eclipse Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 it is actually not entirely inconceivable that with a combination of hallucinogens and modern science, all of this is possible! I, uh, honestly can't tell if this is serious. I've had quite enough to deal with, so please don't let this topic devolve into a headache! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I, uh, honestly can't tell if this is serious. I've had quite enough to deal with, so please don't let this topic devolve into a headache! it's serious if you take (very) liberally the meanings of growing three extra arms and raising the dead. it's already been confirmed that altering patterns of gene expression during fruit fly development can cause them to grow legs out of their head instead of antennae. the concept of cloning can be interpreted as "raising the dead" if the dead organism's genetic material possesses enough structural integrity. calling down angels from the sky, well, anyone on an acid trip can hallucinate that. research has also shown that individuals suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy perceive vivid images that can be interpreted as religious visions. which brings me to another point: the people of the civilizations who received divine inspiration from god were, by today's standards, imbeciles. we've learned to harness electricity, to cure disease, and to observe natural phenomena many orders of magnitude larger, smaller, longer, shorter, etc. than we were originally equipped to observe. in the more secular parts of the world, we've developed enlightened political and social models that lend themselves to fairness, equality, and prosperity. the utterly bewildering aspect of all of this is that so many of us still believe in the divinely inspired word of peoples who could hardly read or write. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I take offense to historical people being called dumb, as historical evidence proves again and again that they weren't dumb, just not equipped in any way to be capable of understanding the world in the way that we do. Don't forget the ancient peoples made large advances in fields that were in their grasp of understanding, like mathematics and metaphysical philosophy. And while, yes, we can pretend that compared to 2000 years ago we have a much larger knowledge base, this does not equate to ancient peoples being dumber. Knowledge (or science) might be the one thing that by its very nature is accumulative, so it is nothing short of within reason that 2000 years ago, not nearly as much knowledge was available. However, this does not mean I disagree with your argument fundamentally, in the sense of current-day interpretation of the abrahamic religion holds any legitimacy at all. If we just follow the christian religion, it was decided by politics which biblical stories were considered canon quite a number of years after the life of Jesus. The concept of Jesus being the son of god and not a prophet was also canonized at that time. Furthermore, interpretation of biblical texts have changed over time and don't seem to have much to do with their original interpretations, sometimes being changed by the church as they saw fit. So the concept of believing the word of ancient peoples as they had meant it is very questionable unto itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 (edited) I take offense to historical people being called dumb, as historical evidence proves again and again that they weren't dumb, just not equipped in any way to be capable of understanding the world in the way that we do. Don't forget the ancient peoples made large advances in fields that were in their grasp of understanding, like mathematics and metaphysical philosophy. And while, yes, we can pretend that compared to 2000 years ago we have a much larger knowledge base, this does not equate to ancient peoples being dumber. Knowledge (or science) might be the one thing that by its very nature is accumulative, so it is nothing short of within reason that 2000 years ago, not nearly as much knowledge was available. the existence of intelligent people in antiquity doesn't vindicate everyone else. "imbecile" may have been a bad word (as there is no evidence that contemporary humans have a higher average IQ than ancient humans), but the people of antiquity certainly had a far more parochial worldview and far less willingness to think critically. i suppose i should amend my previous statement expressing my dismay at contemporary people following the principles of civilizations who were so culturally backward (rather than stupid). Edited September 13, 2013 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Depends on who told him. If it's God, and he can give me absolutely, irrefutable proof that it was in fact God, than yes. What would be absolute irrefutable proof that it was God? Because most likely, unless he can call down angels from the sky, make me grow three extra arms, raise the dead, or anything like that, he's probably a maniac. And if he could then he wouldn't be? If a man commanded you to assist in slaughtering a city of women and children and did these things would you suddenly trust his moral code over your own? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Sage Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 According to Rousseau, natural disasters happen because of those damn city folk, or so i recall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) And if he could then he wouldn't be? If a man commanded you to assist in slaughtering a city of women and children and did these things would you suddenly trust his moral code over your own? Well...I'd probably ask why it was necessary. And if he said anything like "because I said so, that's why!", I'd probably question whether it's God or Satan trying to recruit me... Honestly, now that you've got me thinking about it, there actually is a question I have, namely, why nobody in Israel asked why the slaughter of male children was necessary. I mean really, they may have been mostly selfish jerks, but there were at least three good men among them (though one tragically didn't get to enter the Promised Land). Edited September 17, 2013 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) Well...I'd probably ask why it was necessary. And if he said anything like "because I said so, that's why!", I'd probably question whether it's God or Satan trying to recruit me... how is this any different from the lord telling joshua to lay waste to the city of jericho? probably because the city was full of heathens and sinners. okay, fine. if this man whom we are talking about commanded you to slaughter a city of women and children using the justification that all of its inhabitants were sinners who did not believe in the judeo-christian god (and this were in fact true, e.g., a city in india or china), would you do it? Edited September 17, 2013 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 if this man whom we are talking about commanded you to slaughter a city of women and children using the justification that all of its inhabitants were sinners who did not believe in the judeo-christian god, would you do it? Of course not, because I know that that's not what God would want. For as many acts of wrath as there were in the Old Testament, there were also times where he spared even societies he didn't like, such as Ninevah. We're all sinners, and there are many who don't believe in God despite being good people. So of course I wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Of course not, because I know that that's not what God would want. Because most likely, unless he can call down angels from the sky, make me grow three extra arms, raise the dead, or anything like that, he's probably a maniac. how do you claim that's what god would want? you are suggesting that you know god more than he knows himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) how do you claim that's what god would want? you are suggesting that you know god more than he knows himself. I cannot say for sure...but I do think that, being a believer who has made this religion my way of life, AND one who has access to many people, such as my pastor and Dad, who have also studied it feverishly, I can say what I think with more certainty than you can. Probably (unless you happen to have a degree in Religious studies or something). In any case, it takes a heck of a lot more than simply having a bit of evil in you and a lack of conscious knowledge of the Lord to have him wreak genocide on you. The kind of evil punishable by that has to be the kind done, knowingly, with absolutely no regrets or restraint whatsoever, otherwise, well... “A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”—Ps. 51:17 (New American Standard) Edited September 17, 2013 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 I cannot say for sure...but I do think that, being a believer who has made this religion my way of life, AND one who has access to many people, such as my pastor and Dad, who have also studied it feverishly, I can say what I think with more certainty than you can. you are still deferring to mortal figures of authority who claim that they know about god's intentions. the truth is that you, your pastor, and your dad have no more idea than i do about what god would want. god has never spoken to any of us directly. and if one of us claims that he has, then there is no way for us to prove it to another person. your admission that you defer to your pastor and your dad about deciphering god's intentions is an admission that religion is not a divine, but a man-made, institution. if you are not sure about what god would want, how about you just ask him directly instead of your pastor or your dad? In any case, it takes a heck of a lot more than simply having a bit of evil in you and a lack of conscious knowledge of the Lord to have him wreak genocide on you. The kind of evil punishable by that has to be the kind done, knowingly, with absolutely no regrets or restraint whatsoever, otherwise, well... what about a person who consciously and vehemently rejects the lord and honestly attempts to convince others to reject the lord? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 you are still deferring to mortal figures of authority who claim that they know about god's intentions. the truth is that you, your pastor, and your dad have no more idea than i do about what god would want. god has never spoken to any of us directly. and if one of us claims that he has, then there is no way for us to prove it to another person. your admission that you defer to your pastor and your dad about deciphering god's intentions is an admission that religion is not a divine, but a man-made, institution. if you are not sure about what god would want, how about you just ask him directly instead of your pastor or your dad? I have, and still do on occasion. But unfortunately, he doesn't seem to speak directly for whatever reason, leaving me to have to rely on some other knowledgable dudes (including my Dad, who overcame a lifetime of habits like stealing, violence, and drunkenness with his faith in God). Perhaps as a test of faith? Who knows? what about a person who consciously and vehemently rejects the lord and honestly attempts to convince others to reject the lord? Depends on the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Depends on the reason. please, name me a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 They're thoroughly evil, baby burning villains who don't want to think that there might actually be consequences for their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 evil is subjective (there are quite a few christians, jews, and muslims who, in my estimation, are thoroughly evil), very few people actually burn babies (and some who do burn, or at least slaughter, babies are god-fearing african catholic priests), and the god-rejecting person is very well aware that there are consequences to his actions. by your criteria, i'd wager that more people who believe in the judeo-christian god deserve to die by god's hands than people who do not believe in god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) evil is subjective (there are quite a few christians, jews, and muslims who, in my estimation, are thoroughly evil), very few people actually burn babies (and some who do burn, or at least slaughter, babies are god-fearing african catholic priests), and the god-rejecting person is very well aware that there are consequences to his actions. Most God-rejecting people are probably not evil or anything. I'm aware of that It's just, you asked me for what reason a God-rejecting person might have for being judged for that, and I gave a possible one, that's all. As for those religious figures, I'm not quite sure what to say about that, except that being religious doesn't automatically make you good. by your criteria, i'd wager that more people who believe in the judeo-christian god deserve to die by god's hands than people who do not believe in god. That actually wouldn't surprise me. Or at least, more people who claimed to believe in the judeo-christian god. I'm sure you're all too aware of how often religion is used to justify the most heinous of atrocities. Edited September 21, 2013 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 I'm sure you're all too aware of how often religion is used to justify the most heinous of atrocities. i know, right? you can just look in the bible and it's all right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted September 22, 2013 Author Share Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) evil is subjective A lot of atheists believe in moral realism, so this isn't something you can just take for granted. If you reject ethics for being subjective, you can just go ahead and reject mathematics too since math is subjective as well--due to having to rely on axioms which are by definition subjective--just like ethics, which too relies on axioms to get any work done. Edited September 22, 2013 by Celes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 i never rejected ethics for being subjective. the fact that ethics is subjective means that texts that attempt to mold it as something objective have overstepped their boundaries. however, i think that there is undoubtedly some objective component of ethics because the neural circuitry that confers empathy must have arisen as a product of evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 If you reject ethics for being subjective, you can just go ahead and reject mathematics too since math is subjective as well--due to having to rely on axioms which are by definition subjective--just like ethics, which too relies on axioms to get any work done. Ethics is a moral code while mathematics is a system to measure and define quantities. It's a subjective interpretation of objective fact. And axioms don't define subjectivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.