Belief in God

GOD defiles Reason · Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: belief in God

So you believe in the god described in the bible?

GOD defiles Reason · Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: belief in God

If you believe that man is made in the "image of God," does that mean that you believe god has a penis?

Chris OConnor · Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: Belief in God

Keith

Quote:
I can easily see that a belief in human value is the function of enlightened self interest among gregarious beings without requiring a divine belief.

Well said!

I've been working all day and just came home to all these posts in this thread. You made the above comment a few pages back.

Chris

Keith and Company · Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: belief in God

Quote:
Yet this belief is only a belief, entirely without any scientific evidence. It is an arbitrary value

The belief is not arbitrary. Humans hold humans to be valuable. Except for those that hold either all animals or some animals to be of equal or greater value than humans. I know people who own horses that will rush into burning barns to save the horse, but won't cross the street to give a sandwich to a homeless person.

That's not an arbitrary choice either, but one developed by their familiarity with the animal in question, versus their disdain for all but a few of their fellow man.

Keith’s Place

Chris OConnor · Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: Belief in God

Nick

Quote:
Phooey!

ROFLMAO

Chris

Chris OConnor · Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Belief in God

Jeremy

Quote:
Value, like beauty, is created by sentients; nothing has intrinsic value. Value can only ever be TO someone or something.

Jesus this is good! Sorry for all the quick posts I'm doing right now, but this thread took off today and I'm making posts as I read through the days activity. Awesome comments have been made by several people and I can't help but smile and share my appreciation.

Chris

Dissident Heart · Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:46 pm Post subject: Re: Nietzsche

Mr. P: Dissident...can you add your thoughts?

I thought Nietzsche would be a valuable addition to the discussion, at least as far as offering a perspective that took seriously the consequences of removing God from the cultural and moral equation.

Nietzsche's point, as I see it, involves recognizing the amount of cultural significance and moral assumption built upon the idea of God...and preparing for dismay, disarray, and desolation that will follow when God is erased.

Nietzsche identifies those who will be terrified and those will be exhuberant at God's funeral. But he cautions those who think the death of God will be bright sunshine...it will unleash dark terror of the worst sort: and the 20th Century was in no small way a confirmation of his uncanny prophecy. Still, for those "free spirits" able to endure the catastrophe and risk the danger...and for Nietzsche, it will be dangerous...there is a greater, richer, fuller, more terrific future ahead.

What Nietzsche challenges the Humanist to face, especially the Secular Leftist, the rather terrifying notion that life is will to power: domination, exploitation, ravaging consumption and amoral expansion. How much of your/our reliance upon reason, science, justice is simply traces of a dead God? The hope for democracy and universal sufferage and human freedom: how much do these rely upon a trust in an impossible ideal that only a supernatural deity (uninhindered by nature's will to dominate, hierarchy, exploitate) can make possible?

Nietzsche is not saying that without God there is no morality; but that a new attitude toward morality is needed: one more natural, thus more ferocious.

Niall001 · Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject: Questions

I’m laughing as I read this thread because it seems to me that in posting to suggest that the thread be locked, Mad seems to have brought the God thread back to life. I’ve enjoyed reading the last few pages and it is nice to see some new perspectives (and to hear from voices that seemed to have gone silent for a time). The conversation has drifted toward subjects that are of interest to me. Below are 15 questions that I’d like some of you to answer. Personally, I couldn’t answer all of these questions because I haven’t come to a decision on many of the matters just yet. Perhaps you lot can help me. Answer them all, answer only one or pick and mix. I am particularly interested to hear from those who believe that things can have no inherent value but can only be of value to someone.

1. What do you value above all else and why?
2. Do you value truth? Why?
3. When do you believe that the majority has a right to impose their will on a minority?
4. If something you valued was shown to be scientifically untrue, then would you continue to hold that value? For example, if you valued the lives of Jewish people who you had met through personal contact, but it was scientifically proven that they intrinsically held values that were incompatible with and the opposite of your own, would you continue to value the lives of Jewish people?
5. Given that all morals are simple accidents of history, can any set be objectively better than another?
6. Given that certain moral conventions are unique to certain groups, how, in modern societies (which contain many groups and sub-groups) should we govern ourselves (assuming that our legal systems are based on the moral conventions of those who wrote them)? Should those who do not hold certain values be forced to act as though they do simply because the majority hold a certain value?
7. If one man values hunting but another values the lives of animals, whose values should be privileged and why?
8. Should a complete sadist be allowed to kill as he pleases, because he does not value life and values killing and causing pain?
9. If most people within a society believe that it is morally necessary to circumcise women in a dangerous and painful manner, do you object to the practice?
10. Why not? Baring self interest (itself a value that not all hold), why should one not rape/murder/steal if these acts have merely become taboo as a result of historical accidents?
11. Do you believe that humanity can arrive at an objective set of morals?
12. If things can only be of value to someone and have no inherent value, then where does value come from? Can something which has no value in itself confer value onto another worthless object?
13. If we believe that nothing is valuable in itself and that people only believe things to be valuable, then is that the same thing as saying that people are mistaken in imagining that objects are of value?
14. Is there a difference between believing that something is valuable and believing that something is valuable to you?
15. Can what is immoral in one period be moral in another and similarly can and act that is moral for one person to commit, be immoral for another?

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

Keith and Company · Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:07 pm Post subject: Re: Questions

Quote:
1. What do you value above all else and why?

Creativity. I like new stuff over copied stuff 'cause it's shiny.

Quote:
2. Do you value truth? Why?

No. I like facts. Facts can be objectively measured, skinned, nailed to a wall. 'Truth' is subjective. More of a philosophy matter. Different people's truths are different truths. People with different facts are either maintaining different lists or putting nonfactual things under their 'facts' heading.

Quote:
3. When do you believe that the majority has a right to impose their will on a minority?

On matters of actual protection of the individual members of the society. Social standards of safety apply to all.

Quote:
4. If something you valued was shown to be scientifically untrue, then would you continue to hold that value?

Depends on why i value it and how it's shown to be 'untrue.'

Quote:
For example, if you valued the lives of Jewish people who you had met through personal contact, but it was scientifically proven that they intrinsically held values that were incompatible with and the opposite of your own, would you continue to value the lives of Jewish people?

Uh...how's that work? I hold the lives of human beings to be of value, by sake of their humanity. Their values, even if incompatible with me, my life, my values, my favorite hobbies, aren't reflected in that value i hold for human beings.
But this is a good example of the world i see. Many people tell me that A is a fact, therefore i should conclude B, even if i feel that A and B are unconnected.

Quote:
5. Given that all morals are simple accidents of history,

Accidents? What about the Code of Chivalry? Specifically designed to protect the powerless from the powerful by holding the landowning armorbearing bastards to a behavioral code to minimize bloodshed.

Quote:
can any set be objectively better than another?

Sure. If the moral system is evaluated for the protection offered. The moral system that provides the greatest protection to the widest number of people would be a better system.

Quote:
6. Given that certain moral conventions are unique to certain groups, how, in modern societies (which contain many groups and sub-groups) should we govern ourselves (assuming that our legal systems are based on the moral conventions of those who wrote them)? Should those who do not hold certain values be forced to act as though they do simply because the majority hold a certain value?

Morality is doing the right things for the right reasons. It's internal. Laws govern behavior. Moral codes lead us to write certain laws, but it is not possible to legislate morality.

If i don't kill my coworkers, the laws are met.
If i don't kill them because i feel that, morally, humans have value, then that's good morals.
If i don't kill them because i'm just basically lazy and hate the effort of chasing them down and hiding the bodies, the law is still satisfied, even though i;m only pretending the morality my neighbors expect.

My morals aren't even the same as my wife's morals. Can't expect all of society to adopt the same moral values. But we can legislate laws based on a majority decision of what is and isn't tolerable behavior.

Quote:
7. If one man values hunting but another values the lives of animals, whose values should be privileged and why?

Extending our moral and ethical system to protect animals is a luxury that i feel must wait until after all human beings have the same moral and ethical protection.

Quote:
8. Should a complete sadist be allowed to kill as he pleases, because he does not value life and values killing and causing pain?

Generally, we don't allow tigers to roam freely on our streets and kill people just because they don't value human life. Threats to the herd must be defended against, whether the threat is elemental, natural or sociopathal.

Quote:
9. If most people within a society believe that it is morally necessary to circumcise women in a dangerous and painful manner, do you object to the practice?

Yes, i object.

Quote:
10. Why not? Baring self interest (itself a value that not all hold), why should one not rape/murder/steal if these acts have merely become taboo as a result of historical accidents?

Are you buying into spam-boy's idea that morals are arbitrary? Morals developed so large groups of non-familial individuals can live together in a society. Murder can't be tolerated because it directly contributes to our own risk of being murdereded. Most morals center around a framework in which society can form, allowing infrastructure which allows specialists and the whole eventual development of society. Not a mere accident. It's as much an aspect of our development to what we are today as our evolution of an opposeable thumb.

Quote:
11. Do you believe that humanity can arrive at an objective set of morals?

Can, yes. Likely? Not really.

Quote:
12. If things can only be of value to someone and have no inherent value, then where does value come from?

Value comes from people holding something to be of value. Look at TV ratings. Stuff that has no artistic or historical value is of phenomenal importance for a week, then it fades when people find something else to value. In twenty years it'll have kitsch value again, because others will value it for what it is. Was. Wasn't.

Quote:
Can something which has no value in itself confer value onto another worthless object?

Confer? Because we value it NOW it has some intrinsic value?
Lacking an intrinsic value, the only place an object (or a reality show) finds value is in the opinion of someone. Saying something has value to me does not speak to whether or not it has intrinsic value, or if i do.

Quote:
13. If we believe that nothing is valuable in itself and that people only believe things to be valuable, then is that the same thing as saying that people are mistaken in imagining that objects are of value?

no. If they imagine that an object has value to them, then it has value...to them. And they're correct, as far as that goes.
People are mistaken in thinking that the things they value would have value without them.

Quote:
14. Is there a difference between believing that something is valuable and believing that something is valuable to you?

Not essentially, except in the rather arrogant belief some have that what they value MUST be of value to everyone else.

Quote:
15. Can what is immoral in one period be moral in another and similarly can and act that is moral for one person to commit, be immoral for another?

Of course. Being as there are no absolute morals, everything must be evaluated in context.

Shooting my neighbor is bad. Unless he is shooting into my house, then self defense is good. Unless, in the next scene, we discover he was trying to shoot the evil bastard cyborg home invader sneaking up behind me, and would have saved my life if i hadn't exploded his head like an overripe melon. Then shooting him was not only bad, but counter-survival. But decisions made with partial information may be the best possible, most moral decision at the time, without being the best possible, most moral decision.

Keith’s Place

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: Questions

Niall...I will answer the 15 when I get time. nice addition to the discussion!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: Re: Belief in God

I've deleted all of wwwcounselorpublishingcom posts and have banned him from the community.

Jeremy1952 · Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Belief in God

Chris: " I've deleted all of wwwcounselorpublishingcom posts and have banned him from the community."

Oh but I thought my last reply was SO witty! Now nobody will get it.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Questions

It was witty.

I seriously hate having to ban people, but I'm not going to sit back and allow senseless spamming anymore. BookTalk means much too much to me and many of you to be slack on moderating.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: Questions

Jeremy

And thank you very much for that financial contribution! It really helps out tremendously. HypatiaSM donated some cash last week too. You guys are some of the few that have dug into their pockets to help this community, so I really want to thank you.

Everyone

If you're an active member of BookTalk and find what we offer unique and valuable we sure could use a little help right now. It costs about $50 - 60 every 6-months to keep BookTalk free from pop-up ads. We still need another $30. If nobody else pitches in towards the remaining $30 I'll be paying it alone. I don't have a choice. But it sure would be nice if one or more of you expressed your appreciation for BookTalk by donating a few dollars. Even $1 helps.

Over the next year I will be sinking at least $1000 into advertising BookTalk. Any help that can be offered towards this ad campaign will be gladly accepted and appreciated, but right now all we need is a simple $30 within the next few weeks. Think about it. All you have to do is click on the Community Chest icon at the top of the Forums page, OR go to our SUPPORT page and contribute through our PayPal account. You should skim over the SUPPORT page to see many different ways to help BookTalk.

Chris

Jeremy1952 · Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Questions

Quote:
1. What do you value above all else and why?

My son’s life. My feelings are consistent with my thoughts on this: I understand “Life” with a capital L as being about the genes. So I am intellectually comfortable with what my instincts tell me

Quote:
2. Do you value truth? Why?

That which is actually true is all that we will ever be able to agree on. Therefore it is the most valuable of all commodities in human relations

Quote:
3. When do you believe that the majority has a right to impose their will on a minority?

Questions like this have to be answered on a case-by-case basis. There can be, and should be, underlying principles that guide the answers but one size does not fit all.

Quote:
4. If something you valued was shown to be scientifically untrue,

We (booktalk, not you personally) just had a long conversation about this; values are not true or false.

Quote:
. . . if . . . it was scientifically proven that [Jews] intrinsically held values that were incompatible with and the opposite of your own, would you continue to value the lives of Jewish people?


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT