TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Polls - Everything Else...
-- Do You Think There is a God ?
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »

That is correct. I dont feel that I am an athiest, because I beleive in a higher power. Whether or not that higher power is GOD, I dont know, and I am not about to be convinced by anyone else to change my belief, because I have formed my belief over the past 10 years, with the education I have received. In my belief, I beleive that the higher power (whom I will call God, for this arguments sake), made possible the physical and chemical conditions for the big bang, and for all that followed it. However, I do not think that God had Human Beings as the grand design in all of this. I think that we are a random occurence. Thinking otherwise would be arrogant (not saying you are arrogant, just saying that if humans felt that they were the reason for everything, that would be arrogant).

I didnt know that about aramaic, just knew that the bible was not written in hebrew or arabic. Nice to know, Thanks.

I think your answer about not wanting to go to hell is funny. You dont want to beleive the possibility of evolution because you feel the church (and therefore your interpretation of God is against it). It shows your level of faith, which I have a lot of respect for. Whatever anyone believes, do not be easily convinced to change your beliefs... educate yourself first (I think we both agree here, because you have done that yourself as well --- common ground at last). What I do not like, is anyone that says that others will go to hell if they do not change their beliefs. I think that people should not be threatened into believing one thing over another, especially in controversial topics such as this one... let people choose what they will.

Further to the eye argument, I believe eye cells to be fundamentally simple. The Rod for example containes Rhodopsin (combination of Opsin and Retinal aka vitamin A). Light hits rhodopsin, and the energy received from the photon causes retinal to release from rhodopsin, leaving just Opsin. The active opsin (because retinal is no longer there to block its action) then activates Tranducin (Transducin is a G Protein, which is very common in biology - I have a Honours degree in it, trust me). The transducin elevates levels of cGMP (cyclic Guanine MonoPhosphate), which closes Sodium channels in the cell (also common in biology), and the membrane of the cells hyperpolarizes to -70 mV, creating an action potential. This is a simple structure. The G Protein cascade is mimmicked in many biochemical pathways. The fact that Opsin is what triggers the pathways is what is unique to this cell.

Opsin itself is merely a protein. A specific sequence of nucleotides (DNA) will create this protein, and only certain cells have the necessary activators for this DNA sequence. Opsin itself likely has similarities to other proteins, and scientists are able to compare this sequence, and the proteins itself to determine who related it is to other proteins, which could indicate a common linkage in evolution to non sight proteins.

Just a little evidence to support my argument that the eyeball can arise from evolution, random mutations can create any protein. Proteins that do not have to be in the body, are, so the system does not have to evolve together. It can evolve peice by peice over time, until it is all there. 3.5 billion years is like saying that if you get a million monkeys on a million typwritters for a millioin years, they will eventually write War and Peace... that is because evolution involves random genetic changes, coupled with Natural and Sexual selection over long period of time. From the evidence I see, I see evolution as the more likely explanation, whereas you see creation as more plausible. I fully realize that I will not change your mind, and I guarantee you will not change mine.

Just a minor correction. The idea that humans are the center and glory of creation isnt what Christianity teaches. The old geocentric idea of the universe was an idea sprung from the corrupt catholic church to control people. All the Bible says is that we were created in His image. Cross examination of the Bible says this is not a physical representation, but a spiritual one. We are loving, curious, forgiving (or supposed to be). I do believe that there is life out in the universe and that God loves those creatures as much as humans.

When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal (a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a human hair) The change in the shape of the retinal molevule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The proteins metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhopodpsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to cut a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphdiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the level of water in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a seperate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ion in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phophodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain.

If the reactions were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP, and sodium ions would be quickly depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its orignal state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein o that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration falls too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically altered by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a singel photon.

Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemcially modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol-a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, a cyle is now complete.


**

That is what happens when a single photon of light strikes the eye. That isnt getting into color differentiation. The anatomy of the eye doesnt really matter. Neither does the fossil record. It doesnt matter that there are huge gaps in the record. It doesnt matter if the gaps can be explained plausibly. It doesnt tell us about whether or not the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step by step. Niether do the patterns of biogeography, or population biology, nor the tradition explanations of evolutionary theory for rudimentary organs or species abundance. This is not to say random mutations is a myth, or that darwinism fails to explain ANYTHING, or that large-scale phenomana like population genetics dont matter. They do. Until recently however evolutionary biologists could be unconcerned with the molecular details of life because so little was known about them. Now that we do know, the infintesimal world that is revealed must be explained.

And actually im always open to new ideas. I just need something more convincing than the information I currently have. I dont pick a route then blind myself to all others. For instance, I used to think drinking alcohol was wrong both physically and morally. Then I wrote a 40 page paper on the affect of alcohol on your neuro-chemistry and I changed my mind about it being unhealthy. I then read the Bible and saw things like (not exact quote but close) "Drink , Man, and forget your misery and your poverty". And I looked up the other quotes of "Kings do not partake of the wine" and people then said Christians were kings, and we werent supposed to show a bad example.. I looked it up and the whole thing was King solomon telling his son not to drink wine before passing judgement in court lest he forget the law. I change my mind all the time on new and better information.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal (a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a human hair) The change in the shape of the retinal molevule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The proteins metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhopodpsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to cut a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphdiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the level of water in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a seperate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ion in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phophodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. If the reactions were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP, and sodium ions would be quickly depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its orignal state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein o that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration falls too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically altered by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a singel photon. Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemcially modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol-a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, a cyle is now complete. ** That is what happens when a single photon of light strikes the eye. That isnt getting into color differentiation. The anatomy of the eye doesnt really matter. Neither does the fossil record. It doesnt matter that there are huge gaps in the record. It doesnt matter if the gaps can be explained plausibly. It doesnt tell us about whether or not the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step by step. Niether do the patterns of biogeography, or population biology, nor the tradition explanations of evolutionary theory for rudimentary organs or species abundance. This is not to say random mutations is a myth, or that darwinism fails to explain ANYTHING, or that large-scale phenomana like population genetics dont matter. They do. Until recently however evolutionary biologists could be unconcerned with the molecular details of life because so little was known about them. Now that we do know, the infintesimal world that is revealed must be explained.

Essentiallthy, this is exactly what I said in my post. A lot is known about the molecular details of life, and more is being discovered each day. You say that evolutionary biologists coule be unconcerned with the molecular details fo life because so little was known about them, yet you provided an even more complex chemical explanation of what I explained one post earlier, showing that you either understand that a lot is known about the complex chemical reactions of rhodopsin, or that you were able to find a site and cut and paste the information here.

Could it be possible that it is an commentary on darwins black box???

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues...ws/johnson.html

One should not limit all their saying from one book, or few books. That person would risk exposing themselves to the mistakes and prejudices of few people. Expand your horizons. Try reading scientific journals from people that agree with evolution, and chemical processes that contribute to it, and see if you can explain why that would be wrong. By simply cutting and pasting and excerpt from the book. You obviously didnt have it in your own words, so I doubt if you understand the system very well.

Id like to refer you to another website, which i found by pasting your post in a search engine (the exact phrase you posted, listed in blue above, yeilded many exact results, which tells me you cut and pasted the material). This site discusses Evolution, and Creation both being led by blind faith, and it states that no historical event can be proven (see Introduction, section C and D). We both have to admit, that either of us could be right in our arguments, or both of us could be wrong as well (if we are honest). Although I do not beleive in a judgemental God, I choose to live a good life, which includes honesty as part of its backbone. You will see by my previous posts, and by this one, that I do not claim to know all the answers, and that I beleive in evolution because I have faith in the theory. I have also not said that you are wrong to beleive Creation, because it is also possibly correct. Neither can be proven.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oly...perstition.html

actually I just put the book on my lap and typed it. Ive mentioned this book several times. the *** was like an end quote.

and I put that in there because its a litttttle more complex than what you stated. and I was saying that EARLIER scientists didnt have to bother with microbiology. NOW they do.

And no, you probably can understand that I am a fairly well read individual. I dont put all my eggs in one basket. I happened to have this book next to my bed, and I felt that it gave a nice, neat, articulate representation. Im trying to convey a message, not my own personal intelligence.

and yes, the majority of my reasons of why I believe the way I do fall under the Faith category. I think to believe in God and have an absolute proof of Him would be horrible. That is basically then telling people LOVE GOD OR GO TO HELL. because now you KNOW He is there and you refuse to do it even knowing the consequences. I HOPE Christianity never gets proved. I was a Christian who was PURE faith, but then I began researching related incidents for fun and to further my faith. It worked. The main main reason I do this is because many of the people I care about struggle with Christianity in some way or another. People always come to me to ask the hard questions about how evolution disproves God (this is the common perception. Evolution is taught as fact in schools and kids get inundated with it their whole life). Faith is faith. I just believe that things like running into a burning building to save someones life is counter-evolutionary. Morality is something that is ultimately bad for us because it overrides survival instincts. I feel that there is a choosing force in us called a soul, and those times when we are debating on whether or not to do something we are really resisting that choosing force. I believe in a spiritual world all around us and so forth. But again, Faith. I feel sorry for the people who cant feel a relationship with God, and have the feeling of peace and security of knowing you are in your Gods hands. Dont think im being condescending to you by pitying you, I just think its something (although not as trivial) as snowboarding, and all the skiiers out there say skiing is fun, but they arent gonna try snowboarding because they are too old or some such nonsense. Religion imparts a physical benefit of feeling good. It truly is the opiate of the masses.

I think Palivar wanted to post here lol...go to the Chill out room and read his post on helping the guy with a computer virus.

Orbax, one simple question:

What makes Christianity the right picture of God? How do you know he wants you to follow the 10 commandments, and not just live naturally? You say this is faith, but the only evidence to spur on the faith is a book written by humans. Not a very reliable source, being there are thousands of written texts on religion, all very different.

Religion is like picking a path, then molding everything you think to that path. Every idea you have is thought into that path.

I believe Buddha much more than Jesus, because what Buddha says makes sense today, and is not reliant on a Big Brother outside, and is a way of enlightenment. Why does Jesus get all the credit?

I think it's a dartboard for picking religions, therefore, I don't think we know everything. Orbax, you believe you know everything. (well, not everything, but you believe you know for sure why we are here, and what's going on at all times.) Humans are constantly being proved wrong with discoveries, we are not that smart.

Am I going to hell because I'm not picking a path, and I won't believe a book written years ago that can be interpretted a million different ways?

I believe in the ressurection of Jesus Christ. I have an earlier post of what took place. To me, that is a key event. Being ressurected would add weight to your words.

I think I know a lot. Call me immodest, but my thoughts and ideas arent just pulled out of the air. I have worked hard and long to learn the things I have. I am better educated than the majority of people.

and to answer you question: Under the belief system of Christianity you will go to hell. Here is a part of the reasoning behind this belief. *There are assumed premises here but if they are true then the conclusion is true also. There isnt really a way to prove the assumptions until you die* You have a soul. You sin. Sin corrupts the soul and twists it beyond Gods purpose. God is a spirit. He looks at you from a spiritual stand point. He sees a twisted, black, ugly soul and does not wish it in his Kingdom of Heaven. He only wants pretty souls. The way to cleanse your soul was made clear with the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ, his physical manifestation on earth. Ask the forgiveness of God and Jesus Christ who died on the cross for mankind's sins. Before we used to slaughter a sheep when we sinned to cleanse ourselves and off an appeasement. Jesus was OUR sheep. He died for all of us. We just have to pray and have a union with God, our Father. That cleanses our souls. It goes back to the question of the sweet old librarian who loves people and is good but doesnt believe in God. Yes she goes to hell. Her soul is a creature of hell and will be until she admits that there have been things done wrong and she wishes a relationship with God, our Father.

You dont have to believe that, but if you are asking if Christians think you are going to hell its yes. And age doesnt matter on books. The dictionary will still have all the words we use now. If someone picks up that book in a couple thousand years, they will say to themselves "this is how they spoke". The Bible mainly teaches principle and morality. Those are timeless.

Last note: People think that muslims who are raised in muslim families and have never heard the gospel are going to hell. That is wrong. To say that would be to say that God is foolish and that is blasphemous. God is a very knowledgeable entity I would assume and He would certainly grant allowances for different situations. It isnt a chopping block mentality of "believe or not believe"

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax I believe in the ressurection of Jesus Christ. I have an earlier post of what took place. To me, that is a key event. Being ressurected would add weight to your words.

You believe in Jesus' ressurection, I believe in the Philadelphia Experiment.

Both had several eyewitnesses, a story that can't really be disproven, but are rather rediculous.

I really don't believe the Philadelphia Experiment happened, but it goes to show what people believe is true. His disciples said he resurrected, the people who were "transported in time" in the Philadelphia experiment said it happened as well.

How do you know about this buisness with souls? What is a sin? The Ten Commandments say so, huh? So I guess it's alright to have slaves.
...wait...it's not is it? What is wrong and what is right is a part of society. Whatever made sense at the time to be acceptable was written at the time, because the book was written by humans.... NOT God.
Humans have said they have been touched by god since the beginning of their existance, and the only ones you believe are the writers of Bible, Jesus, and those who follow Jesus?

Religion is created by humans. The aspect of God helping this seems ridiculous, and it God didn't help, then religion is all BS.

Read my post on why I believe in the ressurection of Jesus. It isnt whim.

The Bible touches a chord in me. It resonates in me and I can feel the rightness of it. And dont try to use that against me, ive already posted ample other reasons.

The reasoning behind the soul is that there has to be more to this life than just some random quirk of fate. I have a sense of wonder to the world, and to me it seems like it had to be created for a multitude of reasons. When you say why is Christianity right? How do we know souls? how do we know sin? well we dont otherwise God would be proved and that wouldnt be faith would it? But for the most part sin is that feeling you have every time you type "Lesbians fucking" into your search engine. You know its wrong and you do it anyways. That is sin. You dont need the Bible to tell you about it humans have a built in trigger called guilt that lets you know that you are doing a bad thing. And no one disputes the claim that God didnt write the Bible. I know He didnt.

and on the flipside of the questions you ask...

How do you know there arent souls? How do you know sin doesnt exist? How do you know religion wasnt divinely inspired?

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax You dont need the Bible to tell you about it humans have a built in trigger called guilt that lets you know that you are doing a bad thing. And no one disputes the claim that God didnt write the Bible. I know He didnt.

but you do need a society telling you what's wrong and right. Guilt isn't because you have a soul, it's because your brain is complex and emotional, and your history has developed your emotions that way.

Romans thought of nothing hosting Colesseums of death, that's because society thought it was OK...
Same thing with slavery and racism, some of the biggest racists were Christians.

quote:

How do you know there arent souls? How do you know sin doesnt exist? How do you know religion wasnt divinely inspired?

I don't know...but it seems highly unlikely. I think there is an equal possibility that there is a God who rewards those who "sin", or a God who punishes everyone, or rewards anyone, or probably, doesn't care about some developed lifeforms in an extremely small span of time in the Universe.

I think it's highly unlikely that we know what God is like, if one exists. Who are we to assume? The only way to discover the truth is through discovery and testing.

---

Since this argument is not going anywhere, I'm going to stop posting for a while, let others go at it. (I'm still gonna read it though.)

I'm leaving with one thought. (I

Christianity is like:

I was at a hockey game, and the score was 2 - 1, we lost. It was a heartbreaker.
I go home, next day, the newspaper says, "WE WIN! 3-0!"

I'm like, "Everything around me says we lost 2-1... this can't be right."

But then all of your neighbors say we really won 3-0, and a bunch of other people say the same thing, only some say we won 2-1, some say 5-4, some say 3-1... but all saying we won, when EVERYTHING you saw says we lost.

The thing is, Christianity (like all other religions) is an extraordinary claim. It explains why we are here, that a divine creature created, controls and watches us, and explains in detail everything associated with it and our relationship with it.
This is an extraordinary claim, and like the newspaper, the only evidence is a written document by someone, even though there are documents exactly the same, but with different scores.

I think http://www.timecube.com has more evidence than Christianity, even though Time Cube is a ridiculous theory.

Thank God the founders of calculus, physics, math, geometery, biology, theology, etc didnt think like you do. If you cant understand it RIGHT NOW forget about it? Say "fuck it" because you arent 100% sure? Damn dude. damn. I guess its just a personality thing. I dont give up when its hard or confusing.

and for the love of everything READ CS LEWIS'S "THE ABOLITION OF MAN" AND "MERE CHRISTIANITY"

he PROVES that society and morality are NOT based on education and society. What you just said about society is called moral relativism. That would mean if everyone BELIEVED the earth was flat then it would actually be so. That is not the case. Belief in NO WAY justifies the reality. Moral relativism is the most pathetic view of morality. The whole idea contains a contradiction. namely that the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time depending on the belief of the tribe. here is another one

Tribe X believs itself to be morally right, tribe Y believes tribe X to be morally wrong. Therefore the morality of tribe X is relative to the belief of the tribe.

If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times, and assuming that each casae of moral judgement is a factually correct assertion of the speakers feelings,, then it will follow that when two or more persons appear to disagree they do not genuinely disagree. But in point of observed fact people DO genuinely disagree therefore protagorian relativism is False.

that whole statement makes morality too easy or too impossible. If there is no consensus on whether or not it is moral how can a judgement be made? It makes the concept of moral progress meaningless. There can be no such thing as a moral reformer.


no, morality is most definitely NOT relative to the belief of the tribe. There are universal principles, or categorical imperatives as my good friend Emmanuel Kant would say.


honestly honestly honestly PLEASE READ those books I said to. They will open your mind and they are SHORT!!!! a quick read! The "mere christianity" doesnt even go into the belief of God until the end of the book. His whole book is about moral principles. Its fascinating. It is not a book that will convert you in any way READ IT! its awesome! I cant stress it enough how good a book it is for ANYONE

the best theologians don't talk about god

I don't believe in any thing as a god..
Only thing believe causes is war

I don't believe in a God.

I do hope, that when I die answers will come to me about why, how, starting, end???!!


I sometimes think of the questions of life, but it only makes me go crazy and leads me to the conclusion I need to not think about it too much.




Greetz.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax and on the flipside of the questions you ask... How do you know there arent souls? How do you know sin doesnt exist? How do you know religion wasnt divinely inspired?

It's obviously a valid assertion that we can no more be certain of the nonexistence of souls/sin/god than of the existence of such given the evidence we possess. However, this is not relevant in deciding whether or not we ought to alter our behavior in order to comply with guidelines of unknown accuracy.


Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

You recieve a message in the mail which tells you that you are destined to die in exactly one week. However, it says that you can prevent your imminent death by sending five thousand dollars cash to some address. It provides some unsubstantiated claims to support its proposition, but nothing that could be considered proof.

You certainly cannot prove it to be incorrect (at least not until a week has elapsed), yet you can construct no compelling rational argument as to why you ought to believe it has any truth.

In this situation, the obvious course of action is to decline to forward money to the given address (and probably inform the authorities about it as well).

Religion is a way of life. When you choose to follow a religion, you're mailing away the cash, only you're sacrificing something far more valuable than a little money - your freedom.


In my opinion, if you're going to give up your freedom - even just a little - then you need more than faith to be operating in a rational manner: you need something substantial that can be corroborated in a definitive and indisputable way.

I have nothing but respect for you or your beliefs, but I earnesetly believe you are misleading yourself if you think religion can be rationally justified.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax he PROVES that society and morality are NOT based on education and society. What you just said about society is called moral relativism. That would mean if everyone BELIEVED the earth was flat then it would actually be so. That is not the case. Belief in NO WAY justifies the reality. Moral relativism is the most pathetic view of morality. The whole idea contains a contradiction. namely that the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time depending on the belief of the tribe. here is another one Tribe X believs itself to be morally right, tribe Y believes tribe X to be morally wrong. Therefore the morality of tribe X is relative to the belief of the tribe. If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times, and assuming that each casae of moral judgement is a factually correct assertion of the speakers feelings,, then it will follow that when two or more persons appear to disagree they do not genuinely disagree. But in point of observed fact people DO genuinely disagree therefore protagorian relativism is False. that whole statement makes morality too easy or too impossible. If there is no consensus on whether or not it is moral how can a judgement be made? It makes the concept of moral progress meaningless. There can be no such thing as a moral reformer. no, morality is most definitely NOT relative to the belief of the tribe. There are universal principles, or categorical imperatives as my good friend Emmanuel Kant would say.

I would say that percieved morality is relative to the belief of the tribe, but that actual morality is not because it does not exist.

Can you provide any proof that any action is moral or immoral? Can you establish a standard by which any action could be judged to be one or the other?

Morality is entirely arbitrary; propositions concerning it have no truth value whatsoever.

It is not that the same action can be both morally right or wrong, it is that ALL actions are NEITHER morally right NOR wrong, since morality is devoid of actuality.

What people think is moral or immoral is not related to whether something truly is or is not moral or immoral. Every single person in the world could believe something to be immoral, but that would not make them correct.

If actual morality exists, then it is inherently unknowable, and therefore may as well not exist, for it is useless.

Codes of behavior should be based on reasonable people agreeing about the acceptability of actions based on those actions' immediate outcomes. It isn't easy, but it would create a far more stable society than one with codes of behavior based on unsupported beliefs and opinions.

arbiter, so you are saying that if everyone on earth decided to rape babies as they came out of their mothers womb, and then smash their heads into the ground, it wrongness of it would be devoid of existence? It would actually be the RIGHT thing to do because everyone did it and believed it to be true? That idea tosses out any idea of moral progress and makes us no better than the brutish civilizations we tend to look at as barbaric and cruel these days.

yup

god exists

first of all, being an athiest is NOT the same as being agnostic...being an athiest is standing your ground by saying there is no God...PERIOD but rather an agnostic doesnt know for sure if there is a God or not.
Secondly, i suggest that people who dont really know about Christianity go check it out cuz by reading some of the posts you guys are saying a lot that relate to the stereotypical things about religion whereas christianity isnt a religion...its a relationship (try to figure that out..once you do youll be coo)...as for the 10 commandments following rules and all that stuff, i juss gotta say thats not what christianity is all about...God isnt a police officer standing guard with his night-stick ready to beat you down if you mess up (a.k.a sin) instead of seeing him as that, try lookin at him as a fatherly figure...knowing whats good for you and whats not good for you..i know what some of you might be thinking..it sounds cheesy, who is God and "wtf you mean God is my father", why should i give him any piece of my life and time, and any other...i know ive been there...ive been trying to figure out this whole relationship thing for 17 years? and finally i got it....the answer was really simple...right under my nose and i couldnt get it..aRgs..So read up on it...get the jist from it and if something seems fishy, ASK!
Third, i heard someone mentioning that the bible was written by humans which is true but it was written by men through the Holy Spirit...hey hey i know it sounds out of this world and i can imagine people saying "uhhh no i dont think so" on this but if you read and study everything ties in perfectly...the bible IS reliable...
ITS Relationship with God <<< i cant stress that enough!#!#! ponder about it

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax arbiter, so you are saying that if everyone on earth decided to rape babies as they came out of their mothers womb, and then smash their heads into the ground, it wrongness of it would be devoid of existence? It would actually be the RIGHT thing to do because everyone did it and believed it to be true? That idea tosses out any idea of moral progress and makes us no better than the brutish civilizations we tend to look at as barbaric and cruel these days.

No, I'm saying that its wrongness is devoid of existence regardless of whether none, some, or all people find it morally acceptable. I hope that almost everyone would call that wrong, but CALLING it wrong does not make it wrong. We have no objective standard of measurement to determine the moral value of any given action, when we call things right or wrong we are only assigning labels to them which have no relation to truth.

If we can't restrain ourselves from raping babies as they came out of their mothers' wombs and then samshing their heads into the ground without needing to pretend we have some kind of mandate from a higher power, then we are no better than the brutish civilizations we tend to look at as barbaric and cruel these days.

hehe IM ALIVE

I choose I dont care because it was the best choice out of the ones offered. If I had a choice I would have chosen "I dont know." Because at this point in time I dont. There have been times I feel like I have been "touched by god." And times were it doesnt make sense. I am also a person who spends way to much thinking about logics and that is were the dillema comes from there are things that the bible/torah/koran say happened that dont seem possible, but there are things that modern science considers almost fact that doesnt make sense either(the big band.) I dont think the big bang makes sense because if there were two atoms or whatnot that crashed into eachother to create the universe they had to come from something too. And unless your a good liar you cant make something from nothing I belive the best course of action at least for me is to live my life moarally responsibly and continue to learn and think about this stuff.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.