nietzsche wrote:what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?
I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.
Moderator: Community Team
nietzsche wrote:what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?
Phatscotty wrote: For starters, which seems more logical;
something came from nothing
something came from something
jonesthecurl wrote:nietzsche wrote:what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?
I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.
nietzsche wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:nietzsche wrote:what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?
I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.
but this changes when you see the different types of god people refer to when saying "god".
for instance, there are philosophers that identified god with nature. and there are religious people who think of god as a anthropomorphic figure, emotional and all, with our predjudices and pettiness.
there are spiritual teachers that identify god with all there is.
personally i think we could get rid of the problematic word, god, because it means so many different things.
but my question was because so many of the counter argumenting to religion is based on the rejectiin of an anthropomorphic god.
nietzsche wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:nietzsche wrote:what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?
I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.
but this changes when you see the different types of god people refer to when saying "god".
for instance, there are philosophers that identified god with nature. and there are religious people who think of god as a anthropomorphic figure, emotional and all, with our predjudices and pettiness.
there are spiritual teachers that identify god with all there is.
personally i think we could get rid of the problematic word, god, because it means so many different things.
but my question was because so many of the counter argumenting to religion is based on the rejectiin of an anthropomorphic god.
rishaed wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:^Cut out too many quotes:
You've painted yourself into a corner.
Can shadow exist without light? No. The very fact that people choose to interpret and change "source" writings of a supposed supreme source proves its mutability. Would anyone say a mountain is anything other than a mountain? Religion wouldn't exist without people.
The U.S. Constitution has been around for a tenth of the time of Christianity, and who knows how long of Judeism, and hasn't spread through nearly the same cultural filters and political landscapes. I guarantee if the U.S. is around in 2000 years its Constitution will have vastly changed.
-TG
No, not really. The only thing i made the differentiation to was that the foundation/tenements of the religion didn't change, people decided to modify it to suit them. As people always will. For example during the Time of Jesus, how the Rabbis viewed and practiced the Law, was much different than lets say King David. However, The Law in and of itself didn't change. The point with the constitution is that People changed it to suit themselves, not the other way around. The basis of our Constitution is still the same, the random laws and other things work within its framework. The difference between lets say, the Constitution and the Bible is that the original texts for the Bible is done, finished. It no longer will change. However how people decide to translate it from the original Hebrew and Greek may cause different translations a/o paired with our interpretations of what it says causes the difference in opinions and viewpoints. The Constitution on the other hand, as part of a government that still rules and has need to modify it occasionally will not be a "Finished" document until the U.S. forms a new system of government based on a new document. When that happens there will no longer be any more changes to the Constitution because they have no purpose.
nietzsche wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:nietzsche wrote:what are you guys more opposed, to the idea of "god" in general or to the idea of an anthropomophic god?
I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea, simply not seeing any need for the concept, or any evidence for it.
but this changes when you see the different types of god people refer to when saying "god".
for instance, there are philosophers that identified god with nature.
Dukasaur wrote:mrswdk wrote:And while doing it to death on this forum even Dukasaur has agreed that the morality being produced by atheists is not objective. I quote:Dukasaur wrote:You can talk about "happiness for the greatest number" but it's only a subjective opinion that we should seek happiness. What objective reason is there that universal misery is not the goal?
andDuksomemore wrote:What I believe is not possible, is to come up with any objective reason to desire an outcome.
and finallyDuyathinkhesaurus wrote:I certainly think ethical systems are possible, I just deny them any claim to be objective.
Which is why I don't understand his stance in this thread.
I don't understand why you don't understand it.
Yes, we can and do construct moral codes. No, they are not objective. They are filtered through our particular set of biases. We say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but then we clarify "But It's Okay To Kill Things That Taste Good." That's because evolution has made us a carnivorous hunter, so we construct a moral code that still allows us to murder little piglets. If we were a strictly herbivorous species, we would probably have a stricter rule about not killing any sentient being. If we were a scavenging species, we might have a moral code where it's good to eat meat, but only if it has died of natural causes.
So, I disagree with people who say "My code is based purely on Natural Law." No, I say. Your code is based on Natural Law as you see it from your vantage point at a particular nexus in the food chain. That doesn't make it any less valid. Just accept that you have restrictions and limitations to your viewpoint. Your code is valid, but only within the particular set of constraints that evolution has placed on you.
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:MrsWDK,
You have yourself a set of moral rules, which I am presuming are based on the theory that you are more important than anything else.
Not judging you for that, merely pointing out that you have prescribed to an equally arbitrary morality system
mrswdk wrote:Dukasaur wrote:mrswdk wrote:And while doing it to death on this forum even Dukasaur has agreed that the morality being produced by atheists is not objective. I quote:Dukasaur wrote:You can talk about "happiness for the greatest number" but it's only a subjective opinion that we should seek happiness. What objective reason is there that universal misery is not the goal?
andDuksomemore wrote:What I believe is not possible, is to come up with any objective reason to desire an outcome.
and finallyDuyathinkhesaurus wrote:I certainly think ethical systems are possible, I just deny them any claim to be objective.
Which is why I don't understand his stance in this thread.
I don't understand why you don't understand it.
Yes, we can and do construct moral codes. No, they are not objective. They are filtered through our particular set of biases. We say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but then we clarify "But It's Okay To Kill Things That Taste Good." That's because evolution has made us a carnivorous hunter, so we construct a moral code that still allows us to murder little piglets. If we were a strictly herbivorous species, we would probably have a stricter rule about not killing any sentient being. If we were a scavenging species, we might have a moral code where it's good to eat meat, but only if it has died of natural causes.
So, I disagree with people who say "My code is based purely on Natural Law." No, I say. Your code is based on Natural Law as you see it from your vantage point at a particular nexus in the food chain. That doesn't make it any less valid. Just accept that you have restrictions and limitations to your viewpoint. Your code is valid, but only within the particular set of constraints that evolution has placed on you.
Just reread this and read the second paragraph (missed it last time). I don't say I have a code that is based on Natural Law. Wiki says: 'natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature'. No thanks.
I don't understand how you can state that there is no objective reason behind any of the morals people construct, and then continue to subscribe to a system of morality anyway. Why not just accept that there is no higher cause or purpose?
Dukasaur wrote:Of course I accept it. But lack of purpose is unacceptable to a sentient being. A sentient mind cannot tolerate bouncing around in a dark room full of randomly moving projectiles. Of necessity, it desires a direction, and a mission, so if there isn't one readily available, it must create one.
I guess I shall have to create my own purpose. I shall have to use my own mind to discern what I am to aspire to. It will be my duty to do for real what the religionists only pretend to do: to light a candle in the darkness
mrswdk wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Of course I accept it. But lack of purpose is unacceptable to a sentient being. A sentient mind cannot tolerate bouncing around in a dark room full of randomly moving projectiles. Of necessity, it desires a direction, and a mission, so if there isn't one readily available, it must create one.
Why does life need a purpose? It's perfectly possible to be happy and to see beauty without one.I guess I shall have to create my own purpose. I shall have to use my own mind to discern what I am to aspire to. It will be my duty to do for real what the religionists only pretend to do: to light a candle in the darkness
I don't think the distinction is as big in reality as it is in your head.
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:mrswdk wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Of course I accept it. But lack of purpose is unacceptable to a sentient being. A sentient mind cannot tolerate bouncing around in a dark room full of randomly moving projectiles. Of necessity, it desires a direction, and a mission, so if there isn't one readily available, it must create one.
Why does life need a purpose? It's perfectly possible to be happy and to see beauty without one.I guess I shall have to create my own purpose. I shall have to use my own mind to discern what I am to aspire to. It will be my duty to do for real what the religionists only pretend to do: to light a candle in the darkness
I don't think the distinction is as big in reality as it is in your head.
If you have no purpose then why bother to continue living? Self preservation is a purpose after all.
nietzsche wrote:meaning is a necesity, something we as human beings need. A purpose would be a step higher i think, a life with purpose would be a better life for the person. A loftier aspiration perhaps.
mrswdk wrote:Because I enjoy living. Is that not a good enough reason for you?
mrswdk wrote:nietzsche wrote:meaning is a necesity, something we as human beings need. A purpose would be a step higher i think, a life with purpose would be a better life for the person. A loftier aspiration perhaps.
Whatever makes you feel better.
If the above quote is your honest view then you suck at the whole nihilism thing though.
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:mrswdk wrote:Because I enjoy living. Is that not a good enough reason for you?
Attacking every point anyone ever makes in a discussion makes it extremely difficult to have a discussion. Enjoyment of life is a purpose!
nietzsche wrote:dude, seriously, dukasaur explanation was a good one, pay attention.
if you pay attention to yourself, you will find what you assign meaning to.
mrswdk wrote:nietzsche wrote:dude, seriously, dukasaur explanation was a good one, pay attention.
I can see flaws in what he said, and if you guys can't address those flaws then I'm not going to change my mind.if you pay attention to yourself, you will find what you assign meaning to.
You mean, like, if I value certain things then that shows I give meaning to them?
nietzsche wrote:it's important to understand too that this need of meaning has to do a lot with the fact that you will die.
when you really consider your death, not death as a concept, but your own death, you feel the need of meaning. to live life your way.
it's also important to note that when you make your decision, you're basing it on what you desire, on your beliefs. but as you know yourself better, you can change your own meaning and beliefs, leaving behind things that were not exactly yours but you picked up from others in your growing up. but even when you want all those things you dont really want but only think you want, even then you can feel your real you all the time, all you need to do is pay attention.
Users browsing this forum: WILLIAMS5232