quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On All core beliefs are oppressive - that is their nature. When you create a rule - a law - you are explicitly prohibiting an expressed action or behaviour. I mean, when you outlaw rape, how the fuck do you expect rapists to eat??? Does some of the strict Islamic law exacted in foreign countries seem oppressive in our kitschy, Western sense of freedom and justice and motals and whatever the fuck else? You bet.

When women are treated lower than livestock, yes. When petty crimes receive malicious punishment, yes.

quote:

But what justifies ours, truly?

pkc hit it right on the head. I also believe 'moral' behavior to be beneficial to survival. There may be no moral absolute and moral truths may change as a condition of social construct but reason can deduce what moral acts are ubiquitary as a direct benefit to survival, such as not murdering, pillaging and raping everything you see. Examples of this are also prevalent in nature.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On What makes your assumption any more substantial than mine though? We're not distant relatives who have been crashing at His place for a few million years... He created us, according to you. If God did not seek to do this, then what could possibly lead you to believe in the soundness of the rest of your philosophy? I do not love pieces of skin and debris that cling to me; though I created them, I did not seek to do as such, but I've inadvertently made room for them regardless.

Either I missed this earlier or you added it after I replied.

The problem with your assumption is that the argument you advance presupposes that God is the creator of all things and that creation was undertaken as a deliberate action on God's part.... if this is accepted then it must also be accepted that this is God's world, not man's, and that the creation of man as part of God's world was a deliberate act; subsequently, God made room for us in his world rather then him making room for himself in our world.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's not really "faith" if there is a direct benefit though... that's called incentive.

You've made an error here... we were talking about the benefits of religion, not faith. Don't get confused; faith and religion are two separate things... faith being one's beliefs and religion being a set of ritual and practice designed to give expression to one's beliefs. The two things are not one in the same, as evidenced by the fact that people can have the same faith but practice different religions (such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, or Hindus and Jains), have faith but practice no religion, or conversely, have no faith but practice a religion. I concede that people (including myself) practice religion because it provides them with some benefit that they value higher then whatever the cost (time, opportunity, etc) of practicing said religion is; however, I cannot say the same is true of faith.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's an interesting question, that's for sure - if faith without any incentive is even possible. I believe I asked Moral once and his answer was actually the opposite of yours, but my recollection is a tad hazy.

see my post above.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You've made an error here... we were talking about the benefits of religion, not faith. Don't get confused; faith and religion are two separate things... faith being one's beliefs and religion being a set of ritual and practice designed to give expression to one's beliefs. The two things are not one in the same, as evidenced by the fact that people can have the same faith but practice different religions (such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, or Hindus and Jains), have faith but practice no religion, or conversely, have no faith but practice a religion. I concede that people (including myself) practice religion because it provides them with some benefit that they value higher then whatever the cost (time, opportunity, etc) of practicing said religion is; however, I cannot say the same is true of faith.

I absolutely agree with this.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but a priest isn't an authority on anything (theology, the study of the unknowable haha). As mentioned, a doctor can substantiate his opinion, a priest cannot. Any similarities are dwarfed by this gaping divide.

Even if there is no God; one cannot deny that any person (ordained or not) holding a doctor of divinities is at very least an authority on theology, which - even if there is no God - is at very least the study of how humans perceive God; subsequently, you would have to accept that any Reverend is an authority on spiritual matters. Certainly, a priest could substantiate their opinions on the nature of mans relationship with God as the relationship is real even if God is not.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Even if there is no God; one cannot deny that any person (ordained or not) holding a doctor of divinities is at very least an authority on theology, which - even if there is no God - is at very least the study of how humans perceive God; subsequently, you would have to accept that any Reverend is an authority on spiritual matters.

of course. however, interpretive opinion on something you can't ever prove doesn't really hold the same weight as someone who performs open heart surgeries imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Certainly, a priest could substantiate their opinions on the nature of mans relationship with God as the relationship is real even if God is not.

how can you have a 'relationship' with something that isn't real? *cue blow-up doll joke*

___________________

What constitutes "proof"? There are those that would contend global warming cannot be proven - is it a myth then as well, since it is not universally irrefutable? What about abstract concepts like "culture" and "identity" - can you show me what it is to be Catalan?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN of course. however, interpretive opinion on something you can't ever prove doesn't really hold the same weight as someone who performs open heart surgeries imo.

Your statement was that priests are not authorities on anything, that statement is simply false. What weight you give to the importance of their expertise is up to you. I would be incline to agree that medical doctors can back their opinions up with empirical evidence, which is more universally convincing then is theology, reason, or rhetoric.... so if you measure weight by what is most compelling then sure, I agree. Now, if by weight you mean importance then I'm not sure I can agree with you, as far more people will have need for spiritual guidance/advice throughout their lives then will have need for cardiac surgery.

quote:

how can you have a 'relationship' with something that isn't real? *cue blow-up doll joke*

Nigga please... whether god actually exists or not billions of people have a "relationship" with what they perceive to be god that is very real if one party of that relationship is in part or in whole a product of their own making. You have a relationship with your ego; however, it is not real. I would argue that all relationships are with things or people are, at very least, in part relationships with parties that are not real as we actually only know our perception of the other party involved. What is real is the relationship, even if one or even both of the parties involved are not.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Either I missed this earlier or you added it after I replied.

That post was just poorly formatted at first as I had to stop halfway through to go pick up an excessively heavy canister of laundry detergent on the other side of town.

quote:

The problem with your assumption is that the argument you advance presupposes that God is the creator of all things and that creation was undertaken as a deliberate action on God's part.... if this is accepted then it must also be accepted that this is God's world, not man's, and that the creation of man as part of God's world was a deliberate act; subsequently, God made room for us in his world rather then him making room for himself in our world.

Where are you getting this information? This is like arguing over your favourite colour with someone.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You've made an error here... we were talking about the benefits of religion, not faith. Don't get confused; faith and religion are two separate things... faith being one's beliefs and religion being a set of ritual and practice designed to give expression to one's beliefs. The two things are not one in the same, as evidenced by the fact that people can have the same faith but practice different religions (such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, or Hindus and Jains), have faith but practice no religion, or conversely, have no faith but practice a religion.

I made no such error - your response was to my question about the course of somebody's personal faith - how it can strengthen, how it can weaken - and I replied in turn with a comment on faith. But you are absolutely right in that religion and faith can be two very seperate things - and this is one of the largest objections I have to religion. The expressionistic rituals you describe seemingly give a "name" to God - he's this religion, she's part of that religion, etc. This is the social dynamic clearly confirmational in people and no doubt "beneficial" so far as they are concerned. But that is a steady notion - that people paicipate in things that they like. Faith can wax and wane with an individual though, and if this affects the frequency of religious practice and ceremony, then they are not entirely different concepts.

I dunno, I just went for the fritters and the girls, so fuck your benefits.

But "faith" is far more general than mere religion, and much closer to belief in concept than periodic ceremony. But faith we can see everywhere. Kooks on this board believe - have faith - that there is a conspiracy behind everything. People believe in gun control or the death penalty or whatever else they like and for whatever reasons they like - what makes one belief any more correct than the next though? Experience? Academia? Conceit?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Where are you getting this information? This is like arguing over your favourite colour with someone.

Faith is subjective, no?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Faith is subjective, no?

Only insofar as it may differ from person to person, but if there is a "problem in my assumptions" then it is because there is an actual truth to compare it to... that doesn't sound conducive to subjection.

//Waitwaitwait, before this goes any farther, Moral and I were discussing whether or not this is God's world we are merely living in or if this is our world that God has given to us... or something like that. Regardless, I assure you that nobody here actually knows, so it's really not worth debating over. That was my only point with the colour analogy. I'm not sure which one of us was misinterpreting the other, but he (I think) was merely trying to reconcile my assessment of his opinion - which I wasn't actually refuting, I was merely questioning the validity of it within the context of.. well.. a hell of a lot of other subjections.

Moral loves his skin flakes! Tee-hee!

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Last edited by Halcyon+On+On on Apr-02-2009 at 15:12