If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
All right, here is one, pre-cooked and served on a silver platter:
***
Definition: We define good to be a tendency to increase the probability of the continued growth in order and complexity of the life process throughout the universe.
The corresponding moral code is that for which the moral imperative is to perform the action that is most good.
***
Read any Nietzsche, kid? You might profit from such an excursion into the pages of philosophical discourse, returning with some new views on the death of God, Judaism, Christianity and even Buddhism.
And, yes, dammit, I do become my own "god" in terms of morals -- if, that is, you cannot concieve of morals without the pathetic auxiliary concept of a "god." To strip away that concept, yes, I do become my own arbiter of right and wrong -- because I recognize that morality is a human concept. I see that matters of right and wrong, guilt, pride, responsibility and culpability take place in human hearts and minds and nowhere else.
As for challenging another's conception of morality... Oh, boy! I am free to challenge the morality of whomever I choose, whenever I choose. As is everyone else with me as the object of such challenge. Something scare you about a little competition? I suppose you'd much rather have one single neat, convenient and orderly system imposed on you and the rest of mankind by the slavemaster in the pulpit than think for your self?
On the contrary, it deals with such questions in a very down-to-earth practical manner -- considering. The point is that the emphasis is on self-exploration -- exploring one's self and doing the exploration of the issues one's self.
And what is their objective if not to produce a workable code of ethics for use in everyday life? D'oh!
(Ahem. Bullshit.)
What evidence for the existence of God? Unless you're talking about the existence of gods -- which would be us, were we to wake up. You're not seriously going to suggest that a few thousand years' worth of myths and fairy-tales count as serious hard evidence, are you?
On the concept of brotherly love:
"The most senile thing ever thought about man is contained in the celebrated saying 'the ego is always hateful'; the most childish is the even more celebrated 'love thy neighbor as thyself'. -- In the former, knowledge of human nature has ceased, in the latter it has not yet even begun."
So a follower of Nietzsche - as you appear to be - loves himself above all others. Regards himself as greater than all others. Once this is accepted, the individual has gained true understanding.
I must say that I prefer "What greater love is there than this, than a man would lay down his life for his friend's."
On tyranny and corruption:
"Fourth, when "morals decay" those men emerge whom one calls tyrants: they are the precursors and as it were the precocious harbingers of individuals... In these ages bribery and treason reach their peak, for the love of the newly discovered ego is much more powerful now than the love of the old, used-up "fatherland"... Individuals--being truly in-and-for-themselves-- care, as is well known, more for the moment than do their opposites, the herd men... The times of corruption are those when the apples fall from the tree: I mean the individuals, for they carry the seeds of the future and are the authors of the spiritual colonization and origin of new states and communities. Corruption is merely a nasty word for the autumn of a people."
Nietzsche and the concept of the "will to power" come out quite clearly here. The men whom the world supposes are tyrants are merely the ones leading us on to a new golden age. It's no coincidence that Hitler was a big fan.
On punishment:
"A strange thing, our kind of punishment! It does not cleanse the offender, it is no expiation: on the contrary, it defiles more than the offense itself."
Nietzsche regards punishment for offences as no better than - in fact worse than - the offense itself. Where does the concept of individual responsibility and facing the consequences of one's actions fit in here?
Where is the concept of the rights of society trumping the rights of the individual?
On morals:
"Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid."
Morals make stupid. Enough said.
The concept of "overman":
"The hour when you say, 'What matters my virtue? As yet it has not made me rage. How weary I am of my good and my evil! All that is poverty and filth and wretched contentment.'"
According to Nietzsche, this, among other realizations, is what will allow one to become the "over-man". You made the reference to a slave master in a pulpit. Is the overman any better? (Leaving aside that the "slave master" is better described as a servant)
On the wicked:
"Hitherto we have been permitted to seek beauty only in the morally good - a fact which sufficiently accounts for our having found so little of it and having had to seek about for imaginary beauties without backbone! - As surely as the wicked enjoy a hundred kinds of happiness of which the virtuous have no inkling, so too they possess a hundred kinds of beauty; and many of them have not yet been discovered. "
I think this speaks for itself. Personally, I fail to see any beauty in those whom history regards as wicked or evil.
There's more. I'll post them in a bit.
I do have one question for you though - being such a fan of Nietzsche, are you also a nihilist?
And one more - I have read some Nietzsche. Have you ever read Aquinas? Augustine? Luther? The Bible itself?
(edited to fix a mis-quoted quote)
(edited once more to provide a link in case people think I'm making this up or something)
all Nietzsche quotes taken from
[a]http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html[/a]
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: j0nn0 ]
D'oh indeed. I think you missed the word exclusively in my post.
But if you are your own arbiter of right and wrong, what gives you the right to tell others (who are also their own arbiters of right and wrong) what good and evil are? If a man regards rape as a perfectly legitimate practice to pass on his children, and you don't, why are the morals that you believe any more true than the man who rapes to increase his progeny? I think it was you - do correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I am (and your stance on Nietzsche tells me I'm not) -who stated in another post awhile back something to the effect that absolutes (as far as morality is concerned) do not exist. Fine. Don't rape yourself, but don't condemn others when they do. Your morality isn't absolute, and you have no right to condemn others who might have a different moral code than you do, since it's all subjective after all.
Except that Buddhists take the beliefs of Buddha as their preconception to all of this - they're not exploring these issues themselves, they're listening to Buddha! They believe that Buddha is right and that his belief system should be followed. They're not thinking for themselves any more than the Christian is. Same goes for atheism. You yourself read Nietszche, that's where you got your ideas from.
Don't talk to me about the "slave master in the pulpit" when your slave master can be found in Ecce Homo or Human, all too Human.
The complexity of the life process. Please expound on this seemingly meaningless statement.
By this definition of good, one could argue that the applied eugenics the Nazis practiced on the disabled were morally good. Why not? They weeded out the "useless" members of society who would be unable to contribute to the "continued growth in order" of the life process.
Furthermore, if you are a Nietzschean, and you assume that God does not exist - pray tell what is the end of this "good"? What is the ultimate point of refining life so that it is more ordered and complex? Is not death a better thing? Since death is just another word for non-existence in atheistic terms, tell me what is preferable to the atheist - a mostly mundane life, interspersed with moments of joy and pain - or non-existence, the absence of all thought and feeling? Atheism becomes nihilism/existentialism, since there is no hope for anything beyond this life, and there is no ultimate purpose to life that atheism can begin to conceive. If atheists were logically consistent, they would advocate the destruction of the planet, so that life might return to the best possible state of affairs - non existence, where self awareness is impossible. Most people in the world today live in misery, and ultimately, the lives of all people on the planet mean nothing. Wouldn't it be better to kill ourselves off?
These are the presuppositions that atheism entails:
Life was nothing but random chance to begin with. Life being a complete coincidence, the purpose to life cannot be found because there isn't one.
If there is no purpose to life - what is the point in living a moral life if there will be no consequences after death? Why shouldn't a person do as he wishes, since the "worst" thing that could happen to him is death? Death is a good thing after all -no more thought, no more existence.
Cicero pondered this question in a different way - he raised the question of whether or not the soul exists. And he came to the same conclusion: if the soul - defined as that part of a person which continues to exist after death - doesn't actually exist, then death is a preferable option to life. If I recall (though I'm not 100% sure off the top of my head), Cicero ultimately rejected the notion that the soul cannot exist.
My code of morals is based on the idea that we are free to do as we please if we do not harm others.
Your suposition that atheism entails everyone having a seperate moral code is wrong because society as an entity dictates the morals of the people within it based on the cultures of those people.
An atheist can judge anothers morals in relation to societies morals, thus society abhors rape thus the rapist is immoral.....
Still you will not explain why homosexuality is wrong......
Oh, I entirely agree with your first point -- a devout Buddhist is as blinkered as any other devout believer. As for my "slave master" being Nietzsche -- well, again, I think it says something that you think I must have a priest to follow, and that since Friedrich is the only name I've given so far, he must be that priest.
To give a brief opinion on F.N.: a radical thinker who put forward a good many ideas that damn well needed saying. Also, at times, an idiot. What he said and wrote was no more wholly correct than any other thinker. I did not read him and become a "follower" -- for I do not follow -- but I read, digested, processed, formed my own opinions, composite with all my previous learnings.
Interesting that you should use the term "meaningless" when meaning and information are at the heart of the theory.
Life process clear? Organic chemistry a little easier for you? Not just one people, species or planet -- the entire process, everywhere.
Complexity? Go read a little information theory. When you have the concept of entropy as information capacity, relate it to the progress of life. Note how ordered complexity increases with time and appears to be linked to survivability. Note also how survivable moral codes tend to correlate to courses of action tending to preserve or increase survivability / ordered complexity.
Alternatively, come to Oxford in late June and attend a talk on "Naturalistic Ethics," or look up the same on the Net.
Perhaps they were... I find it fascinating that you assume that they weren't.
I have my theory of ethics... its only weankess is its computational size, meaning that for day-to-day purposes I must make use of local approximations that may be untrue to the general theory. To put it in your terms, my "ten commandements" (everyday) may at times go against "god's will" (general theory).
Well, seing as I'm not a Nietzschean... <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Once again, I have noted his ideas and incorporated them -- that does not make me his follower.
And there has to be some "ultimate point"? I think we see here the fundamental weakness of the theists -- that there must, for them, be some ultimate purpose to it all. Regardless of the actual state of affairs -- which may well be unknowable -- any theory that does not provide for a grand purpose is, for them, an instant no-no.
No grand ultimate purpose, no. However, that doesn't mean we can't form purposes. Right now my purpose is to write these words. A few hours ago it was to have breakfast. Taking a more long-term view, I have a purpose to pass my exams, to do this that and the other. Oh, and to be consistent with my own moral code.
We are free to generate our own purposes in life -- why should they be imposed from outside?
You've assumed all sorts of things about what you percieve to be "the atheist position." Hell, you've assumed a lot about my position, too. Where have I ever written that death is the worst thing that can happen? Or a good thing?
And, I have to say, you did put forward a nice point for me there -- you can't think of a reason to act morally if there are no post-mortem consequences. In short, you have no concept of honour in the present.
Well...tell me how and where spirituality fit into a world that was created completely on random chance. If spirituality is meant to be a focus on that which cannot be explained by natural sciences, and yet atheism is a rejection of all beliefs but that which can be discovered by natural science, how can you possibly condemn the idea of a transcendent being in one breath and in the next breath talk about spirituality?
Definition of spiritual (from dictionary.com)
a) relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material.
b)of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
c) Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.
C) in particular is especially applicable, but I don't think atheism could possibly accept any of the above as true.
Since atheism believes life was nothing more than the result of completely natural chemical processes, please tell me where the soul fits into its belief system.
Your code. Well that's great for you. What about other atheists who don't share your moral code? On what standard do you judge them?
And tell me where society's moral code came from? Most did not come from atheism; as I've mentioned repeatedly, the only ones that did, arose in atheistic communist nations and Germany. I need not remind you what happened to them.
Yes. But I believe I addressed the question of social consensus earlier. If by some twist of fate, the law against rape was abolished tomorrow, would it still be immoral? Reading the above, I would have to say no. Since society doesn't abhore the rapist, the rapist is no longer immoral.
Will do so now. According to Christian teaching, homosexuality went against God's natural order for things. All things - sex included - were corrupted after the Fall. Futhermore, the teachings against homosexuality have a component of reason about them. You are aware no doubt that rates of STDs are much higher among homosexuals than the general population. This is as a result of their particular sexual practices - they are dangerous. I'm not even looking at homosexuality from a moral perspective here - all I'm saying is that your likelihood of receiving an STD is much higher if you're gay than if you're straight. Go look up the statistics sometime.
I realize that you probably don't live on Nietzsche - if you did, you would probably end up like he did in the end. He was a man who devoted his life to destroying the foundations he was raised on (and originally meant to study as an adult). By the time he was done, he was a shell of a man. All the same, you brought him up first, not me - I'm just repeating his conclusions. I think it says something about yourself that you regard ministers as slave masters.
No more wholly correct than any other thinker? Then on what grounds do you reject Jesus? Or Mohammed? Or Buddha? Or ANY thinker? And don't tell me you don't follow. The most deceitful thing I hear is people who say "Don't believe in religion, think for yourself!" What they mean is "Read this book instead of that one."
You've probably had 5 original thoughts in your entire life (and one can't even say for sure that they are completely original). Same goes for everyone - we all build on the thoughts of those who came before us. And if you become some kind of philosopher and write down those 5 original thoughts you had, people in the next generation might latch onto them. But the majority of your opinion is built on the work of others - not a criticism - its true for everyone - just a fact.
From my reading of Nietzsche (admittedly, not too much), there is absolutely nothing of value to be gained from his learnings, except to learn the arguments more clearly so that they can be better refuted. He was a nihilist; one of the first, if I recall. The nihilist viewpoint will destroy all the traditional foundations and leave nothing but despair in its wake.
To what ultimate end???? This is the question that atheism cannot answer in any satisfactory way. In the end, even the most prominent atheists (I believe Gould came to this conclusion) admit that the only purpose to be found in life is what the individual discovers on his own. This is in fact what you argue at the end of your post.
And I find it horrifying that you assume they were! You would have us killing the disabled? What if your child was severely brain damaged in a car accident? Would you take him out back and shoot him?
Fair enough. But your atheism still begs the question. You do not believe in God.
What is the ultimate point in life?
And I think that here we have the ultimate weakness of the atheists - they would have us believe that something was created from nothing at all. They would have us believe that life came from nothing at all, though they have never been able to reproduce this miracle - for what else is it?
The illogicity of the argument is baffling!
Tell me, have you ever seen something created from nothing at all? Have you ever had an effect with no cause at all?
So there is no ultimate purpose to life.
So let's follow this through to its logical conclusion. Doesn't this make you an advocate of nihilism?
Because it can't be found here. Because whether you like it or not, it IS outside. It's like telling yourself that you are going to breathe underwater, regardless of the fact that humans can't breathe underwater. The water will drown you whether you believe it will or not. If you're looking for your own ultimate purpose in life, you will be forever searching. Good luck.
Bah. I keep messing this up and having to edit. Anyways:
In my argument about STDs and homosexuality,
I left out the question of morality. The fact that homosexuals are more likely to get STDs doesn't make them immoral. They get the STDs as the result of the immoral act. The better question to ask would be why poor people get STDs more. Come back with an answer if you can find it.
Now let's have some answers to my questions:
Since atheism believes life was nothing more than the result of completely natural chemical processes, please tell me where the soul, or spirituality fits into its belief system.
If you believe that a spiritual component of life exists, you cannot call yourself an atheist. You are better described as an agnostic.
How can you regard Jews and Muslims as right when their very beliefs conflict with your own?
If society abolished the law against rape, would rape still be wrong? Or is societal consenus the ultimate root of morality?
If rape was still wrong regardless of what society said, why is it wrong?
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: j0nn0 ]
But religious books demand that they be taken as truth thus inhibiting you from gaining knowledge from other sources. A philosopher puts forward an argument with the PROOF of their line of thinking to back it up, they do not demand that they are the only true source of truth.....
to what ultimate end does religion take you?
he obviously wasn't, Mack was making the point that you should challenge others actions and think about them instead of making a snap judgement.....
Again, what is the point in your life?
Where did God come from to create the life?
How much science do you know, I am pretty certain that you don't understand advanced astronomy and physics but then you don't believe in the scientific method so it wouldn't matter <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I already told you the first time. Go read it again.
Imagine, a minister telling his people to live a moral life! What a horrible thing to do!
The minister spreads his message of through the promise of happiness and eternal life and the warning of the misery of hell.
One note on Hell - the Christian concept of Hell describes a lake of burning sulfur. Once you are in Hell, you do not get out. But Hell isn't horrible because of eternal burning. Hell is horrible because Hell is a complete, eternal separation from God.
You have heard that God is love? Consider Hell to be an eternal separation from love.
Hell isn't a threat from the minister. It is a threat from God, brought about by the consequences of the Fall. The minister is the messenger. Furthermore, a person isn't a slave if they are free to leave.
Not at all. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell me not to read other books. Or explore the natural world. It DOES tell me to seek the truth of the ultimate purpose in life. And it tells me how and where to find it.
I could say the same about you and your attitude to science. It tells you only to believe that which can be shown to exist by scientific method. So prove the existence of the feeling 'sad' by the scientific method.
Regarding philosphy and proofs...is that so? Philosophers have proof of the concept of logic? Metaphysics is a field where proofs in the scientific sense cannot be discovered. This doesn't mean they don't exist. It means that science can't discover them. Just like science can't discover why sad feels sad, or happy feels happy, or wrong feels wrong.
Furthermore, religious texts are philosophical in nature. Religion and philosophy go hand in hand. Which is why all major philosophers address the question of God.
Serve, love, and honor God. Keep reading.
Doesn't sound like it to me....
Don't know why you put "again" seeing as you haven't asked me this yet. But fine - to serve, honor, and love God is the purpose of life. There are many ways to accomplish this. But one must take the concept of God for granted before continuing.
By the definition of God, God is eternal. He didn't come from anywhere - He was, and is.
This the beauty of it. There is much about God that is mystery. We don't know everything about him. We do know that he is omnipotent, logical, omnipresent. God was not effected in any way to create life -God is the cause of life. He caused life to exist.
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html
Read the above link if you want to delve into the matter further. I don't think there's anything in this one that would offend your sense of morality.
How much science do I know? Enough. But that's not the issue at all.
Now quite frankly, I'm tired of answering your questions and getting no response to mine. Let's see some answers.
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: j0nn0 ]
Yes. Homosexuality is a corruption of what God intended for sex. All things on earth were corrupted to varying degrees because of man putting himself in the place of God -becoming the arbiter or right and wrong himself, instead of obeying his Creator.
Don't you realize this? If God created us, and we placed ourselves above him and disobeyed our Creator, then He has every right to be angry and judgemental. The fact that He shows his mercy to us through the promise of salvation only proves how much He loves us. Ever read the parable of the servant and the master?
One more thing I will address in regards to your comments concerning science - I don't know if I take the Creation story in a literal sense, ie. a six day creation. I've seen arguments for and against it. I'm not sure where I stand on it. It doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things though.
Tell me, where does your concept of honor come from? Why should it be honorable to commit a moral act if what you end up doing won't matter in the end - life has no ultimate purpose after all. Where is the honor in doing good instead of evil? You presuppose that honor exists, and yet your conception of life as random and meaningless leaves no place for any virtue or vice, honor included. You're closer to Nietzsche than you might think.
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: j0nn0 ]
You obviously don't know much about Buddhism. You could read all the Buddhist texts 100 times over and not be enlightened. The Buddha teaches that enlightment can only be reached by intense self exploration which is done through meditation. Not everyone knows how to do this properly without some guidance.
As far as an easy code of ethics is concerned
Essentially, according to Buddhist teachings, the ethical and
moral principles are governed by examining whether a certain
action, whether connected to body or speech is likely to be
harmful to one's self or to others and thereby avoiding any
actions which are likely to be harmful. In Buddhism, there is
much talk of a skilled mind. A mind that is skilful avoids actions
that are likely to cause suffering or remorse.
As far as homosexuality being immoral consider this: Perhaps sexual acts which don't include compassion and love for one another are immoral. There seems to be a slight correlation between that and STD's. If everyone was a bit more mindful of he they slept with and did it carefully with love and compassion they would more likely avoid STD's no matter what sex. Wisdom, compassion, and mindfulness, result in less stds. If 2 gay men love one another and no one else have been only with one another and fuck up the ass everyday, do you thing their chances of getting aids is greater than a Christian girl that sleeps with a guy she's only known a month?
maybe so, I don'y like to put myself under any of these crappy headings anyway....
I may think that their belief system is 'wrong' but I do not think that they are 'wrong' for believeing it......
That could not happen because rape entails that the person being raped is having sex against their will, thus somone is being harmed for no good purpose thus it is wrong.....
If (as you must) you reject scientific methods, how can you say that other religions are wrong? A Hindu and a Christian will both claim that their blief system is right without any proof so what makes you right and them wrong?
What is one thing Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddha had in common? They all had an ommision. We here of nothing from Christ between the ages of 12 and 30. Mohammed dissapeared into a cave for quite some period, and the Buddha meditated under a tree for 30 days. Each came back preaching a new law. Each came back poor, each came back alone. What was the nature of there power? What happened to them in there absence? Perhaps they all reached a similiar state of bliss through meditation, but only the Buddha was able to recognize it for what it was. Perhaps the other 2 felt that "since this is that which transcends the the terrestrial, it must be celestial." Jesus Christ was borned and raised on the Old Testemant and so was compelled to ascribe his experiences as God's word. Just like Mahammed connected his experience with the story of "annunciation" and said Gabriel appeared to me. Just a theory. I never dismiss anything until proven.
Sorry, why are you asking me questions as if I am some kind of high priest of atheism, propounding The Atheist Viewpoint?? I speak for myself.
And, you are free to choose to prefer death over life any time you like.
The future life is every time that is not the past or now -- and I do face the consequences of my own actions in that future life. All. The. Time.
Obligation to society? No -- obligation to myself. Therein lies the answer to your question. I keep myself upright, am true to my own honour -- or else I become less. That may not be sufficient to motivate you, but it motivates me -- and I suspect that the same is true of some others here on these boards, who know who they are.
Oh, so was his crime that he decided to follow a different path to that of his father and his father's father? A shell of a man? Well, having read the last works of his sane life I think that he finished his arguments in fighting form. But you may disagree, so I shall not take the point any further.
If so, they, too, are fools. The correct formulation would be, "Don't believe -- investigate! It shall probably take you you're entire life, but then the unexamined life is hardly worth living."
And those who are strong enough to stand in the cold of pure reason, not leaning on any spiritual crutches.
A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion -- any religion -- is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason -- but one cannot have both.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
For reference, I agree with that about 9/10. That rating should enable you to understand my own position a little more.
My very point! You assume that there must be an answer, even that the question is valid -- i.e. that there is some "ultimate end," some grand divine cosmic scheme of things which provides a permanent and perfect morality.
Also, define "satisfactory."
:: chuckles ::
Re-wind. Re-read. Re-digest. Re-comment.
See above for my thoughts about "ultimate points."
Have you ever seen a point north of the North Pole?
And the grand cause of your putative creative god was...?
Thanks -- 'cause there's nothing more exciting than a journey into the unknown. The spirit of adventure is not dead in me.
Not the point. It is not that the minister commands his flock (telling word, that) to live moral lives -- it is that he also sets down the moral code by which he commands them to live. In some quarters this is known as "conflict of interest."
Then heaven and hell are as much places on Earth and in people's everyday lives as the otherworldly things you describe.
Really? The Bible sets out an rational exploratory methodology? Must have missed that, in amongst all the stories that provided the so-called answers, negating the need for such moral exploration.
Actually, if you were familiar with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, you would know that there are propositions whose truth or falsity cannot be proven -- no proof or disproof exists. You should also take the time to look up the curious oddity known as the Continuum Hypothesis -- a funky little statement whose truth value is independent of the rest of set theory. Quite amazing really, if you see it with a mathematician's eyes.
Okay, so the existence of a god is one of your basic axioms -- it is not one of mine.
Do you have any familiarity with geometry? If you assume (among other axioms) that parallel lines never meet then you get Euclidean geometry. For thousands of years this was the geometry. A couple of centuries ago mathematicians (Gauss, Boylai, Lobachevsky and others) started to investigate what would happen without this Parallel Postulate. The result? A whole new branch of geometry, as rich and beautiful and self-consistent as Euclidean geometry.
Those early pioneers of non-Euclidean geometry were afraid to publish, and were ridiculed, for suggesting the heresy of non-Euclidean geometry. Which one is "right"? Ask a mathematician and he'll blink and ask what you're on about -- the question doesn't arise. Hyperbolic, spherical and Euclidean geometries arise from different axioms -- the question of correctness doesn't come up.
If different axioms are assumed, then it's not surprising that different conclusions will be reached. And there's no reasoning without axioms; there are no conclusions without premises.
But shall be no more? <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Come on, that doesn't tell us much. There is no point north of the North Pole. If were a Big Bang theorist I would say that the Big Bang was the beginning of time -- the question of what came before it doesn't arise.
Understand this: my honour. Not my god's honour, your god's honour, anyone else's honour. Mine.
Moreover, I did not say that life is random, and a simple analysis shows that it is not.
Close to Nietzsche? Yeah, arm's reach -- he's on my bookself! <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The soul can't be found by science. It's like asking a scientist to find logic.
Well you'll have to make do with them. Are you an agnostic or an atheist? Simple question really.
This is illogical. How can you say you think what they believe is wrong, but you don't think they're wrong because of what they believe? If I believe that 2 + 2 = 5, my belief system is wrong - therefore, having adopted that belief system, I am wrong.
Or are you talking about wrong in the second instance you use it as morally wrong? What happens then when their morality conflicts with your own? Take homosexuality for example. I believe it to be wrong; you do not. If we two were to attempt to start a society and I demanded a law which allowed marriage between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, your sense of morality would be offended. On what basis would it be offended, and how would you make your case?
I think you missed the question - we're supposing that the law could be changed to allow rape. Is it still wrong? If so, why?
I don't have to reject scientific method. There are certain suppositions of science that I believe are wrong. This doesn't mean I throw out all science. A Hindu and a Christian will both claim that their belief is right without any scientific proof. That doesn't mean that both are right or both are wrong. It means that science cannot solve the problem. You seem to think science has the answer for everything.
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: j0nn0 ]
Doesn't command. Instructs. Do your math teachers command you to believe in what they tell you? Or do they instruct you and tell you why such things work? Same goes with a minister or the philosopher, except he is dealing with metaphysics.
If you take atheism for granted, then yes. If you take the Christian concept of God though, God always loves you, and while you are alive, you are accessible to his love.
Did Plato set out a rational exploratory methodology? Did Buddha? Did Nietzsche? The Bible is not a science textbook, nor was it meant to be. It is a religious and philosophical work with moral truth in it.
I'd look at this in a different light. Instead of saying that there are propositions whose truth cannot be proved or disproved - well duh. It's called opinion.
I like red. You like green. Both are propositions. It cannot be proved that one is inherently more "truthful" than the other by scientific method.
Both are opinions.
Now, you can't apply automatically apply this to religion. Because there are many religions. There is one religion which is the absolute truth. There are others which have varying degrees of the truth inherent in them. There are some - atheism - which are completely false.
Do you believe in absolute truth?
I would also say that there are certain propositions whose proof cannot be proved in any way - the existence of logic for example. You have to presuppose that it exists for math to make sense.
I'm no mathematician, so I won't try and talk about the Continuum Hypothesis. But it appears that you have less of an understanding of theological concepts than I do, because you can't seem to understand some of the basic precepts concerning the nature of God.
Yes. But one axiom is right, and one is wrong. The atheist viewpoint, if logically followed through, will lead to nihilism.
You contradict yourself by saying there is no ultimate purpose in life and then saying that everyone has to find their own purpose in life. You're not being logically consistent. Futhermore, you're not being logically consistent if you advocate life over death.
Sorry - I should have added and IS TO COME.
Which is why it breaks down as a theory of explanation. By the very definition of God, God is eternal. Transcendent. Beyond human understanding. I don't deny that there is mystery surrounding God. But I affirm that God exists.
But where does this concept of virtue and vice come from? What is your concept of honor?
When I said "life is random", I meant in the sense of its initial creation, and its ultimate meaningless, a concept which you've admitted.
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: j0nn0 ]