Discussion on religion. (1 Viewer)

[annabackwards]

Hell is viewed as a seperation from God , therefore if you choose not to believe in god, it is a conscious decision to distance yourself from God. Also I find it inherently contradictory that you are questioning the validity of God's motives by invoking a moral law (good and bad etc.) that is dependent on God's existance to be used as a point to argue

I'm not religious just clearing things up

Morals are not based on religions/god.

 

[Durga]

Morals are not based on religions/god.

No, but they try to take credit for them...

 

[Bereie]

Morals are not based on religions/god.

For religious people they are.

 

[Titburger]

Morals are not based on religions/god.

If you are going to use a binary oppsition like good-evil, one cannot exist without the other and the consious decison to choose between must remain. Also you are removing any reference point by which to define good-evil etc.

 

[Cookie182]

Hell is viewed as a seperation from God , therefore if you choose not to believe in god, it is a conscious decision to distance yourself from God. Also I find it inherently contradictory that you are questioning the validity of God's motives by invoking a moral law (good and bad etc.) that is dependent on God's existance to be used as a point to argue

I'm not religious just clearing things up

Note the contradiction:

If you don't believe in god (which I would argue is not actually a 'snap' conscious choice) then it is frivolous to say that your distancing yourself from god, as in the subjective frame of the atheist there is nothing to distance yourself from.

If you thought you were, you wouldn't be an atheist.

On the contrary, it is plausible for you as a theist to hold this view that "atheists distance themselves from god" but you would have to confine it to your frame of reference, it is not an absolute truth, though you speak as though it is.

 

[Titburger]

Note the contradiction:

If you don't believe in god (which I would argue is not actually a 'snap' conscious choice) then it is frivolous to say that your distancing yourself from god, as in the subjective frame of the atheist there is nothing to distance yourself from.

If you thought you were, you wouldn't be an atheist.

On the contrary, it is plausible for you as a theist to hold this view that "atheists distance themselves from god" but you would have to confine it to your frame of reference, it is not an absolute truth, though you speak as though it is.

I'm just providing the religious point of view on the subject

 

[ilikebeeef]

I'm just providing the religious point of view on the subject

It is NOT a conscious decision - the atheist does not believe that God exists at all. You can't distance yourself from something you believe does not exist.

It's like "how can you distance yourself from a chair which does not exist?"

Even if the chair DID exist, the decision to "not believe" that it does is not conscious - the person does not know it.

 

[Titburger]

It is NOT a conscious decision - the atheist does not believe that God exists at all. You can't distance yourself from something you believe does not exist.

It's like "how can you distance yourself from a chair which does not exist?"

Even if the chair DID exist, the decision to "not believe" that it does is not conscious - the person does not know it.

That's not what i'm saying! All I'm providing is the religious justification for hell.

 

[ilikebeeef]

That's not what i'm saying! All I'm providing is the religious justification for hell.

What I've said would oppose the justification for hell then. One cannot be blamed or said to be "bad" for making an unconscious decision.

 

[Titburger]

What I've said would oppose the justification for hell then. One cannot be blamed or said to be "bad" for making an unconscious decision.

I'm agnostic like yourself and have spent alot of time recently sourcing info from both sides. I don't quite have the linguistic elegance to support religion but this guy seems pretty good at dealing with this issue


YouTube - Sufficient Evidence - Razi Zacharias Q & A

 

[Durga]

I'm agnostic like yourself and have spent alot of time recently sourcing info from both sides. I don't quite have the linguistic elegance to support religion but this guy seems pretty good at dealing with this issue


YouTube - Sufficient Evidence - Razi Zacharias Q & A

The problem with that, is he is assuming there is a moral law. Morality is no law. Morality is merely a general reflection of societies views at the present time. To say morality is a constant is to deny the fact that moral attitudes DO change. And they do. The Bible, apparently the word of God, condones slavery. Is that to say it is moral to own and work slaves? Certainly not at this time in our existence. While it is an off putting to think that one day, murder might be completely fine, it is not up to us to deny future generations the right to make their own laws. All we are leaving is our structure behind. If they want to modify that model, that is up to them, not us, nor some religious nut jobs and their non-existent sky man.

 

[Titburger]

The problem with that, is he is assuming there is a moral law. Morality is no law. Morality is merely a general reflection of societies views at the present time. To say morality is a constant is to deny the fact that moral attitudes DO change. And they do. The Bible, apparently the word of God, condones slavery. Is that to say it is moral to own and work slaves? Certainly not at this time in our existence. While it is an off putting to think that one day, murder might be completely fine, it is not up to us to deny future generations the right to make their own laws. All we are leaving is our structure behind. If they want to modify that model, that is up to them, not us, nor some religious nut jobs and their non-existent sky man.

Moral relativism is a very tricky topic.

"According to moral relativism, it makes no sense to ask the abstract question whether a given act is good or bad. According to moral relativism, there is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad full stop."

What grounds do you then have to judge anyone from this moral viewpoint??

 

[BlackDragon]

Moral relativism is a very tricky topic.

"According to moral relativism, it makes no sense to ask the abstract question whether a given act is good or bad. According to moral relativism, there is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad full stop."

What grounds do you then have to judge anyone from this moral viewpoint??

I think a certain element of relativism in terms of situational morality is best in formulating any moral perspective or metaethic. It is always true, to a certain extent, that the moral nature of a situation is affected by the context inwhich the query exists. That said, there is still a need to have moral theory and to realise that there are types of things that are strongly innate in us, things like empathy.

 

[Durga]

Moral relativism is a very tricky topic.

"According to moral relativism, it makes no sense to ask the abstract question whether a given act is good or bad. According to moral relativism, there is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad full stop."

What grounds do you then have to judge anyone from this moral viewpoint??

You judge people from the current 'status quo' of morality in society. I think with moral relativism, it makes perfect sense to judge whether a given act is good or bad, by societies current standards. While yes, you can go back in the past and start judging people according to your era's current idea of morality, it would be highly unproductive to do so. We need to accept that society as a whole will keep moving forward, and their notions of what is morally right or wrong will change.

And yes, in different cultures certain actions might shock some, the world is becoming increasingly linked, and hopefully soon we can have one, encompassing status quo.

 

[Titburger]

That said, there is still a need to have moral theory and to realise that there are types of things that are strongly innate in us, things like empathy.

Now that you have said this, i'm very curious to know what your personal views on the subject are - because you seem to have some grasp on what you are talking about

 

[BlackDragon]

Now that you have said this, i'm very curious to know what your personal views on the subject are - because you seem to have some grasp on what you are talking about

About whether morals are innate in us?

 

[Titburger]

About whether morals are innate in us?

Yeah, pretty much. Do you base this internally from feeling and emotion or externally from experience and interaction with others?

 

[aysan93]

just in general - FLAME ON