Why you believe what you believe II

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, I know - I just put that in so you wouldn't think I was pressuring you for an answer

There were several questions

I was reflecting on the section I quoted - here: "It is bad to kill someone for selfish gain because that gives the message that it is ok for someone to kill YOU for selfish gain....and you wouldn't want that happening!" And especially the last phrase after the dots. It just made me think, why would I not want to be killed? If everything is gone after death, then what's wrong with being killed? I mean, it's not like I would be a spirit floating around, saying, "Bummer that I got killed! I really wanted to have more fun!" I would just ... not be.

Why do you not want to be killed? Because your life would be over. Of course when you are dead you really don't care Rian ....but when you are thinking about being dead WHEN STILL ALIVE....you dwell on what you will miss, what you haven't accomplished. (though not all people feel this way at all times I suppose, or people wouldn't commit suicide)
No, you won't be a sad little ghosty flying about in tears...you will just....not be...and not care. It is only when you think about being dead WHEN YOU ARE STILL ALIVE that you have difficulty accepting death. That is why there is so much mythology about "life after death" floating around....many people can't accept the fact that when it's over, it's over.

Originally Posted by Rian

But aren't you "sad" because something "bad" happened?

I'm sad because something I didn't want to happen happened. I interrupt that as bad...I suppose....and I think each person has their own personal twist on this interpretation. Some religions want to make us all a teaming mass of humanity with the same interpretation, wouldn't that make things simple! It's not that simple though.

Originally Posted by Rian

No but everyone I've ever come across and heard speak for more than a minute, I have heard make moral evaluations. EVERYONE. 100%.

Examples -

"She's such a jerk - she didn't ask me to her party, but she asked my best friend!"
Moral evaluation - she was not fair, and it's right to be fair. She was not kind, and it's good to be kind.

"I can't believe he told you that!"
Moral evaluation - it's wrong to tell lies -or- it's wrong to divulge confidences (depending on why the person thought it was wrong to say what they did).

"Hey, that's mine!"
Moral evaluation - stealing is wrong.

"Isn't he a great person?"
Moral evaluation - This person does things that I think are right and good to do.

"Hey, don't be late today!"
Moral evaluation - it is wrong to be inconsiderate of others.

Do you see what I mean? Try it tomorrow - see how many moral evaluation statements you hear

You called them moral evaluations...I call them learned (and taught)response...based on eons of generations of social creatures. If you feel better thinking that an all knowing super being, with unlimited *magic* powers implanted kernals of great truth in his prototypes brains, at the moment of his fantastical creation (to be realized with the *proper* religious instruction) ....enjoy. I have never REALLY believed in mythology and fairy tales though. I think people just make up these kind of stories to help explain what we don't understand....simpl as that.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins'
"logic is a human invention"

That is not true. Humans have discovered logic. Humans have applied logic. Humans ignore logic. Logic exists apart from humans. See (wanna guess?)
THE ABOLITION OF MAN by CS Lewis.

You would have morality be a human invention and logic be a human invention. So logic should vary as much as morality. It does not. Both partake of reality apart from human invention or application. They are essential to the nature of the Universe as it is. Humans pay the consequences for violating either the moral order or the logic order.

with all due respect to mr. lewis, who's books i enjoy... just 'cause he says it does not make it true

we define what words in our language mean... and when it comes to "concepts"... they are what they are because we define them as such

Logic \Log"ic\, n. [OE. logike, F. logique, L. logica, logice,
Gr. logikh` (sc. te`chnh), fr. logiko`s belonging to speaking
or reason, fr. lo`gos speech, reason, le`gein to say, speak.
See Legend.]
1. The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and
formal thought, or of the laws according to which the
processes of pure thinking should be conducted; the
science of the formation and application of general
notions; the science of generalization, judgment,
classification, reasoning, and systematic arrangement;
correct reasoning.

note the subjective words in bold above

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Uh-oh, there go your arguments against homosexual marriage! (Currently, the majority of Americans think marriage should be a man and a woman.)

i'd have to agree... but we have something called the 14th ammendment that trumps majority opinion because we have defined it as such... as i mentioned in that thread, a majority of people were opposed to interracial marriage in many states, but it was found to be against the concepts of equal treatment expressed in the 14th ammendment... if another amendment was passed banning interracial marriage, that would be another story... homosexual marriage is a similar situation

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm talking about things like watches and airplanes and houses - things like that, made by intelligent humans. Things that go AGAINST known natural processes as we have observed them. For example, I can stroll on the beach and pick up two rocks that look like a face, and should be able to recognize if it's from natural or non-natural causes. If the shaping goes along with the natural erosion patterns of the different types of rock in the sample, it's probably natural. If cuts go evenly across the different types of rocks in the sample with differing erosion rates, then it's probably NOT caused by natural forces. We can fake naturally-caused results, but - that's only because we know what they look like, which means - intelligence and intent and design.

If you were walking on a beach and picked up a watch, as the famous illustration goes, I don't think you would think for one second that it came about by purely natural causes, without any intent or design - would you?

what about the development from embryo to child? an embryo is complex, but nowhere near as complex as a newborn child... and very different physically also... if a single cell can develop into a living thinking human over time why can't complex combinations of elements and energy (i.e. goo)? or are you implying that god has his hand in the process every step of the way as babies develop?

[inked]

brownjenkins,

My answer to your last question would be a qualified yes. The qualifications would be the cumulative effects of secondary causes over time. There are very clear affirmations of this in Psalm 51 and Psalm 139, if you would care to look.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins,

My answer to your last question would be a qualified yes. The qualifications would be the cumulative effects of secondary causes over time. There are very clear affirmations of this in Psalm 51 and Psalm 139, if you would care to look.

i'm not really sure which question you might be replying to at this point

and i don't have a bible on hand

[Baby-K]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm not really sure which question you might be replying to at this point

and i don't have a bible on hand

Aren't they traditionally kept under the arm anyway?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Baby-K

Aren't they traditionally kept under the arm anyway?

uh-oh... here goes the neighborhood

[Nurvingiel]

Hey Brownie, is your butt getting toasty on that hotseat? You've been toasting a while IIRC.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Hey Brownie, is your butt getting toasty on that hotseat? You've been toasting a while IIRC.

i think i am the hotseat

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Baby-K

Aren't they traditionally kept under the arm anyway?

Only by those that think they know it, but actually misquote it and take it out of context!

("underarm accessories" - lol! "And our spring collection of underarm accessories features a Bible in a light, festive lilac ..." )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i think i am the hotseat

They have melded!! Run!! O.o

I have almost an hour now, I'll try to wrap up my questions and get you off! Who wants to go next, btw?

[inked]

brownjenkins,

Your definition of logic refers to it as science. Science is the discovery of existent reality in natural terms, is it not? Ergo, logic is self-existent and a priori. Else we would not have communication or reproducible findings.

If you would read the suggested work by Mr. Lewis those arguments would be available for reference from a position of knowing versus thinking you know them. Rather like that "where do you carry your Bible" bit, only Lewis !

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins,

Your definition of logic refers to it as science. Science is the discovery of existent reality in natural terms, is it not? Ergo, logic is self-existent and a priori. Else we would not have communication or reproducible findings.

If you would read the suggested work by Mr. Lewis those arguments would be available for reference from a position of knowing versus thinking you know them. Rather like that "where do you carry your Bible" bit, only Lewis !

i'd rather discuss my views v. yours as opposed to interjecting third parties and required reading

[Rían]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Fear and hatred are not strong beliefs; rather they are a manifest of weakness.

Good point; I think I agree with you there, as long as "weakness" doesn't mean they "couldn't help it because they were so weak" (I don't think you mean that, tho).

If each decision we make is based upon our own individual morals (no existence of a creed and order from 'Above') then why have jails?

I completely agree! That's what I've been trying to express.

And if "survival of the fittest" got us where we are now, why in the world would we have any logical reason to abandon it at this point? Why shouldn't we let those poor and starving people just die - after all, when I give them money for food and shelter, I'm just dragging out their miserable existence, and taking away money from wonderful ME, that I could spend on something pleasureable. And their very existence puts a cramp in my style - after all, when I"m sitting on my comfy couch, stuffing my face and watching tv, it's such a bummer to see some news bulletin about some irritating poor starving people!

(That is how I think one SHOULD think if atheism were true. However, we don't think that way - which to me, points strongly to the existence of a god.)

Once you give notice to a 'public' moral or any moral it is the well-greased slope to the morals and conscience that seems ingrained in our DNA upon creation. Which leads to a creator…

Yup!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

They have melded!! Run!! O.o

I have almost an hour now, I'll try to wrap up my questions and get you off! Who wants to go next, btw?

i'd say the most important parts are in #1230

specifically the part about judgement

it is the essence of "why i believe what i believe" ... personal judgement over scripture ... the rest (god, absolutes, etc.) are interesting philosophically, but not terribly relavent day to day

Originally Posted by bj

those who live by their own judgement and those who live by religious texts in whole or in part... and since most, if not all religions basically imply that "if you believe in me, you must believe in whole"... i do not believe in them... and instead pick and chose what makes sense to me

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Your definition of logic refers to it as science. Science is the discovery of existent reality in natural terms, is it not? Ergo, logic is self-existent and a priori. Else we would not have communication or reproducible findings.

Absolutely!

We didn't "discover" math, either - we gave names to principles that are a reality in our universe, and we discovered ways to manipulate these principles in order to get an "A" in our math classes - er, I mean, we discovered and named ways to work with these realities, such as the distributive property (the current bane of my older son's existence!) - but the principles are there in the very fabric of the universe.

Logic is just a way of thinking based upon the realities of the universe. Logic was not "invented" as a sculptor "invents" a marble statue; it was bumped into as a person bumps into a marble statue already in existence.

[Rían]

Post 1230 it is, then!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

GOOD! i don't think you do... in the end i think you use that non-absolute thing that inked likes rail at me about... your own judgement!

I think inky uses his own judgement, too, in the same way I do.

Here is how I use my own judgement: After careful consideration and lots and lots of thought and observation, it is my judgement that the Bible is true; i.e., that it correctly reflects the actual state of the universe. The few areas in the Bible that I have trouble logically understanding are so minute compared to the gaping logical holes I see in other worldviews, and it concurs so accurately with what I observe in real life, that I have concluded that to the best of my knowledge and understanding, it represents truth.

Therefore, given that I have made that conclusion using my judgement, I choose to follow what the Bible says. And I can only repeat that it has been uncannily accurate.

not an "absolute standard"... a real world one...

Well, perhaps we agree here, then - I suppose another way to look at "absolute" is that it's "real".

the fact that the moral views expressed in those religious texts are shared by so many, and also share so many similar principles is why they are so widely accepted... it is their "wide acceptance" that makes them "right"...

Yet you continue to think gay marriage is right ... you seem to say that widely accepted things are right, unless they happen to disagree with what you think is right. I just don't buy that logic - all it is saying is that whatever you think is right is right, and in that case, whatever someone else thinks is right you should respect, too, even if they think murder is right.

not right vs. wrong so much as acceptable vs. non-acceptable to most people...

I find such a curious lack of ... I don't know ... life, balls , gusto, sensitivity to beauty in statements like this...

To me, I don't find life to be that insipid. I think you need to come on the next trip my husband takes with CHF and visit people living on trash heaps in Peru, and see how ugly that is. After that, come to India and visit the young lady from our church that works with disabled children and see the beauty of her love and humor and warmth as she lives with and loves these outcast kids. Then you and your family come camping with us and watch the stars at night in the middle of the desert with those you love. Then smell your wife's hair and think those non-PG-13 thoughts and ask yourself is the urge to reproduce really all there is about this?

Christianity says that because a good, loving, powerful, awesome, holy God made the universe, that some things are GOOD! and beautiful! and commendable! and cause to rejoice over! And conversely, some things are WRONG! and ugly! and detestable! and cause to mourn over. Christianity is the worldview that is found in LOTR, and is what moves us to tears and laughter and sorrow and rejoicing, and to me, seems to fit what I find in my heart and what I see around me.

Your worldview seems to say that Sauron and the orcs were merely working on wrong information, and perhaps the world might change enough one day to make their viewpoint the right one.

As I said ages ago, if atheism is right, then Frodo was a fool.



(sorry, just ran out of time - will address the rest of your post later, but would you please respond to what I just wrote?)

[Rían]

I just added something to my post, and saw that 3 people were already reading it, and I don't want them to miss it, because I think it's very important, so I'll repeat the new section.

Originally Posted by brownie

not right vs. wrong so much as acceptable vs. non-acceptable to most people...

I find such a curious lack of ... I don't know ... life, balls , gusto, sensitivity to beauty in statements like this...

To me, I don't find life to be that insipid. I think you need to come on the next trip my husband takes with CHF and visit people living on trash heaps in Peru, and see how ugly that is. After that, come to India and visit the young lady from our church that works with disabled children and see the beauty of her love and humor and warmth as she lives with and loves these outcast kids. Then you and your family come camping with us and watch the stars at night in the middle of the desert with those you love. Then smell your wife's hair and think those non-PG-13 thoughts and ask yourself is the urge to reproduce really all there is about this?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Post 1230 it is, then!

I think inky uses his own judgement, too, in the same way I do.

Here is how I use my own judgement: After careful consideration and lots and lots of thought and observation, it is my judgement that the Bible is true; i.e., that it correctly reflects the actual state of the universe. The few areas in the Bible that I have trouble logically understanding are so minute compared to the gaping logical holes I see in other worldviews, and it concurs so accurately with what I observe in real life, that I have concluded that to the best of my knowledge and understanding, it represents truth.

Therefore, given that I have made that conclusion using my judgement, I choose to follow what the Bible says. And I can only repeat that it has been uncannily accurate.

fair enough, i do respect both you and inked... though i disagree on some points... using my judgement i find some parts of the bible interesting and good philosophy, some parts rather irrelavent, and some parts not so appealing... i also find no reason to believe that, even if there is a god, that it is the work of his hands, or of humans through his direction... so i read it as i might the writings of any other philosophy... a different outlook to accept or not accept piece by piece

can you respect that i've achieved that pov through my own vaild reasoning, whether or not you agree with my reasons?

Yet you continue to think gay marriage is right ... you seem to say that widely accepted things are right, unless they happen to disagree with what you think is right. I just don't buy that logic - all it is saying is that whatever you think is right is right, and in that case, whatever someone else thinks is right you should respect, too, even if they think murder is right.

see #1237

murder and marriage are not the same thing... at least in most cases

I find such a curious lack of ... I don't know ... life, balls , gusto, sensitivity to beauty in statements like this...

and i find a lack of cajones in those who must cling to certian principles just because "they have always been that way"... i've always been more impressed by the people i've met in life who have had extremely strong views on a subject and had the strength to change that view as new insights and examples presented themselves... it is easy to draw a line in the sand and say "i will not budge"... it is much, much harder to say "maybe i was wrong"... trust me, you don't see it an awful lot in life

when you cling to absolutes, you judge the world in absolutes, black and white... "god must exist or life is meaningless!"

i grew up as a child in nyc, i know quite a bit about the horrors of life and the evil things people can do... i didn't need religion to appreciate this

what you are saying is that without god life would have no meaning to you... that's a perfectly valid statement, because it is how you define yourself... and i assume always have, more or less... it is a result of your life experience and what you are, and i would have to be pretty arrogant to say you were wrong to arrive at that point

my beliefs are a result of my experiences, a life that included very little in the way of religion, yet achieved an end result of respect and love for those around me that i think you may agree is not terribly different than your own, in a general sense

and when someone says to me, "well you do have free will, but ultimately your love, morality, and sense of warmth comes not from you, but from god" that renders my life meaningless... what is there left for me to achieve on my own?

yet i see your pov, and while i can't see how you find meaning from your beliefs anymore than you can see how i find them from mine... i know you do... i know i do... so i accept that there is more than one path to morality... which is really what "belief systems" are all about