Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa")
Pages
| Author | Topic: Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") |
|---|---|
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, July 26 2007 19:55
Profile
quote:We had someone show up to proselytize once. Once I quieted down the dog I explained to them that they were trespassing on private property and needed to leave before I felt threatened. I then asked to be put on their "no-visit" list and that was it. No more. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 26 2007 23:17
Profile
I mentioned the way of God leading to universal unity not as a proof of God’s existence, but a response to the claim that “good” and “moral” are relative and God would have to adhere to morality outside himself. I have given a scenario in which that is not true. The original point of the thread was that lack of faith has contributed to decline in morals. This is not because I feel that all religions and traditions are good, but that they are good to the extent that they match the Bible. Christians, Muslim, Jew, Jain, or otherwise didn’t matter in that line of reasoning. I didn’t really want to get into the specifics of my faith because I’m not on these boards to preach. I’m here because I find the challenges to my way of thinking stimulating and educational. The things I mentioned happened to Jehovah’s Witnesses mostly in the 30’s and 40’s. I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m sorry you have had bad experiences. We do keep records on who has asked us not to visit anymore and respect that although mistakes can be made. Please accept my humble apologies. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 00:41
Profile
Homepage
quote:Ah, but you're still relying on the assumption that universal unity is good! God's existence does not automatically make that assumption true, and therefore you're appealing to a morality independent of God. How would you argue that God was the source of all moral authority to someone who believed that universal unity was a bad thing? [ Friday, July 27, 2007 00:43: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 01:29
Profile
quote:I swear to Gawd, the same evening that I posted the last time in this thread, a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses came knocking on my door. Maybe He is watching me! :D Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 04:56
Profile
quote:I managed to get my family to the "no-visit" list by opening the door once dressed in Airsoft combat gear. Complete with a darth-vaderish mask and some fake machetes. I felt really sorry for the old pal behind the door, I really wasn't expecting any stranger to pass by that day... -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 05:09
Profile
Of course there is morality outside God. I acknowledged that his creation can create too. He doesn’t adhere to morality independent of himself though. That was the argument that started this. Of course some will think unity is a bad thing. They love violence. They make a living selling weapons or killing people. They’re working with another kind of morality. “Good” and “bad” can be a matter of semantics or preference, but that doesn’t change the results of choosing God’s way or a way contrary to it. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 06:17
Profile
But from there, we went to the fact that many sects claim to know what "God's way" is, and their definitions frequently vary on many levels. This suggests that no one knows what God's morality is, barring arrival at it by unverifiable, happy accident. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 06:35
Profile
quote:That would not be the logical conclusion. One might conclude logically that not all religions know what God's way. One could also conclude that if there is a God and he has a way that certain factor(s) may make this way difficult to identify clearly. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 06:49
Profile
It's a perfectly logical conclusion, and is derived from the fact that not one single religion has verifiable evidence that what it asserts is, in fact, correct. Everyone is taking it on faith. Faith is by its nature illogical and irrational. [ Friday, July 27, 2007 06:49: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 07:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:If you'll grant relativism on "good" and "bad," it seems as though you could easily grant relativism on "moral" and "immoral" and simply say that you prefer following what you think is God's way on the basis of your own preferences and ideas, not because of any independent proof that it really is morally superior. I mean, you've asserted that God has the right to do what he will with his creation, and when question why, you don't really answer. You could come right out and say, honestly, because that's what you think is proper and good but you don't have any basis for thinking that except your own moral intuition (which is not objective verification). That would bring this all back to the realm of faith, which is where it belongs. Believe what you will. Just don't try to pretend that you have objective proof. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 08:28
Profile
quote:The Aztec Empire was conquered by 200 men with some horses and guns. Superior technology will always triumph inferior technology. quote:[/b] My logical conclusion is that none of the religions are correct, even if there is a divine power. It doesn't make sense that one group would be favored over another by a benevolent spirit, which is what would have to be the case if there were thousands of different belief systems sprouting up all over the planet. If they all insist that their way is the right way, and that their god is infallible, then all the gods, and religions, must be fallible. What seems to be important, rather than method or manner, is the idea that there is something else out there. It doesn't matter what it is, or how it works. If you pause in the day and think "I hope this works," or "Man, this is really important to me," then you are either cheering yourself or thinking inside yourself to pointedly remark the importance of a certain event. Unless I am mistaken, that is not something that is done by, say, the family dog. If this is indeed the case, and judging by the poll ( View or Vote ) there are quite a few in this crowd who are not atheists. Since this subset of humanity tends to be, as Lenar put it, hard-headed, it makes sense that we may be a little more skeptical than your average bear. If that is true, then one might extrapolate that most of humanity believes that there is a divine power. That seems pretty important, and if I was a god I would be pretty pleased with that accomplishment, given that I have no concrete representation on this planet. [This kind of reminds me of the bill of goods sold to the world by Bush/Blair to start the Iraq War (v2.0). We wanted to believe that Saddam would have nuclear or biologic weapons, so we did believe it. And so it was so.] I am left with the notion that I can't believe in the social degradation that Stillness believes exists. Not because I'm hard-headed, but because it doesn't exist around me. We don't seem to need the strictures of religion to maintain society in my environment. If anything, it seems to create divisiveness where there should be cooperation. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 08:33
Profile
In my opinion, the fact that so many people need and/or want to believe in some higher power is the only thing that even slightly resembles proof that some God or gods exists. [ Friday, July 27, 2007 08:44: Message edited by: Frozen Feet ] -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 08:47
Profile
quote:Because you and I disagree and neither of us can be proven right, we must therefore both be wrong? I don't understand. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 08:53
Profile
If it was just you and I, then I agree. But it is thousands of disparate belief systems, spread across space and time. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 09:01
Profile
Homepage
Salmon's argument rested on the assumption of a benevolent god. If any given religion is right, then since only a small percentage of people adhere to any given religion, a large percentage of people are wrong, and they're wrong mostly for cultural and environmental reasons. Why would a benevolent god condemn an enormous percentage of the world's population to hell and damnation only on the basis of being born in the wrong place and raised by the wrong people? [ Friday, July 27, 2007 09:04: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 09:23
Profile
quote:While I haven't spent any nights in a Holiday Inn Express, I have spent nights reading Pratchett, Gaiman, and Holt. The idea of a benevolent spirit not allowing anyone to get it right has an enormous appeal to me. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 09:30
Profile
It's not impossible that one group could have it right. It seems more likely though that as creatures, we lack the ability to perceive or comprehend "divinity," if you will, much like a blind person can't perceive light. It doesn't prevent us from taking wild stabs at it, though, especially when those wild stabs are politically useful, like for purposes of making sure wives obey their husbands. Or, for all we know, God actually has talked with a few people throughout the ages. There's scant evidence for this, though. What's amusing to me is that people are mostly inclined to believe that anyone these days claiming to be the mouthpiece of God is crazy, but entirely willing to believe that another man 2000 years ago doing the same thing was the real deal, as if the passage of time and the great mass of believers somehow serves to verify the matter. [ Friday, July 27, 2007 09:33: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 09:58
Profile
Faith is rational and logical and can even be quantified. If there were no such thing as faith we would not have credit cards. When you walk into a bank and request to borrow the banker does not base his decision on how he feels about you, he goes based off of your payment history and how much you earn. If you have to pay in 24 installments and you’ve paid 23 on time, then he has every reason to think that you’ll pay the 24th unless something goes very wrong. That’s what faith or trust is. It’s hope based on evidence…that is unless it’s blind faith which I agree is irrational. Prophecy is a strong line of evidence, logic, honesty of the penmen, harmony of 40 different penmen over 1600 years, and practical value even though ancient are some other proofs that convinced me personally in the biblical message. quote: quote:So let’s continue from here: The creator creates as he pleases and determines whether or not his creation is behaving properly. Why does he then get to determine what happens to the creation? Because they’re using his stuff. Let’s take a wealthy father (please don’t say I’m hypocritical because it works) who has many children that live on his land, eat his food, use his electricity, etc. Some of these children begin to abuse the others children and the provisions of their father. Repeated warnings do not stop them. Does the father have the responsibility to support the rebellious children’s bad behavior? No. Even though he may love them, for the sake of his own peace, the peace of his land, and concern for his obedient children he will expel them. If he didn’t he’d actually be complicit. The same goes for God. The air we breath, the food, the sun, etc is all his. If he allows some to use these to make everyone suffer without intervention he becomes a collaborator with them. Now let’s take the wealthy father again and make the situation a little more complex. Let’s make his land vast and his children numerous. Let’s also make a large number of the children in state of rebellion against their father. There are three groups of children. (1) Some are loyal. (2) Some are disloyal and are the instigators of the rebellion. (3) Some are in rebellion because they have been tricked that their father is not around or doesn’t care, but they might come to their father’s side if they knew the truth. If the father is benevolent what should he do? (1) is cool. We already determined what (2) gets. (3) is a little problematic though because they look like (2), but maybe because of ignorance. How do you stop ignorance? Knowledge. The father could use (1) and send them out into his land to inform the rebellious and let them make a decision based on knowledge. If they accept it and cease rebelling then they become (1). If they reject that knowledge he has no choice but to expel them. If there is a benevolent God and people are on the wrong path for “cultural and environmental reasons” we should see a global educational campaign before he “expels”. If there is no educational campaign then I agree, either there is no God or he is not good. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 10:33
Profile
quote:Faith is not rational per se, Stillness. It is a belief in something for which there is no evidence of surety. Faith is not quantifiable; probability is. Faith merely represents willingness to take a risk, whatever the probability involved. A bank takes a risk on a debtor based on the probability they will receive their investment back from him. Risks frequently don't even require faith on the part of banks, since most loans these days are almost always secured, not to mention the fact that loses will be soaked up by other successful investments, in the aggregate; in other words, they have minimized the risk. Prophesy is a poor line of evidence. Almost every major world religion is just about as old as Christianity, and has had its own prophesies that they claim have been fulfilled, as well as advice for practical living. For me, at this time, none of the major religions has "minimized the risk" sufficiently for me to waste my time with some equivalent of "Pascal's Wager." It's like being trapped on the Island of Truth-Tellers and Liars, where everone is saying "I'm right, he's wrong," and there's almost nothing else that distinguishes them. [ Friday, July 27, 2007 10:43: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 10:43
Profile
quote:Why do you ascribe human emotions to your god? Why do you assume this Wealthy Father cares one whit about his children? Very few species feel this way, so it seems there is a cubic ton of evidence to indicate that the Wealthy Father does NOT care if his children bully or harm each other. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 11:37
Profile
quote:That’s not what faith is, at least not from a biblical/Christian perspective. It is confidence based on evidence. That is rational. You can rationalize giving your mother the key to your home without concern because she has a flawless track record of looking out for your best interests. That is faith. You could also give you key to a stranger and hope that they won’t abuse access to your home. That is faith too, but the two faiths are not the same. quote:I didn’t know this. Can you give me a couple you kn ow of? Exclude Hebraic prophecies because I of course accept those. Prophecy is very powerful as it shows evidence of the superhuman. I don’t see how this could be considered as poor in your estimation. Unless you’re speaking about prophecies given by someone that they have complete control over fulfilling. (The next word you’ll see will be “antelope”…antelope). That is of course not what I speaking about. I've already acknowledged that other religions can have practical value as can godless philosophy. None of these measure up to biblical counsel from what I've seen, though. quote:I ascribe godly emotions to humans. He had them first and gave them to us. Do we see evidence of that? Assume again there is a creator. If he gives his creation the ability to enjoy life when this is not necessary that is an indication that he loves. Let’s say the creation need to metabolize things from their surroundings for energy. One source could be given and it could be a simple process of inserting this energy source into an opening – much like you pump gas into your car. Neither you nor the car enjoys this. You do it when the car alerts you that it’s necessary. If, however a great variety of energy sources were given with all sorts of shapes, colors, smells, tastes that could be mixed in an endless variety to the great enjoyment of the creation this would indicate love on the part of the creator. Especially if he explicitly says he loves and everything points to that fact and he gives no indication otherwise. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 11:44
Profile
Nope. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 12:19
Profile
Maybe a FSM t-shirt is not the most representative. http://www.flickr.com/photos/wheatfields/368069029/ :P Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 13:52
Profile
Homepage
Islam is from the early 7th century, which places it a ways after Christianity and long after the origin of Judaism. Buddhism and Jainism both date back to around 500 years before Christianity. Proto-Hinduism dates back to around eight millenia ago. —Alorael, who has no argument with God having every right to do as he pleases. Judging his actions as good or evil has to be done personally, though. All morals are personal. Nobody has access to a universal moral code, so everyone has to make do with what they have. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 27 2007 14:05
Profile
Alas, I'm missing your point again. Why are you listing these religions? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |