ant wrote:

Or is my thinking wrong and immoral?

No, your thinking is reducible to your psychological states.

- You question the morality of a God (you do not believe in) because of the immoralities it allows or perhaps even encourages.

- There is no God. Therefore, your own morality, or lack thereof, is what's at issue and to be questioned.

- Only you know the reason why you chose to project this out into a universe devoid of a God.

I can respect that of you.
Just as long as you dont fuck up and make anyone innocent pay for it.

Thanks buddy.

I project this out into a universe devoid of a God because there are many that do think there is a God and it is those guilty of following an immoral God that I wish to see pay by recognizing what they are doing.

Regards
DL

Thanks buddy.

I project this out into a universe devoid of a God because there are many that do think there is a God and it is those guilty of following an immoral God that I wish to see pay by recognizing what they are doing.

So you've pronounced sentence on those that are guilty by projecting your psychological states of morality out into the world because you seek payment by realization?


uh.., yeah.., okay.


thanks for clarifying.

I am now almost totally convinced that "lack of belief" is the road to rationality.

That's your belief Interbane. That the universe came into existence with it's laws,complexity and order entirely unguided and uncreated and with no purpose.

Do we start with believing a whole bunch of stuff, or do we start with believing only the most basic? I don't believe the universe was created with purpose, because that's adding something that is unnecessary. It's like saying the universe was created with magic and umberbuckel. Why make the claim? Where is the evidence for the claim? If you point to those areas where purpose is evidence, I'd point you right back to the thread that shows how we falsely attribute purpose. You haven't made the case. I believe the universe came to exist without purpose(along with a million other things it lacks), because we lack evidence that it is the case. If purpose were inherent, the evidence would be undeniable. I deny the evidence, and I do believe I'm reasonable when I do so, with counter evidence and pragmatic reasoning.

Flann wrote:I agree that reality is imperfection with earthquakes etc.
My point is that this unguided purposeless universe has laws and complex order not to mention aesthetic beauty which you attribute to unguided natural forces.
If such forces are capable of such a high degree of creativity why should they fall short of perfection?

Even if these forces have such a high degree of creativity, what makes you think they should achieve perfection as well? Perfection is a human ideal. It's an ideal that is fantasy, such as a place where humans live forever in peace and happiness - heaven. Ideals are reality taken to the utmost extreme. It's our imagination at work. It's not how the natural world works.

Flann wrote:Perhaps accidentally they could have achieved perfection?

I don't see how. Could you give me a specific example of what, exactly, you're talking about? In what way could perfection be achieved in our universe?

Flann wrote:The Christian explanation includes reasons for the laws,complexity,and order in the universe in conjunction with the out of kilter elements not just being a matter of the creator's incompetence to achieve perfection.It explains both.

No, Flann, it doesn't. Saying that god "created" everything explains absolutely nothing. It's a non-answer. It gives us nothing. We are better to admit we don't know than to believe in such fabricated answers. At least if we admit we don't know, our minds will remain open to the truth, if it ever comes our way. Perhaps the truth is that a god created everything. If that is what's true, then it will come clear in time. But right now, we have no freaking clue. Stories written by Romans are evidence that Romans wrote stories.

But to make something clear, you don't merely believe in such a naturalistic deity. You believe in a god that intervenes in human affairs. Your claim to knowledge goes beyond mere creation of the universe. There is much more in your worldview, a plethora of superfluous additions that were useful ages ago in understanding reality, but no longer fit.

Flann wrote:I question the capability of a universe to self create and unguided achieve the immense order and complexity it does achieve.

Are you omniscient? The universe is far grander and more complex than you or I could ever imagine, and that's true even if no deity exists. In order to even entertain the thought that something is impossible, you'd need to know how the entire universe works. Not only the universe, but all of reality. Other universes, etc. Contrary to what you might think, that's exceedingly arrogant. No one can know, yet you claim to.

Flann wrote:The naturalist view underwrites a philosophy of meaninglessness, exemplified by Dawkins assertion that at bottom there is no purpose,no good or evil,nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
You have to try extract,meaning,purpose and morality from a mindless,purposeless,morally indifferent reality.

We don't "try" to extract meaning and purpose. We accomplish the feat. My life has purpose. Why would you suggest I lack purpose?

ant wrote:

Thanks buddy.

I project this out into a universe devoid of a God because there are many that do think there is a God and it is those guilty of following an immoral God that I wish to see pay by recognizing what they are doing.

So you've pronounced sentence on those that are guilty by projecting your psychological states of morality out into the world because you seek payment by realization?


uh.., yeah.., okay.


thanks for clarifying.

I am now almost totally convinced that "lack of belief" is the road to rationality.

Lack of belief is better than wrong beliefs that end in hurting others.

Is moving someone to moral thinking from immoral thinking a hardship in your view?

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:

ant wrote:

Thanks buddy.

I project this out into a universe devoid of a God because there are many that do think there is a God and it is those guilty of following an immoral God that I wish to see pay by recognizing what they are doing.

So you've pronounced sentence on those that are guilty by projecting your psychological states of morality out into the world because you seek payment by realization?


uh.., yeah.., okay.


thanks for clarifying.

I am now almost totally convinced that "lack of belief" is the road to rationality.

Lack of belief is better than wrong beliefs that end in hurting others.

Is moving someone to moral thinking from immoral thinking a hardship in your view?

Regards
DL

Well that's a good question, DL!

How would you have moved someone like Martin Luther King Jr "to moral thinking" and how might have moving MLK to moral thinking improved his thinking?

Regards,

Ant

ant wrote:[

So you've pronounced sentence on those that are guilty by projecting your psychological states of morality out into the world because you seek payment by realization?


uh.., yeah.., okay.


thanks for clarifying.

I am now almost totally convinced that "lack of belief" is the road to rationality.

Lack of belief is better than wrong beliefs that end in hurting others.

Is moving someone to moral thinking from immoral thinking a hardship in your view?

Regards
DL[/quote]


Well that's a good question, DL!

How would you have moved someone like Martin Luther King Jr "to moral thinking" and how might have moving MLK to moral thinking improved his thinking?

Regards,

Ant[/quote]

All I have is words and an idea of what decent morals are.

I do not know what his exact beliefs were so he may have been a moral man.

Although, from his promiscuity, I doubt that his own congregation would have named him particularly moral.

Then again, there was a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in those days. We still have a lot but less I think.

Regards
DL

Interbane wrote:Are you omniscient? The universe is far grander and more complex than you or I could ever imagine, and that's true even if no deity exists. In order to even entertain the thought that something is impossible, you'd need to know how the entire universe works. Not only the universe, but all of reality. Other universes, etc. Contrary to what you might think, that's exceedingly arrogant. No one can know, yet you claim to.



Flann wrote:
The naturalist view underwrites a philosophy of meaninglessness, exemplified by Dawkins assertion that at bottom there is no purpose,no good or evil,nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
You have to try extract,meaning,purpose and morality from a mindless,purposeless,morally indifferent reality.




We don't "try" to extract meaning and purpose. We accomplish the feat. My life has purpose. Why would you suggest I lack purpose?

There's a lot to respond to. I'll make a few points. I don't doubt at all that you have purpose. I question the philosophical logic that a purposeless,mindless, process could have created a thinking purposeful being.
I know you believe it did and believe that science supports you in evolutionary theory as unguided,purposeless process.
The idea that at bottom there is no purpose is highly questionable. Reality is suffused with purpose which naturalists claim is illusion. So they habitually and unavoidably use the language of purpose while denying it's reality.
It's all mindless purposeless function.
I infer underlying intention and purpose in all that complex coordinated activity in living organisms.
I certainly question the logic of nothing producing anything. So you can speculate on mutiverses,bouncing universes and perhaps the eternality of matter or energy but your causal chain has to start somewhere or you ultimately have no cause whatsoever.
Everything just "emerges" out of it's antithesis. Consciousness from unconscious matter,thought from unthinking molecules,
morality from a morally indifferent process,meaning from a meaningless process,and purpose from a purposeless process.
For me, I infer a creator who is an eternally self existent,omnipotent, moral,thinking,purposeful cause and explanation that is not antithetical to these acknowledged realities.

All I have is words and an idea of what decent morals are.

I do not know what his exact beliefs were so he may have been a moral man.

Although, from his promiscuity, I doubt that his own congregation would have named him particularly moral.

Then again, there was a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in those days. We still have a lot but less I think.

So the people that you might know what their exact beliefs are (highly doubtful) you are able to judge them as being morally deficient and inform them what moral decency actually is?
For instance, like someone here that doesn't agree with you; you know that person's exact beliefs, is that correct? therefore, that person should be told (namely by you) what decent morals are. is that correct?

here are some of your words directed at someone who disagrees with you in another thread;

Yours is a strange quirk of character that you would gain pleasure from distorting what another says. I guess you like to masturbate and call it sex as well.

Is that morally decent of you to tell someone they like to masturbate and call it sex as well?

Absolutely. When one looks at the context of an out of the blue off topic attack.

Reciprocity is fair play where I come from.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Absolutely. When one looks at the context of an out of the blue off topic attack.

Reciprocity is fair play where I come from.

I guess that's based on that "an eye for eye" morality of that evil demiurge God of the bible.