Total posts: 3,941
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL
Yeah, that reasoning occurred to me too.
But it'd have to be a rather fervent believer in authority, to ignore 'all evidence to the contrary.
I make the argument that since the title of the thread is,
"Should your ethics be justifiable with no appeal to authority?"
I don't need to make 'all of the justification rest on authority, or even the 'primary justification,
So long as a 'significant amount of the justification is an appeal to authority.
@secularmerlin
I get what you're saying, but I'm going to have to think on that for a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, some people actively seek therapy from mental health providers, because they find certain thoughts detrimental to their lives and/or other people.
Clinicians even organize detrimental thought patterns and behaviors in books.
It's not unreasonable, I think, for people to argue that certain types of thoughts are detrimental to an individual and his community at large.
To me, One reason religion has a number of laws and practices that existed because following those laws and practices appeared to improve people's individual lives, and those of their community.
Take the focus on being clean in some religions or practices, or in how they deal with the dead.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it though.
I 'do enjoy not having the thought police on my brain, personally.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A man only needs to know how his car works enough that it does not endanger him or others, and get's him from point A to point B.If "morality" is the "car" in this example, and the cars keep breaking down and crashing into people and destroying property, SHOULDN'T SOMEBODY INVESTIGATE?Shouldn't we build a "safer" "car" that doesn't kill (maim and disfigure) as many people as the current model?Maybe even something slightly "less wrong"?
Well, that occurs when someone is a problem child, or a criminal, for example.
But if your morality and methods are working without incident, and you understand the most basic concepts of keeping it clean, changing the gas, not resorting to road rage. . .
It's hardly vital to that individual to justify their ethics.
We often 'do build a safer car, through laws and cohesive society, in reaction 'to times when cars show defects, or clear dangers.
Whether the individual should focus on such though, is a matter of their priorities.
Myself, I'm fairly self interested, rather than community interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no such thing as "historical fact".HISTORY = UNFALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS
I suppose it's difficult to experiment upon history using the scientific method, it only happens once.
Though similar or near identical events may occur afterward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not much a serious thought, but if there can be different types of intelligences, why shouldn't there be different types of sensibilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Some people want to help others, or spread their ideology, even at risk to their own lives.
Whether somewhere civilized or uncivilized, there's places and people recognized as 'more or 'less dangerous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
Well, in war and politics, some say history is written by the winners.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
I suppose I'll agree, that it's a reasonable position to take before a crisis, and even during it, that it's something people should struggle against 'together, and not as a free for all.
It 'would be better if we were part of the Global Climate Change conversation, I think.
And better progress could be made if more politicians made environmentalism part of their platforms and actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
Well, how their religion is depicted and claimed to happen with history, 'is where theists would be biased I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Well, it's happened before often enough.
Even if it was just a social worker in America, working with some gang, people meet their ends at times, violently.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@lady3keys
@lady3keys
I don't disagree that humans effect on the environment and climate is pretty much everywhere, humans have populated much of the globe after all.
But to me 'global climate change is still in the future, because I have no faith in the nations to react to it 'together.
To me way of thinking, what matters about climate change, is all countries looking after their own local interests, and taking advantage of the global scene, if the disaster is bad enough to weaken the other nations.
But that's still a way away, if at all.
What do you think the best way to react would be?
@Greyparrot
Well, at least everything isn't all brown/yellow/orange hued in the part of Oregon anymore, at the moment anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Some people following their beliefs, I suppose.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Localized climate change exists at any rate, and is disgusting, irritating, and annoying to deal with.
Even dangerous at times.
Whether a cities river being polluted, smog choking the city, cities and communities made of dump yards, or the Great Dust Bowl.
All of these seem reason enough to me.
And improving their condition, would go at least a ways 'toward the larger claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What's the difference between historical fiction, and history. When writers believe that they're merely making notes, or when writers are politically or otherwise biased?
Degrees I suppose. Though degrees do matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Couldn't one see it as allegory,
Or as a far more limited event, such as flooding in a particular region, and some guy oversees the construction of a boat, and puts some domesticated animals on it.
Though I'm more for the allegory interpretation, well that or myths/legends/folklore/story of a fictional event, or inspired by a real event.
Even just a large area of a region flooding 'without an ark, and people telling stories about it.
Or a family of fisherman surviving a regional flood.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
I 'think we could find ways to do without oil and coal, though I'm not certain.
And true enough, we can destroy the climate of localized areas 'certainly, world at large as well I suppose.
Personally, I think the way to solve the problems, is to build communities where the needed solutions are set in place, and try to expand them, by showing that they can work.
Though I doubt it'll happen.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
I'm not sure that non-renewable resources, are a worry quite.
Only resources a human 'needs, I think is
Food, water, air, and shelter, and not currently at a threat to run out I'd say.
Though 'eventually they would be.
Employment, could be changed by policy.
Communism for example can have a low unemployment rate.
Or even a country such as America could pass laws making unemployment illegal.
(Though unethical)
And deforestation, while unpleasant, and capable of causing negative effects, can again be solved by policy, say if the first world bullied people in the third world to stop modernizing, and use the land as preserves. (Completely unethical)
Not that I'd want such solutions myself, just pointing out options other than decreasing the current population.
Joke link, bit related to conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
What art thee declaring sir,
thee not knoweth the value of w'rds spoken in the fusty tongue.
Or yond c'rtain w'rds approximate bett'r meaning than oth'rs?
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Do you have a particular list of items in mind for the problems caused by an abundance of population?
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
I think so myself,
But I think population equals labor force, military strength, cultural control.
Why would countries weaken themselves, and allow others to grow stronger.
There's also the issue of what the individual thinks he has the right to do.
Not saying it's impossible, but not easy problem to solve, I'm thinking.
. . .
Besides, perhaps it's not even as much of a problem as I think.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I over react, by 'under reacting, as well as devaluing the concept of love and attraction.
Not really 'looking for a relationship with other people, but hard to prevent oneself from liking others, at times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I think it's likely malarkey,
But that placebos, culture, and how a concept can cause you to consider something,
Can be enjoyable.
A coworker of mine gave me a smoky black quartz once,
Claimed it helped keep away bad luck.
I found a thought amusing, and a bit reassuring, despite being false.
That by keeping the smoky black quartz on my person, I could ward off an bad luck from outside sources, and thus any bad luck I would encounter, would be formed purely of my own action and volition.
Which 'is true in a sense,
I view my thoughts, reactions, and actions,
As all due to my own will,
Should I spill a glass of milk, I have the option to rage and make the situation worse, or I can shrug and mop up the mess.
Figure that it should serve as a cautionary warning for next time, and to pay better attention when having cups containing liquid about me.
Certainly something within my control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Common English Bible
Healing on the Sabbath
9 Jesus left that place and went into their synagogue. 10 A man with a withered hand was there. Wanting to bring charges against Jesus, they asked, “Does the Law allow a person to heal on the Sabbath?”
11 Jesus replied, “Who among you has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath and will not take hold of it and pull it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! So the Law allows a person to do what is good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then Jesus said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he did and it was made healthy, just like the other one.
To your question though, I'd imagine it depends on context.
Different people/societies/situations, arrive at different answers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I disagree with open borders, though it's a bit hard to put it into words.
Greece once had city-states for example, rather than a country.
Open borders between cities 'were achieved, but only once significant cultural cohesion was achieved,
As well as understandings of where people's loyalties lie,
And an understanding that the people in your community agreed upon similar laws.
Tribalism exists, whether primitive, or modern,
And that's not 'bad, so much as a reality, I see it.
Groups have an interest in safeguarding their property and persons.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
People 'can have a sense of community without religion.
People cheering for High School football team.
Online guilds in video games.
Debate site groupings.
Not that such removes community being one of the reasons Christianity was valued/successful for many people.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'd think for most people habit.
For other people such as converts, I'd imagine the truths/practicalities/winsome appeal of it's ideals.
All the moreso in times when knowledge and learning was scarce, I'd think.
The modern first world era is not like that of old, where people received public education, public libraries, literacy, internet, Wikipedia, and DebateArt.
Maybe wisdom and common sense of a refined type was less common.
And religion could oft open people's eyes.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think yes, But I'll try answering no first, before why I think deeply about yes.
I'll try answering no, using an analogy,
A man only needs to know how his car works enough that it does not endanger him or others, and get's him from point A to point B.
Relegating parts of the understanding to a car to mechanics, builders, lawmakers,
Relieves the man from an investment of time and effort into the understanding of the car.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Though you may not need the encouragement,
I find you a reasonable person, who can often speak of some aspect of their religion in an easy to understand, insightful way.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Eh, I'll likely ask them at some point for my own curiosity.
I do discuss religion with them at 'times, but it's usually for the practicality of a concept.
Such as Proverbs 28:1 – “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.”
Though of course not 'all wicked people are bothered by their deeds, and not all righteous are bold.
As a rule of thumb and practical thought it makes sense to me though.
Or the 'slight similarity of,
Jesus's Parable of the Sower
and
Mencius 's Ox Mountain.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Some films are iconic.
Created:
My three siblings and I, all have Biblical names.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Can't say I recall discussing Revelations 21:8, with any of my family members.
I recall by Dad mentioning once, that he didn't think Martin Luther had a very high opinion of Revelations.
Can't say I recall discussing John 3:18, with any of my family members.
And Can't say I recall discussing Mark 16:16, with any of my family members.
Eh, probably too much of a knee jerk reaction when I speak of 'all my family being such well loving, understanding Christians.
I imagine one of the reasons 'I'm an atheist is my family didn't focus on religion enough.
I recall our mother would encourage us to say our prayers each night early on, when we were together at a family meal we'd say grace, went to church a 'few times but not often.
Had kid Bible's early on, that they read with us.
Later on though, both the parents were busy working most of the time, and the religious conditioning fell off a fair bit. (Though I don't mean religious conditioning in a negative fashion)
Church ceased all together,
Mother was working usually, so the night time prayer fell off in time, for me anyway, but hey maybe third child is forgotten child. Rest of my siblings seem religious enough.
Religion really isn't something I discuss with them 'much, though I do at times,
Never told them I'm an atheist, feels awkward at times,
And again, I likely praise my family more than they deserve,
But it's the sentiment I get from them and their words, actions.
'Mostly/at times.
I'll let you know what they think about those references later, after I ask them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
When I 'was a Christian, yes and no.
Later on as an atheist, believing not in the supernatural, no.
But referring to Biblical Satan,
I think he's different than Hollywood Satan,
Bible has the problem of being a frequently translated and ancient book of another era.
There's the problems of Google translate,
Over 2000 years,
And context of culture, ethics, history, geography, and so on.
Makes me unsure of many conclusions I might garner from it,
Unless I were to spend a lifetime being a scholar, learning multiple languages, taking history classes,
I 'really don't care 'that much.
But back to topic,
Only point I'm going to make is that the Hebrew word 'saṭan.
Google, The History and Origins of SatanA study by Lucas Sweeney,
If curious, it's rather short.
I'm not certain how reliable it is though.
I haven't given the Satan question much research or thought,
I'm lazy, and for some questions I check just long enough to think I'm on the correct direction, then give up except for flights of whimsey and light reading.
Don't read much on the Bible though.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
China thrives without a religion. You should call it a belief system. Non-theist belief systems, such as Juche, can still make a government run round and round.
Thriving you call it,
'I say that the efforts by some factions in China to do away with culture and religion lead to the marring and crippling of China for a time.
"In 1978, Deng Xiaoping became the new paramount leader of China and started the "Boluan Fanzheng" program which gradually dismantled the Maoist policies associated with the Cultural Revolution, and brought the country back to order. Deng then began a new phase of China by initiating the historic Reforms and Opening-Up program. In 1981, the Communist Party of China declared that the Cultural Revolution was "responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the Party, the country, and the people since the founding of the People's Republic."[9][10]"
It really doesn't matter if it's Juche, Confucianism, of Humanism in my mind.
There's a sense of the sacred about it in my mind,
A sense of regulated behavior justified to most by objective assumptions,
And much like South Park, in that one episode where Cartman goes to the future, Go God Go, I don't expect humans to ever lose religion.
Just cloak it in other guises.
And whether Russia or China,
After the murderous regime cools it's jets for a bit,
One see's how more traditional religions returns.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Per Wikipidia
"Irreligion (adjective form: non-religious or irreligious) is the absence, indifference to, or rejection of religion.[1] According to the Pew Research Center's 2012 global study of 230 countries and territories, 16% of the world's population is not affiliated with a religion, while 84% are affiliated.[2]"
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Some Christians supported the Taiping Rebellion, as it encouraged a 'form of Christianity.
Though I'm doubtful myself that such is the answer,
Doesn't seem worth it to spread a distorted message of one's religion.
Similar problem in my eyes is just giving people free Bibles, what with there being context needing explanation and what.
Can't say I disagree with Intelligence_06 on Religion should prepare us for a mentality, not faith to God.
But eh, I'm an atheist.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Living or trying to live a righteous life, seems to me a decent way to cover all of the bases.
All one has to believe in is 'some sort of reckoning, based upon their actions on Earth.
And perhaps some people would only live a decent life, by dint of believing there was 'something more after death.
Wouldn't 'have to be a specific religion, I'd think.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Oh I don't think you or Intelligence_06 is straw manning religion.
As I said, just a bit of tunnel vision on my part.
Devils Advocate though, I don't see why Pascal's wager would have to 'only refer to the Christian religion.
Plenty of folk who aren't religious, but instead spiritual, that might believe in some afterlife, and what karma might await them there.
Human's 'do often fear/respect karma.
As evidenced by the many different beliefs that 'have humans after death's effected by it.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's me Leaning from DDO, I'm not religious, Merlin.
I just dislike religious fellows being propped up as strawmen, or stereotyped all together into unfeeling Hell threaten'ers.
I'm fond of my family members who are religious, and a number of the religious people I grew up knowing in life.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
What then is the criteria for entry into heaven and what reason in that case would one have to subscribe to Pascal's wager? If the cost versus benefit of belief is not eternal torment versus bliss what exactly is being wagered?
Well, I suppose I had a bit of tunnel vision, and focused on the non-Christians going to Hell part, rather than the Pascal's wager part.
My family, as I take it view Christianity as the best path to living a 'good life, to being closer to God.
But I don't think they see it as a requirement to entering Heaven.
They have faith in a kind, loving, understanding, God, who possesses knowledge beyond their ken
That will in some manner answer for all that has occurred bad in the world,
That in some manner even the lost or fallen of humanity will be brought back into the light.,
Not dammed to some eternity of fire, smoke, darkness, and suffering.
Afterlife being a vague and mysterious thing, what.
I think they have faith that good people, even without faith in God, will be brought into the fold,
Even people who deny Gods existence.
They also don't profess to judge people's fate after,
Let God sort them out so to speak, I think.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Not all religious people believe that you have to believe in their faith to go to heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So, what's your impression now, having read all of it?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Just a passing thought of mine, a 'bit related to the topic, I 'think.
I think religious laws came about due to our genetic predisposition allowing for them, as well as game theory.
I don't think a person 'completely wrong to think that, religion giving rise to the foundational elements of morality seems illogical.
After all, I think that without our biological presupposition for it, and game theory, we wouldn't have bothered inventing the laws.
But at the same time, those genes and those game theories were only able to be honed to a high extent by the 'existence of religious laws, and their indoctrination of moral habit.
I suppose one could try to argue a more pure carrot and stick approach, coldly rational, and disputing objective morality. But I think such a method flawed.
I think that Plato had a point, in The Republic, when he talked about the Noble Lie.
You define Utopia as
"Conflict=loss. Less conflicts=less losses. The closest we can come to a utopia is if there is as little conflicts as possibly can."
It sounds a bit like a political stance.
Maybe it's sleep deprivation, but somehow utopia seems to me, whatever one desires.
And people desire many different ideals.
Supposedly an ancient Norseman might view Valhalla as utopia, bloodshed, violence, feasting, and what else I forget.
Looked rather grisly in that Vinland Saga (manga) though.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I have mixed feelings.
I don't 'disagree strongly with boarding houses, so long as there are numerous conditions, such as Greyparrot mentioned in post #27.
Perhaps I'm not a very humane human being, I certainly don't do any volunteer work, and frankly I hate seeing the homeless, makes me feel terrible about their circumstances, but not terrible enough to help them really.
City feels less trashy, less dangerous when they 'aren't about.
. . . .
I feel worse about my view on account my second brother is homeless.
Solution to 'my problem would be more gated communities I suppose,
Created:
Posted in:
Seems to me like he should win, my reasoning is vague, but my reasoning is that ever since his election, the Democrats have fumbled at the track in which they operated.
Though,
I'd say it seems to me like the media expects him to overwhelmingly lose, So I am unsure.
Personally,
I flip flop between Trump and a third party candidate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think that the daily zodiac readings in the newspaper are bunk, but they're fun to read, and like a fortune cookie can be worthwhile to consider your life from a certain perspective, or think on a piece of generic wisdom.
'Maybe when and where you're born can have a long term effect on a person.
The state of a mother, effects the state of a kid, to a 'degree I think.
And 'maybe a child's body adapts to the circumstance he is born into.
Grown dogs have winter coats.
I don't know any science about it though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I've never read the Bible in full myself, tend to get bored.
I suppose part of the problem is being an atheist with not much interest in it.
Another problem likely is that I see it as too much of a puzzle to want to bother.
So many different translations, so many different words that in other languages/contexts/definitions change one's understanding of the Bible.
There's a reason why Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof says,
"If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the synagogue and pray,
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern Wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men
Seven hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.
If I were a rich man,
Yaha-deeuh-deeuh-deeuh-deeuh-deeuh-deeuh-dum,"
He realizes he'd have to study it, to understand it deeply, see?
I dunno, sometimes I look upon it a bit the way I do Buddhist koans, that is what very little I know about Buddhist koans.
Going by Wikipedia a koan "is a story, dialogue, question, or statement which is used in Zen practice to provoke the "great doubt" and to practice or test a student's progress in Zen."
I'm willing to suppose there's value in the Christian Bible,
but there's value in many writings, even non religious writings.
So onto my take on Genesis 1 (NIV),
To me it's just a story that people told each other and their children, to give 'some voice to that Who/What/Why/When/Where/How feeling humans get. Though maybe the story doesn't answer all those questions, or in so much detail.
It also seems to me that Preachers of the Bible are often spinning it according to their own take. And maybe that's not a terrible picture, if their flock is people like the Preacher themself, and the people listening exhibit a bit of doubt and reasoning themselves, without acting blindly and ending up cult like.
After all, there are people in the world, more keen on reason and wisdom than others, likely 'even more so in the older days when not everyone could read. Or when there weren't writing's around, didn't have the time or ability to memorize by ear and tongue.
Brings to mind Father Mapple a bit, from Melville's Moby Dick. Who's elevated pulpit was decorated with ship gear and backed by a wall painting of a seascape, as well as being reachable only by a rope ladder. And as I remember it, Father Mapple's preaching had a style of a rough sailor to it, which matched well with the lives and makeup of his flock.
Back to Genesis 1 though,
And this might be one of the factors that makes the Bible a formidable tool, for good or ill.
I think it'd be easy enough for even a pantheist to read Genesis 1, and interpret God as the personification of existence, perhaps further as a personification of life or control/direction.
Man certainly seems more able to control the world around him at his own will than all the other animals.
Still, to me, just a story, told by a people to express their culture and their view, in an artsy story. Maybe to illuminate or put focus on the importance of certain realities or cultural givens of a society. Such as marriage, monogamy, faithfulness, and how special your partner is. From a Christian viewpoint, well, from a Christian viewpoint thousands of years ago, when strife was all too common, when family sticking together and not having infighting was invaluable.
"24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."
And to earlier post,
"The theme of the early universe starting as a vast expanse of water is a common one in many mythologies. Ancient Egyptian, Hindu, and even some Native American Folklore share this concept. This would seem to give credence to the idea that early mythologies, including the oral traditions from which the biblical tales are descended, either borrowed heavily from each other or share one or several common ancestor mythologies from which all take inspiration."
'Could be, though I'm more inclined to think that humans think alike. We see the same world for the most part, so our stories of it's formation come about mostly the same, just my take.
And to another part of your post, I don't know anything about Lilith really, or cut parts of the Bible.
Other posts make me think of comic books a bit, which reboot of Spiderman truly expresses the Hero and his philosophy best? (Joke)
Created:
Posted in:
I respect Kyle Rittenhouse's foolish idealism, more than I respect the rioters foolish idealism.
Seems like self defense to me, though I don't think he should have been there in the first place,
I think his real hurdles are going to be related to the state laws he broke in carrying that gun not registered to him as a 17 year old.
Maybe I'm just not patriotic enough, but these mixed bags militia groups seem pretty darn stupid to me.
Still, what are you going to get if you defund the police.
I suppose I can understand a militia if it was a community where everyone agreed, but that doesn't seem likely in a city. Gated community would have better luck, and only 'in the gated community.
I also think he got lucky with the histories of the people he shot.
Seems likely to turn some of the public opinion towards him positively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Warning shots seem a bad idea to me.
Warning Shots Are A Terrible Idea - Active Self Protection
Personally I'd rather just try not get 'into situations where violence is likely.
Created: