Does God exist?

[SirJosephPorter]

And even if there are a few relativists who wouldn’t object to adultery, do you think they would accept the morality of murder or rape if someone wanted to kill or rape them? Of course not. Relativism contradicts our reactions and our common sense.

Alleywayzalwayz, there is no contradiction here. A relativist would object to murder and rape because they are illegal, end of story. The morality of murder and rape does not come into it. If something is illegal, it is the duty of every law abiding citizen to oppose it.

As to adultery, a relativist would object to it because of Darwinism, nothing more. Adultery may result in the woman becoming pregnant with another man’s seed, thereby preventing the relativist from propagating his seed. So the instinct to oppose adultery is hard wired into every human being, even a relativist.

Of course, when a relativist opposes adultery, he does not think of all these things (he many not even have any intention of impregnating his mate), he just knows that adultery is wrong. But I think this it the reasoning behind it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

How do you think Bin Laden would have REACTED if america had flown its planes into his buildings with his innocent loved ones in them? He would have known immediately that such an act was undeniably wrong.

Alleywayzalwayz, I don’t think that is right, to a Fundamentalist Muslim life is very cheap. To him, if somebody is a good Muslim, he will go to paradise when he dies, so he is better off dead. If somebody is not a good Muslim, why he doesn’t deserve to live anyway, so his death is no loss.

So if somebody flew a plane into his buildings, I don’t think he would mourn the dead for too long. Now, if his sons are killed, sure he would mourn for them somewhat (not for his wives or daughters, women are subhuman and can always be replaced). But not for long. He would vow revenge and start plotting.

 

[MHz]

How do you think Bin Laden would have REACTED if america had flown its planes into his buildings with his innocent loved ones in them? He would have known immediately that such an act was undeniably wrong. [/quote

"Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” "
#16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | Project Censored

Now, if his sons are killed, sure he would mourn for them somewhat (not for his wives or daughters, women are subhuman and can always be replaced). But not for long. He would vow revenge and start plotting.

If he is plotting revenge then it would seem the deaths of his son was quite important.
For the number that the US has killed in those two countries in the last few years how many people do you think would take a shot at an American because a loved one, any loved one, (who also happened to be innocent of doing any wrong) as a form of retribution?

 

[scratch]

MHz,

In my opinion: a lot

rgs
scratch

 

[Scott Free]

If something is illegal, it is the duty of every law abiding citizen to oppose it.

Not really.

It's up to those whom want to rule and insist their morality is correct, to enforce their morality on those that don't, and structure society with mechanisms of confinement, to both maintain their power and violently enforce their will. In an ideal democracy this is the tyranny of the majority which is seen as somehow more palatable than tyranny with a smaller power base but in practise it is still the tyranny of a small number of elite with apparently better justification. We tend to follow their rules because, like sheep, we perceive there is safety in group dynamics and membership. We follow "rules" only because there is a perceived advantage in doing so. Our so called "morality" on this scale is only born out of a desire for group cohesion and is discovered by reverse engineering outcome. As we try and protect more and more of the group our laws and "morality" becomes more complicated and so too do the ranks of the disassociated. It is through the very act of trying to include that we start to see the tyranny of the majority disintegrate. There simply is no universal morality yet and will never be without some severe environmental, evolutionary, social and cultural changes, which are technologies that affect homogenization of the minority into the majority; that is, to have the dominate culture enforce its morality on the minorities. Basically the big fish eats the smaller and if you don't want to be eaten you better do as the big fish says - hardly a system that could be characterized as morally superior but only physically so. We are limited by our feeble imaginations to realize that there are many different ways societies can be functionally run. There is a tendency in a democracy (as in any kind of tyranny) for the majority view to be held as superior, however, it is difficult to see how it could ever be held differently. Moral change is only ever precipitated by the widening of power bases and the inclusion of more people into the dominate culture. This is a self defeating mechanism of homogenization not morality which ultimately leads to greater tyranny or disintegration of the group. The group becomes cohesive only through greater violence. When that mechanism for violence breaks down so too does the large group and we see states break up. There really is no right or wrong. There is only how your group prefers to do things.

 

[In Between Man]

alleywayz,

That is your opinion. The Crusaders, Hitler and "terrorists" think they are/were right and justified. Who are we to judge from this point in time. They follow their social mores, we ours. Who is right or wrong is a matter of opinion.

Thank you very much. Now the whole world can see the truth behind the logical fallacies your side claims. "Who are we to judge" .... "a matter of opinion" ??? That would define NO difference between the actions of Hitler and the actions of mother Theresa.

Well, I'm here to say that's nonsense. And I think if you ask most honest people, they'll tell you the same. There IS a REAL difference between helping someone and killing them.

If right and wrong truly is a matter of opinion, I want you do remember that when I treat you like garbage. When you become MORALLY outraged, you better restrain yourself. How dare you question what's right for me, and how dare you think your opinion is justification for your outrage.

 

[In Between Man]

We can hold that the good guys won simply because we are them and we get to tell the story how we want.

Okay, valid point. But you tell me Scott, using your judgement, were the action of Hitler and the nazis wrong? Sure, we got to write the story. But the fact is, we know what they did. Even if Hitler would have won, would that change anything? Would it make the all that mass murder right?

 

[MHz]

Thank you very much. Now the whole world can see the truth behind the logical fallacies your side claims. "Who are we to judge" .... "a matter of opinion" ??? That would define NO difference between the actions of Hitler and the actions of mother Theresa.

Well, I'm here to say that's nonsense. And I think if you ask most honest people, they'll tell you the same. There IS a REAL difference between helping someone and killing them.

If right and wrong truly is a matter of opinion, I want you do remember that when I treat you like garbage. When you become MORALLY outraged, you better restrain yourself. How dare you question what's right for me, and how dare you think your opinion is justification for your outrage.

I'm pretty sure that this is not taking leaven into account, if somebody tries to introduce customs or ideas into the Church that are in opposition to what teachings are already there then those custom, ideas and the people who (try to) introduce them are supposed to be tossed out of that Church (in a set manner that is not physically abusive)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Okay, valid point. But you tell me Scott, using your judgement, were the action of Hitler and the nazis wrong? Sure, we got to write the story. But the fact is, we know what they did. Even if Hitler would have won, would that change anything? Would it make the all that mass murder right?

I think what Scott was getting at was that the Allies committed acts of attrocity equal to the Nazis, but we rarely hear of them, because the Allies were the victors...

If the Germans had won the war, Hitler's and the crimes of the SS would have been marginalized, and the Allies would be regarded as the heinous villains and murderers...

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Neither side is claiming to be relatively right.

Agreed, they're arguing that they're absolutely right, but again, the fact that people can so fundamentally disagree about what is absolutely right and wrong can only mean one of two things: either there is no objective standard, or we don't know what it is, which leaves us in effectively the same position of moral relativism. I still perceive you as arguing in support of precisely the opposite point to the one you think you're making. I'd agree, for instance, that Hitler and Mother Theresa were not equally wrong, but Mother Theresa was not what I'd call a paragon of virtue either. She believed in the redemptive value of suffering, which I think is a crock, and her clinics, in line with standard Catholic dogma, did not provide contraceptive information. She did less harm than Hitler, certainly, but she did do much harm.

 

[Cliffy]

She did less harm than Hitler, certainly, but she did do much harm.

That was my point. Morals are subjective to the beliefs of the one doing the judging. To hold that our personal convictions are the only ones worthy of consideration is a colossal ego trip. I may think Hitler was a monster but there are a lot of white supremacists (who I think are dickheads) who think Hitler was doing the world a favour. There are those who see Mother Theresa as a Saint, I see her as having too many ulterior motives and actually did do harm.

Alleywayz, there are far more than two sides to every story and as many moral convictions as there are people on the planet. It is not a matter of choosing sides. It is not us against them. That is such a silly religious view - black and white, good and bad. Judge not dude, you're gonna piss off your god.

 

[Scott Free]

[In the] theological state of mind [a person looks for explanations in terms of the] continuous and arbitrary actions of supernatural agents. [The next, more advanced, state of mind is only a modification of the first, replacing super-natural agents by] abstract forces ... capable of giving rise by themselves to all the phenomena observed. [In the third or positive state the human mind] endeavours now to discover by a well-combined use of reasoning and observation, the actual laws of phenomena ... that is to say, their invariable relations of succession and likeness.

- Auguste Comte

I would say that ascribing a cosmic morality to an event or action, that is somehow truly "good" without an attached deity, is just replacing super-natural agents with abstract forces.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I would say that ascribing a cosmic morality to an event or action, that is somehow truly "good" without an attached deity, is just replacing super-natural agents with abstract forces.

I would have to agree with your assessment...

 

[Scott Free]

I would have to agree with your assessment...

OK, great, then it seems to me that it then also follows that evil without an attached deity, is the same process of turning supernatural agents into abstract forces.

Since abstract forces are created to replace supernatural agents it is therefore correct to suspect they reside on the same shaky wish thinking evidence and most probably don't exist.

If these things are true then it is also true that both good and evil therefore do not exist as either actual material objects or abstract forces.

If good or evil do not exist as either actual material objects or abstract forces then it cannot be said that something is composed of them nor contain their forces; therefore nothing can be intrinsically good or evil.

If all this is true, yet still a thing can be said to be good or evil and that assesement can seem like an axiom, therefore the words good and evil must have different meanings, when used as axioms, then to imply intrinsic good or evil or an infusion of good or evil, that is, if the usage of the words is going to have any real practical meaning.

So if the words good and evil are axioms but don't mean supernatural agents or abstract forces then they must be synonyms for something else.

It follows then that good and evil are axioms for favourable and unfavourable; since it is true that something good is favourable and something evil is unfavourable.

Therefore the term good means something favourable and the term evil means something unfavourable.

Favourable and unfavourable both imply an object of their favour. It is reasonable therefore to think that an object would desire good (favourable) things but dislike evil (unfavourable) things.

The desire of an object can rightly be described as an abstract force generated within an object and manifested by that objects actions only if that object is capable of desire.

So good is actually acting on the desire for something favourable and evil is the opposite.

But acting on implies that another object is being acted on therefore good and evil require the interactions of two objects: that which desires and that which that desire is acted upon.

The definition of good and evil thus far hold so long as the second object isn't capable of desire.

If the second object is capable of desire then the definition so far can be conflicted therefore the definition must be expanded.

It is possible for one object to desire and the other to not and both are objects to each other. In this case there is both good and evil therefore if acted upon the abstract force of good or evil could manifest. If both objects act then both abstract forces of good and evil could manifest.

The interactions of these two objects can themselves be seen as an object now and thus the source of good or evil (or both), however, this would require a third object to witness the interaction of the first object.

If the first object is favourable to the second then it could be said to be good. If it isn't favourable then it could be said to be evil. However this still allows for some conflict as one of the objects in the first object could still find something unfavourable (and thus evil).

All three objects could be seen as a single object by yet another observer and again the outcome of good or evil would depend on that object. Then again a fifth, sixth, seventh object could observe an ever increasing object and so into infinitum.

At any point an object could say the other is evil (unfavourable) or good (favourable) and therefore the determination of good or evil resides with the object and its interpretation favourably or unfavourably of what it observes.

It therefore seems likely that a general determination of good and evil can only be derived at by consensus.

Consensus requires time and also the real judgement of something being favourable or unfavourable requires time; therefore something may seem good for a period to a smaller object, which in time and as the object grows, may become less so and even turn out to be evil by consensus.

So in the case of the Holocaust: it was good to Hitler and then to Germany but when the world found out it was determined to be evil: yet the entire time it was evil to the Jews.

I would argue that always if someone thinks something is evil then it is but this is because I am an anarchist and hold liberty as the most supreme maxim.

 

[scratch]

sf,

Good treatise on the subject of good and evil.
Never looked at `this` in your light.
In my opinion , I agree with your conclusions.

regards,
scratch

 

[Scott Free]

sf,

Good treatise on the subject of good and evil.
Never looked at `this` in your light.
In my opinion , I agree with your conclusions.

regards,
scratch

Thank you.

I wasn't sure what I thought of the subject either so I thought I would work it out.

I can see the skeleton of a mathematical formula for determining if something is good or evil from this.

 

[scratch]

sf,

You never fail to amaze me.

regs
scratch

 

[Cliffy]

I believe life is an educational process. Everything that happens within our realm of observation happens to help us understand ourselves and our part in the drama of life on Earth at whatever time and place we find ourselves in. Therefore, nothing is and of itself good or evil until we judge it.

Events and people make appearances in our "movie" to reflect back at us what we believe and judge about the world and ourselves. Therefore, every even and thing is part of the process of us learning about ourselves. Any judgment we have upon events and people is ultimately a judgment upon ourselves. In this context, good and evil are are just beliefs we hold about who we are.

Then I have to say that those who hold to the belief in good and evil are ultimately dissatisfied with who they are. The world out there is a reflection of the world inside. If evil exists, it exists only within the observer. A continued focus on evil will, sooner or later, be acted out by the observer. It becomes an obsession. The only way to eradicate evil is to stop judging it. A bit of a dichotomy for the religious because their beliefs get in the way.

One can be neutral on the subject without condoning.

 

[MHz]

So in the case of the Holocaust: it was good to Hitler and then to Germany but when the world found out it was determined to be evil: yet the entire time it was evil to the Jews.

Are you sure you guys aren't NWO shrills?
This is an attempt to redefine what evil is, where was the term originally coined?

I wish you had used a different example. If the Jews were attempting to take control of the German Govt, education, and industry then they were enemies of the State were they not? That would make them evil and whatever was done to halt that sort of activity would not have been an act of pure evil (not meaning it was an act of goodness either) When the US put a lot of Japanese in camps was that considered an act of evil even though the vast majority were most likely solid patriotic citizens of the US. When train-loads of Jews were offered to the "West" and refused was that an act of evil by the West (if the Jews were trying to take control of Germany they deserved to be exiled, if nobody was willing to take them then what is the good solution for Germany). How evil would the Jews be if, after having some members killed in a failed takeover attempt, lied and said they were not doing anything. That makes Germany appear to be evil but in fact they were doing something good (saving their own country from being taken over) and Jews would not appear to be evil because they lied, but in truth they were evil for attempting to control a foreign Govt.

In more modern times the US is slaughtering many Iraqis (over 1 million and counting) who just happen to be at the same location as a bomb or a bullet. Nobody seems to be calling that evil, in fact they don't seem to be saying anything that would be seen as an attempt to stop such acts (it's pretty clear every excuse to get in there was a bald-faced straight out intentional lie right from the start). What does that make those people, they should be considered just as evil as the ones who causing (or promoting that those attacks continue) the actual deaths (right back to the command centers).

 

[taxslave]

Whose God?

(This is a link and cut n paste-free thread. Discussion only. Links/ paste posts will be removed)

Does God exist? Yes, no, maybe...why?

Whose god? Almost every religion professes to have the one true god. Not all of them can be right. Some have more than one god, so perhaps they have a better chance of being right, kind of like buying more than one lottery ticket. SOme religions pray to inanimate objects, are they right? Can any of you prove that what ever you pray to exists. Simply bringing him/her/it by for coffee would suffice. I believe that god and religion are for those who have no belief in themselves. Organized religion is largely a way for those with power to control the masses.