous society for all. So... I think they're intrinsic in a sense that if you're not born with them, you wont get far in life. murderers / thieves tend to not survive as long. I do believe we evolved to have these things intrinsically, but we can identify them logically.. if that makes sense.


Why do you think murderers and thieves no survive as long? I don't think morals have anything to do with one's health.



> I do think we're born not wanting to commit violence . . . really we're born not wanting anything but subsistence / compassion.


Do you think some people that are lacking in the morality department have some type of birth defect? Or lack the abilitly to sustain any type of logic?




> However i think morality appears as the child develops empathy. However, it can be distorted, and I think using logic we can use a framework like the one i showed you.


I don't think logic leads to empathy in any way. Logic is logic, and no matter what that logic tells a person is right, it can in no way may them act on that logic, or have empathy for another.





> I think interaction between people. People naturally want to do what is 'right'. People want to  be 'good'. If you can define in a person what is good and bad, you can change what they do. Just like with that Nepal story posted earlier. Those people thought they were good, because there religious beliefs defined for them what was good and bad. (religion certainly isn't the sole ownership of this)It's a testament to people wanting to be good that if you can convince them that murder is good, they'll do it.



I'll have to disagree with you on "people naturally want to do what is "right". I think people naturally know some things to be right or wrong, but naturally choose what is self gratifying no matter the moral breach.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 29, 2012)

BTW four, I don't really want to come off as trying to get you to think like me. I ask a lot of questions and learn a lot of things from you guys, and it is really interesting! You have obviously done your reading and weighed the options and I like to learn how others view things.


----------



## Four (Feb 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Says who?



Nobody, I think by definition. Without peaceful interaction, it wouldn't be a society.



stringmusic said:


> Why do you think murderers and thieves no survive as long? I don't think morals have anything to do with one's health.



Murderers ant thieves don't survive as long because they become either ostracized, or killed by someone defending property. If you identify someone as a theif, you dont interact with them, you wouldnt want them close to you, you might even be tempted to remove them physically from your presence, especually if they stole from you. Even more so with a murderer. I'm sure your familiar with the 'golden rule' treat others as you want to be treated. That tends to work real well.



stringmusic said:


> Do you think some people that are lacking in the morality department have some type of birth defect? Or lack the abilitly to sustain any type of logic?



Yes, clinically speaking there are people that are born psychopaths, that are unable to experience empathy... that being said some times they are still able to act morally because they see the value in acting morally to be able to interact with society.



stringmusic said:


> I don't think logic leads to empathy in any way. Logic is logic, and no matter what that logic tells a person is right, it can in no way may them act on that logic, or have empathy for another.



Perhaps I wasn't putting my position down to paper well enough originally. I believe empathy gives us some innate morality. What some people might call natural / intrinsic morals, or divinely inspired goodness or w.e. I would personally call it an evolutionary trait / survival mechanism. This doesn't necessarily require logic to experience, only to understand. However, logic allows us to understand it, and  create a strict moral (universal!) framework



stringmusic said:


> I'll have to disagree with you on "people naturally want to do what is "right". I think people naturally know some things to be right or wrong, but naturally choose what is self gratifying no matter the moral breach.



I think you'll find that even when someone knows on some level what they're doing is wrong, they'll still often justify it to themselves that they are doing 'good'. Like someone that steals might create a moral rule that says "it is moral to steal so long as you steal from someone who doesn't need it" or some nonsense.


----------



## Four (Feb 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> BTW four, I don't really want to come off as trying to get you to think like me. I ask a lot of questions and learn a lot of things from you guys, and it is really interesting! You have obviously done your reading and weighed the options and I like to learn how others view things.



It's all good. 
Although just so you know, I do feel that you often use bloated / leading questions.

Like when you said _"say's who"_ that implies that we've already agreed that someone says so one way or the other, which wasn't previously talked about. This might just be a part of your speech as a byproduct of your faith, but it reads to me like you're attempting to lead the conversation.

Just like when you said before "what leaves your body when you die" That implies that there exists something that leaves your body... which i don't think is a known known and again, sounds like you're leading the conversation.

Good talk


----------



## bullethead (Feb 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It seems as though you do, according to the post below.
> 
> BTW, moral absolutes don't really have anything to do with whether people adhere to them or not.



I'm just telling you how it is.  
What is considered moral to both you and I here in the USA might not be somewhere else.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 29, 2012)

Four said:


> The cloud is a concept, just like ASCII, or quick-sort, or any algorithm.  Numbers also don't exist, they're just concepts. You can write numbers on a piece of paper, and the writing exists, the paper exists, but the concept of numbers is a mental construct of man.



This is an interesting point of view. Most athiests and agnostics that I know of hold mathematics in a universal truth sort of status. To hear your different opinion is refreshing. I agree, numbers and mathematics are mental constructs invented by man. I don't by (or buy) the cloud either.


----------



## Four (Mar 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> This is an interesting point of view. Most athiests and agnostics that I know of hold mathematics in a universal truth sort of status. To hear your different opinion is refreshing. I agree, numbers and mathematics are mental constructs invented by man. I don't by (or buy) the cloud either.



Just because it doesn't exist in real life doesn't mean it's not true, much like logic. The non-existance of numbers doesn't make math less valid.

We cannot however say "here is a one!"


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 1, 2012)

Four said:


> Just because it doesn't exist in real life doesn't mean it's not true, much like logic. The non-existance of numbers doesn't make math less valid.
> 
> We cannot however say "here is a one!"



You just stopped making sense. The non-existance of numbers absolutely makes math invalid. You can't deny your numbers and have your algebra too!

Controlling all the givens is the quickest way to win an arguement.


----------

