Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Morality and Faith      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Morality and FaithPage 2 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
RE msg 54 by greg8001:
I think we need to be careful with generalisations about suicide bombers, theists and atheists. For a start, many suicide bombers probably are poor men who are young, but many others no doubt go willingly to die for similar reasons as men (or women) who belong to military forces or who fight in wars are willing to die; they believe they are sacrificing their lives for a nobler and greater good. The 9/11 bombers came from fairly good backgrounds, and intelligently planned their attack. Similarly, many suicide bombers are part of groups who operate according to fairly rational military principle.

I think what needs to be kept in mind when discussing apparently random and horrific violence by those who have strong beliefs is often for those who adopt the views, such methods are rational and justifiable. The mass killings by Communists as well as the executions of heretics by theists was done with the belief they were helping improve their societies and improve the common good by eliminating elements of society that undermined the social order. This does not justify what they did, but on closer examination people (including suicide bombers) may well be acting more rationally than first appears. And they may well be well educated and intelligent to the same extent we are.
That's reasonable. I can agree with that.

But then, if suicide bombers can be rational, why can't Stalin? So, my point stands.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/21/2009 8:23:46 PM

Well, speaking as an observer, perhaps the more accurate statement would be acknowledging your version of reality?


That's a nonsense statement. Reality *is*, there are not VERSIONS of reality. Perhaps there are various imperfect INTERPRETATIONS of the Reality that *is*, based on imperfect understanding, but there's just one Reality.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/21/2009 9:30:26 PM
I live to serve and amuse the great unwashed. :)
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/21/2009 9:48:52 PM
angelheart3 >> killfile.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/21/2009 9:56:13 PM
scorpiomover
For that, I do apologise. A lot of people tell me that I just go way over most people's heads. I am sorry you cannot keep up.
Its not over our heads, its under our feet. Rambling, wordy, and never gets to the point. Usually there is no point.

Again, I do apologise. A few people say that what I say, gives them a headache just listening, because it is jsut too high-brow for them.
"High brow," lol. More like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, so he tries to write in a manner that is both elitist and confusing in order to avoid rebuttal.

Well, I have every faith that you won't, as it is against your credo to believe that anyone can believe in G-d, or question anything in popular science, and be intelligent.
Two of my favorite scientists are Kenneth Miller and Donexodus2. Look for them on youtube, both are Catholic.

Sorry, but magic, or magik, or magick, as 3 different spellings exist, is not something that G-d does.
So creating a universe from nothing is a natural process then?

Well, I understand your scepticism. After all, it would destroy your safe feelings in your little world, if anyone did prove that G-d exists.
Not at all. I want to believe in God. I just have no reason to. If there was proof that He exists - awesome! - I'd convert instantly.

So you go on believing that you have absolute truth
This is of course complete bullsh*t but you will go on believing it because it has two criteria that you always seem to accept as truth:
1) its a lie.
2) its so dumb it doesn't make sense.

My truth is not dependent on your accepting it, because I check stuff out for myself.
Hardly. Your entire belief system is about accepting unsubstantiated claims.

I like evolution. It's a neat theory. I just don't accept things automatically, just because everyone else is saying them
I've got a word for you that you seem unaware of: evidence. That's the reason to accept evolution, not because other people say so.

, and I am extremely suspicious of anything that everyone says "must be right", unless it has a proof that is near 100% impossible to question
When a goatherder writes some ridiculous claim 2000 years ago - Jonah lives in a whale for 3 days, feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves of bread, walking on water, you believe it with no evidence to support it. When overwhelming evidence proves evolution, and nothing refutes it, you are skeptical. If you want to disprove evolution, simply find a better explanation for observations in the world than is explained by evolution.

Speaking of faith, does anyone have any reason why faith is required for morality?
I never said it was required, or wasn't required, for morality, and I never said that atheists don't have faith either, and I also never said that faith doesn't help you be more moral.
Actually this was directed at everyone, not you.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/21/2009 10:40:23 PM
Silivros, you might be well-served to look at who brought the smilies into that discussion... Unless you find it amusing to look like a fool, rather than just sounding a little soft-headed.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/22/2009 8:56:58 AM
RE msg 64 by rockondon:
Its not over our heads, its under our feet. Rambling, wordy, and never gets to the point. Usually there is no point.
Sorry, but a lot of other people just don't agree with you. This is just your excuse to why you have such a hard time with my posts.

"High brow," lol. More like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, so he tries to write in a manner that is both elitist and confusing in order to avoid rebuttal.
I'm not elitist. I learn more from people who told me they couldn't read, or couldn't add up, than from degrees. I have no respect for anyone because they claim to be "special", and expect that others would not treat my words with any reliance just because I said so. If you find a problem with that, then you're the one who is elitist.


Well, I have every faith that you won't, as it is against your credo to believe that anyone can believe in G-d, or question anything in popular science, and be intelligent.
Two of my favorite scientists are Kenneth Miller and Donexodus2. Look for them on youtube, both are Catholic.
I stand corrected on that, and I thank you for that. I apologise for accusing you of being anti-religious.


Sorry, but magic, or magik, or magick, as 3 different spellings exist, is not something that G-d does.
So creating a universe from nothing is a natural process then?
If that's the way things have occurred, then yes. But it is not natural for humans to create something from nothing, that much is clear. But then, did humans create the universe?


Well, I understand your scepticism. After all, it would destroy your safe feelings in your little world, if anyone did prove that G-d exists.
Not at all. I want to believe in God. I just have no reason to. If there was proof that He exists - awesome! - I'd convert instantly.
To what would you convert? Judaism? Islam? Xianity? Which denomination of Xianity? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Pentecostalism? Buddhism? Which denomination of Buddism? Hinduism? Which denomination of Hinduism? There are thousands of various religions. Believing in G-d wouldn't give you a reason to convert to anything.

Anyway, why do you WANT to believe in G-d?

So you go on believing that you have absolute truth
This is of course complete bullsh*t but you will go on believing it because it has two criteria that you always seem to accept as truth:
1) its a lie.
2) its so dumb it doesn't make sense.I think you're talking about yourself here.


My truth is not dependent on your accepting it, because I check stuff out for myself.
Hardly. Your entire belief system is about accepting unsubstantiated claims.
Again, I think you are talking about yourself. If you knew anything about me, or my beliefs, you'd know that was BS.


I like evolution. It's a neat theory. I just don't accept things automatically, just because everyone else is saying them
I've got a word for you that you seem unaware of: evidence. That's the reason to accept evolution, not because other people say so.
I'm aware of evidence. I was reminded of it just this morning, when pointed out that the police have arrested and convicted many innocent people and sent them to decades in prison, on "evidence", even DNA "evidence". Evidence is not an automatic proof. You have to study that evidence and confirm it for yourself, or at least, have reason to suppose that the person conducting the evidence would never, ever, ever get things wrong, or misunderstand things, and even then, you still need to check out the logic that is used to follow from the results to the conclusions. Otherwise, you're just accepting what other people tell you.


, and I am extremely suspicious of anything that everyone says "must be right", unless it has a proof that is near 100% impossible to question
When a goatherder writes some ridiculous claim 2000 years ago - Jonah lives in a whale for 3 days, you believe it with no evidence to support it.
I didn't believe the Bible with no evidence to support it. So when I was 18, I went and studied it for over 10 hours a day, over 50 hours a week, for a year. Got convinced so much, I decided to stay for another 3 1/2 years. If you want to go study where I did, you're welcome to.

FYI, I was watching an interesting documentary about fish feeding habits the other day, when the camerman who was filming it, said that he almost got swallowed by a whale. Just thought you might like to know.

When overwhelming evidence proves evolution, and nothing refutes it, you are skeptical. If you want to disprove evolution, simply find a better explanation for observations in the world than is explained by evolution.
I didn't say I WANT to disprove evolution. If you'd read my other posts, you'd know that I wrote in an earlier post that I might be very inclined to believe it, given the evidence that Bright1Raziel claimed. Unfortunately, he said that the evidence is in the hands of commercial corporations, who don't allow it for public consumption. I DON'T claim that evidence is false, or that anyone should believe it is false, merely that I am still somewhat unsatisfied by what I have seen so far.



Speaking of faith, does anyone have any reason why faith is required for morality?
I never said it was required, or wasn't required, for morality, and I never said that atheists don't have faith either, and I also never said that faith doesn't help you be more moral.
Actually this was directed at everyone, not you.
Am I not part of "everyone"?

RE msg 69 by oldsoul:
Why this need to inflict additional shame and guilt and an external reward and punishment system to instill a sense of morality when it's already built-in and works very well if it's not tempered with is, or should be, the question of the century IMO.
As far as I understand the ideas of religion and morality that I've come across, it seems to be that humans do have a natural system of morality, but that "sin", selfishness and corruption, can distort that sense, because humans have the natural in-built ability to rationalise selfishness and corruption, and to re-define our morality to suit our purposes. If anything, religion seems to be about bringing morality back to that which is natural to us in the first place, but that we corrupt and distort ourselves.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/22/2009 9:48:34 AM
oldsoul
Why this need to inflict additional shame and guilt and an external reward and punishment system to instill a sense of morality when it's already built-in and works very well if it's not tempered with is, or should be, the question of the century IMO.
Well said. I'm reminded of a couple quotes:
I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell if I’m ‘bad’. - Mike Fuhrman
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. ... Mark Twain

scorpiomover
Am I not part of "everyone"?
Yes of course. Bad typo on my part - I meant to say not 'just' you, sorry.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/22/2009 10:53:06 AM
Given the content of the christian bible it would rank as the worst possible source of morality on the entire planet, were it not for the koran holding the top spot....
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/22/2009 10:37:44 PM

Before you can claim that consciousness arises "in a different plane", you must prove that there is such a thing as "a different plane".


If you watch footage from 9/11, you can clearly see "a different plane" strikes the second tower than the first tower.



I couldn'r resist.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/23/2009 6:29:20 AM
RE msg 71 by rockondon:

Am I not part of "everyone"?
Yes of course. Bad typo on my part - I meant to say not 'just' you, sorry.
Apology accepted. Thanks for making that clear.
 WanderingRain
Joined: 3/9/2008
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/23/2009 11:56:55 PM
For those who can lead a moral life without religion, good for them.
But sadly, way too many people need religion to keep them straight and doing the right ethical thing.
Many people, sadly, need authority. They need to be scared, intimidated and coerced or they won't do the right thing.
Like I said, there will be exceptions to this. People who have strong moral convictions with or without religion driving them.
For the majority, though, they need someone --something to follow or they are lost.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 39
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/27/2009 9:05:01 AM
Actually intoart - there is one thing I highly disagree with you on. Acid actually has a permanent effect on your body. In the state of Washington, if you take Acid two times in your life, you are considered to be insane. The Acid actually rests in your spine and has a permanent effect on your body. I am completely for legalizing pot as long as cigarettes are legal, but still having acid be illegal.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 40
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/30/2009 7:26:21 AM
Morality and faith are not related to one another. Perhaps the question should be "Is morality objective (faith based) or subjective (reason based)"

I would argue for the latter.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 41
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/30/2009 8:54:01 AM
ih8tefrogstoo,

I think you're mixing "scientists" with "science" and treating it the same. When taking it that way, it gives people comfort who don't like the naturalistic discoveries and proofs of the world, and therefore comfort to revert to ideas that they find comfortable and 'seem' correct. The word "science" is always taken out of context in all forms of media and people (even many scientists). In a sense there is no such -thing- as science. Science is just a method. It's the method of disproving things by process of elimination, and the verification of things that are claimed to be true. It's an objective method, when applied -properly- is free from bias, even bias of the person(s) who take on the method (again, properly).

Now, with that said, yes, there are scientists who are wrong! Biased! They have faith in their hopes that certain things are correct and they're going to make a name of themselves in a grand scientific journal, and not correctly and thoroughly apply the scientific method to verify their findings! Many times they're called out as wrong, through peer review, but sometimes given more credit than should be given. They could already have a name for themselves which they want to make grander, and have a following of peers who go along with them to have it be seen as verified in the community! But that's how -scientists- can be, not science. Big difference. But in the end, the truth ends up rising to the surface (even if it takes too much time), if any big-namers held an incomplete or false conclusion based on inaccurate analysis.

Something's not true because a -scientist- said it's true. Something's not false just because a -scientist- said it's false. 2+2 does not equal 5 because a scientist says it does not. 2+2=4, but not because a guy smarter than us says it does either.

Now, with all that said, there are such things as DUMB views. Especially if it's not based on little evidence but claims there is. The people who forgo critical reasoning when drawing conclusions are idiots. People who truly believe Ronald McDonald and the Hamburglar are doing battle on Venus for our souls are idiots, if all they're basing it on is their 'feeling'. Just because -scientists- can be wrong, does not mean -science- is an opinionated method.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 42
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/2/2009 1:48:59 PM

Burning in hell is not a threat it is a prediciton

It's both. It's a threatening prediction. The fear of burning in hell is a motivator -- used as a threat if you don't "shape up".
 Jasger
Joined: 6/23/2008
Msg: 43
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/2/2009 5:47:33 PM
Most morals are common sense. If you were to take 100 random people and ask is it right to steal? I believe most would say "no" because they don't want anyone to steal from them. If you were to ask is it ok to kill someone? I believe most would say "no" because they don't want anyone to kill them. If you were to ask is it ok to lie? I believe most would say "no" because they don't want to be lied to. etc, etc. The 10 commandments (most of them) have stood the test of time because they are common sense.
 Ryan3782
Joined: 8/24/2008
Msg: 44
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/3/2009 11:42:12 AM

I'm trying to figure out why the bible is the moral print on society when it condones so many evil acts which go against the grain of society. Anyone care to help me out?


The reason why religion has become many people's moral compass is because philosophers, the people we depend on to discover a proper morality, have not done their job. Morality is a basic branch of philosophy, but must be determined AFTER the proper discovery of the branches of metaphysics and epistemology. Until Ayn Rand, no philosopher was able to tie morality to reality, and explain why it's the achievement of one's own happiness, the furthering of one's own life, and most importantly the complete adherence to reason are man's most basic moral virtues. (The standard of morality, by the way, is man's life. If someone bases morality on some other standard such as "the good of society" or "that which makes you happy" has made an error.) The proof follows this path. Reality exists and is real. Man is conscious and capable of understanding reality only through the use of reason. (In fact, reason is his basic means of survival, unlike animals who rely on teeth, claws, speed, and agility.) However, man's use of his mind is not an automatic endeavor. It is volitional and must occur by effort. The man who chooses not to use reason is choosing not to live in the form of what is required by man's nature. Thinking is the basic tool that makes man's life possible and sustainable and is therefore his most basic moral tenet.

Nowhere in this definition is any supernatural power involved. In fact, the belief in the supernatural cannot, by definition, be proven and thus requires faith, the antithesis of reason, the antithesis of man's basic means of survival, the antithesis of life, the antithesis of morality.

Without such a reality-tied view on morality, people default to the open grasp of mysticism's claim to morality.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/3/2009 12:15:44 PM
Until Ayn Rand? LMFAO

Faith...Morality...Religion...Science...Reality....Hypocrisy. With all due respect IMHO a few of us have to invest in better dictionaries. Or open the ones we have.

Faith: One cannot rationalize faith, period. In Christianity faith ignores an overabundance of unknowns and puts trust in the idea that the dozens of men that wrote, rewrote, edited, abridged, and censored a tome over centuries at a minimum generations after puproted events were simply communicating the word of "God" instead of deceitfully constructing their own earthly insitution of social manipulation.

Morality: How about civility?

Religion: Reason dictates despite the protestations of millions religions are not insitutions of God. Men wrote the Bible, the Koran, etc. These tomes are genreally riddled with contradictions that in modern life most of us choose to observe and employ quite selectively. Do as anyone really think Jesus could have possibly condoned the Missionary Mentality?

Science: I see a lot of people complain about science, but I'll never see someone actually reason against its value. Science deals with knowledge, not the purveying of myth. Knowledge isn't something that can be embraced selectively either. We hear lots of folks cry that Evolution is only a theory. I ask those folks to forgive me for choosing a kenning with an understanding that plausible premises and sound syllogisms are more productive than rehashing utterly unsubstantiated and centuries old mythology. Scientists do have agendas, and that agenda is veracity. Anything less they're more often than not industry hacks posing as scientists.

Reality: There is indeed only one. To think otherwise is of course utterly unsubstantiated and an exercise in wishfull delusion.

Hypocrisy: OP, your problem is not with the faithfull, it is with the hypocritical.
 johnzzz
Joined: 4/1/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/4/2009 3:26:05 AM
the fact that their are many religions that try to deal with absolut moral systems yet differ so widely spiratuly, cultraly, and politically let alone the many variant points of view that branch out in any given religion to try and interpit scripture to either suit thier own means or please an unproven or invisable diaty shows that morals systems are faulty.

It is not to say that i do not have my own list of do and donts but i do not subject my personal morals to absalute thinking after all our character is truly defined by our actions so it is not until we are faced with a delima that we know what we are made of i would also note that morals are subject to point of views things like wealth, education, experiance, etc may cause us to have diffrent opinions about any subject.

for example
abortion, a single woman who is impovershed, has no family or any family member willing to assist and no reliable father to help with support may choose an abortion. while a well to do person who has family support may choose to keep a child but shun the other woman.

you are in a bomb shelter with limited supplies and your neighbor is knocking on the door?

you invent a time machine do you go back and kill hitler knowing that you may alter the future?

which end of a gun would you choose the one that shoots or the person being shot?
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 47
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/4/2009 9:03:25 PM
You were convinced of talking snakes, people rising from the dead, a flood that wiped out all of humanity except for a boat the size of tennesse and telepathic communication with your lord and savior?
I'm speechless...
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 48
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/4/2009 9:32:22 PM
And you know this how?
If you believe that the entire bible is full of metaphors, how do you know anything in the bible is literal or just a metaphor? Would of God was a metaphor for hope in life and Jesus was a metaphor for being saved for our immorality? How do you know they actually exist?
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 49
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/5/2009 2:15:09 AM
Well Tuneitin. I am well aware that the majority of theistic belief systems contain a sense of immorality which is on the verge of bigotry. It is my goal to rid this sense of self pride to avoid the prejudice of which I feel that theists show towards someone who may be of an atheistic belief.
Many people on this forum and others have stated that if I do not believe in God then I will be burned for all of eternity in fiery damnation. This is prejudice and hateful and it disregards any sense of morality. You are basically saying that it is moral to threaten someone with torture as long as you do it for a spiritual purpose. This is bullshit. I do what I do to try to prevent those threats from happening. It devalues self worth and the worth of others.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 50
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/5/2009 9:01:31 AM
...towards someone who may be of an atheistic belief.


Atheistic belief?...What in hell is that?...a square circle?
By DEFINITION atheism is ABSENCE of belief in God!
If you assert you are an atheist, you have nothing to prove. If you assert that you believe in atheism, you have turned it into a positive belief system and can be made subject to proving your claim, just the same as a theist can be asked to prove his assertion that God exists.

If you are an anti-theist you are positively asserting the negative claim that God doesn't exist and the onus is on you to prove your claim. (That is of course impossible, except in a formal system of reasoning that has been rigorously defined and is at least theoretically knowable in its entirety. "All of existence" is not such a system.)

I have never been able to prove either the theist, or anti-theist claim (and believe me I've tried, in spite of knowing them impossible tasks. -- sort of like toying with perpetual motion machine designs -- which I've also done, just for laughs). In fact I've never even been able to prove my own existence, let alone a God (so much for thinking our way out of paper bags!). The best I've been able to cough up is a logical proof that something exists. (Big deal; all we have to do is look around to figure that one out!)
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 51
Morality and Faith
Posted: 4/5/2009 6:12:45 PM

Did I just prove there is no such thing as vision?


Only in a land of the blind.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Morality and Faith