Following Gods Commandments...
#81
Posted 14 June 2004 - 12:11 PM
#82
Posted 14 June 2004 - 01:02 PM
Anoushik, why don't you show that humanism is rational? You are just making a claim. Please explain how humanism is rational? Who said that without humanism the humanity or part of it will not survive? And who said that humanity must survive? How is it rationally explained? Can't you live for yourself and be happy even if after you there was a flood.
I won't take anything granted from a rational thinker, I need a clear reasoning and solid logic. If not then I will call you irrational
#83
Posted 14 June 2004 - 01:15 PM
Humanism is rational and I will show you later tonight. Now I have to get ready to go to work.
#84
Posted 14 June 2004 - 01:21 PM
Humanism is rational and I will show you later tonight. Now I have to get ready to go to work.
I will be looking forward to your answer. Please also think about the question "why must we be good?" according to humanism.
P.S. As far as the self-proclaimed "god" Thoth, since you are asking I will answer: he is simply not worth my time.
#85
Posted 14 June 2004 - 01:26 PM
I am not religious at all yet I am not that bad a person once you get to know me. Note this is the "member" Sip posting and not that evil evil evil egoistic moderator dude.
#86
Posted 14 June 2004 - 01:29 PM
That's true, but please explain, why are you not bad? Why must you be good?
#87
Posted 14 June 2004 - 01:36 PM
It's impossible for anyone to be good all the time. Some may think they are, but then they also call themselves God.
#88
Posted 14 June 2004 - 01:44 PM
You say "must" - well obvioulsy we have no fear of hell holding over us...thus I argue we use reason and understanding...not fear of punishment to do/be good...now wouldn't you think that this makes it more genuine..and thus more good?
In other words he doesn't wish his beliefs challenged/threatened...so typical of the believer...but we thought you were more enlightened then this Sasun? ...guess not...just what does Sri Chimnoy say about this one? "when the enlightened Atheist says "who needs it?" then you must place hands over ears and repeat your mantra...is that clear grasshopper?"
lol - messing with you dude...you can take it - no? I'm sure somewhere in his bountiless teachings her Guru says something about "lightening up" ..and the other guy says - "love your enemies" "Turn the other cheek" and no bacon on Thursdays...so I'm sure somewhere in there you can manage to ease it up...if not - oh well...I'll just chalk it up to failure of the individual...and not the religion...
#89
Posted 14 June 2004 - 02:50 PM
but by our capacity for experience
Buddha
#90
Posted 14 June 2004 - 03:27 PM
Seriously, I admire Buddha's teachings and would like to learn more
#91
Posted 14 June 2004 - 04:36 PM
Close, I think. I think morality IS the product of logic and thought. But for most people the product (if it is accepted at all) is merely learned, or rather mimiced, rather than properly understood.
And it has to be the collective product of collective logic and thought. Otherwise you are just producing a set of little gods that are walking around with their own personal morality and the perfect excuse to commit any act. I don't doubt that the worlds worst serial killer thinks he / she is a very moral person.
#92
Posted 14 June 2004 - 04:41 PM
Hmm, I know he thinks it, and acts like he was. but has he gone as far as publicly proclaiming it?
(And if he has, must we now be using a capitalised "He" when refering to Him? )
#93
Posted 14 June 2004 - 04:45 PM
Are you claiming here that morality may proceed from democratic consensus?
The sum of all subjectivisms is still subjectivism, isn't it?
#94
Posted 14 June 2004 - 05:42 PM
The sum of all subjectivisms is still subjectivism, isn't it?
Yes it does. Do you honestly think it doesn't?
Whatever the majority thinks is moral the majority will think is moral. Though that doesn't mean that it is a corect moral - only time will tell that. Time to prove that it will work. And if it works then it isn't subjective, is it?
I suppose many philosophers have written hefty tomes on this subject - books which I have not read and probably never will read. But, thankfully, a sparrow doesn't need to learn aero-dynamics to fly.
#95
Posted 14 June 2004 - 10:08 PM
The Four Noble Truths
Life is suffering.
Suffering is caused by attachment to desires.
Suffering can be ended by overcoming attachment to desires.
The way to end suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Noble Eightfold Path
Right view
Right thought
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right contemplation
Steps 1 through 5 concern ethics and morality. Steps 6, 7 & 8 are more advanced and concern practice of meditation and going to higher levels of consciousness through practice, and ultimately to Nirvana (or Kindgom of Heaven if you wish to call it that way). Without morality one cannot go anywhere. This is a tested and proven path to salvation, waiting for the taker.
#96
Posted 14 June 2004 - 10:11 PM
I have yet to see a logical and thoughtful arrival at morality. All I have seen so far is claims. Please enlighten, if not then I will call it a baseless claim
#97
Posted 15 June 2004 - 12:07 AM
#98
Posted 15 June 2004 - 02:23 AM
Well, Steve, this just validates my point as to moral not deriving from democratic consensus but rather corresponding to an intangible law whose existence is asserted by the cultural decay its continuing transgression almost certainly leads to.
You agree that if moral is just the result of agreement, as agreement fluctuates over time and societies, it is unstable and cannot hold. It is a mere convention subject to change. Moral relativism leads to the rejection of moral as a whole (what is the validity of a moral that is bound to change?) and serves the purpose of amorality as expressed in the famous phrase "if God does not exist, everything is permitted". (where God is to be understood as the absolute that is above man)
#99
Posted 15 June 2004 - 02:42 AM
I won't take anything granted from a rational thinker, I need a clear reasoning and solid logic.
Ok, here goes. (Credits to my father, as we had a great discussion tonight regarding this matter.)
If there was only one person who lived on a remote island all by himself that person would be free to do whatever he pleased. But as soon as another person arrived both their independence would be limited. And the more people the less freedom to do as one pleases. By nature humans are social animals and we depend on each other for our survival. And thus instead of seeing people living away from each other on remote islands we see that humans have lived in a society for as long as humanity has existed.
In order to answer what is morality we have to look at what is society and what is social structure. A society is a group of people who have a similar cultural background and live in a specific geographical area, and the social structure refers to the network of interrelationships among individuals and groups. Now, obviously society has existed from the beginning of humanity. And from the beginning the members in a society learned that they have to create certain rules that everyone has to follow so that the given society could continue to exist. Why rules? Because we all know that one’s freedom ends where another one’s begins. Why do you agree to follow rules Sasun? Why do you stop at red lights? The same goes for morality. The belief “treat others like you want to be treated” is a social construct, realized for the survival and the betterment of a society. This has nothing to do with religion. So, to answer your question of “why must we be good?” the plain answer is that it’s good for the society, and thus it is good for the individual, since every individual is also part of the society.
PS. I realize that I didn't exactly explain how humanism is rational and how I can rationally explain why humanity must survive. But I think what I have written above is directly related to what we were talking about. (Also, it's late and I'm tired.) But I'd like to know how you explain according to religion why humanity must survive.
#100
Posted 15 June 2004 - 03:13 AM
Our brainpower is limited to physical and emotional cognition. And there are some primitive, simple questions it can never answer, like what are the smallest and biggest materia in this world? We can wait for centuries until scientists decompose materia to smaller and smaller units. But you can always devide any smallest material unit they find into two parts simply by thinking that it can happen. Probably in there research the scientists will find more cures for more illnesses by futher decomposing DNA going deep into genes, sub-genes, sub-sub-genes. Again you can devide anything they find as the smallest materia into two parts with your thought.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users