[GameTheory]

The Earth as seen from beyond the orbit of Pluto

Quote:

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

[ empasis added--GT]

—Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, 1997 reprint, pp. xv–xvi

[Samseau]

(09-09-2013 07:43 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

The premise that morality is a part of that design is problematic if you refuse to accept organized religion's version of god like I do.

Not at all - why can't one reject organized religion while accepting that morality is part of God's design?

Abortion is part of God's design.

^ non-sequitur

Wadsworth Wrote:

(09-09-2013 07:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:28 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:19 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

So you're admitting that the discussion is fundamentally non rational, since you're admitting that the entire premise is non rational. Further, you're engaging in circular reasoning. You've literally just said X, therefore X. Your conclusion is built into your premise.

Yes. That's why it's called a faith.

Cool. And I have no problem with this. But how can you expect others to adopt morality that is based around your personal faith?

The same way everyone expects others to confirm to their morality. Remember, there is no scientific experiment explaining why it's wrong to murder for profit.

No, but morality based arguments should be grounded in reason, that is to say they should be rational. I have no problem with consensus moral judgements if they're arrived at based on reason. I have a problem with consensus moral judgements if they're arrived at via someone's faith.

And there need not be any scientific explanation for why murder is wrong. Morality is an emergent property of consciousness. It needs neither science nor "God."

There is no such thing as using reason to arrive at moral judgement. How does one arrive at the reason to do any moral claim?

Why is it wrong to kill someone and take their money? Can you give me a reason?

Morality is the by-product of our intuition, it has nothing to do with reason. This is not to say we cannot use reason to clarify moral concepts.

[Samseau]

(09-10-2013 04:30 AM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:19 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

So you're admitting that the discussion is fundamentally non rational, since you're admitting that the entire premise is non rational. Further, you're engaging in circular reasoning. You've literally just said X, therefore X. Your conclusion is built into your premise.

Yes. That's why it's called a faith.

Quote:

The god denial phase is where it's at. We can't move forward until this addressed.

How many times do we need to go over this, you cannot prove/disprove god. There will never be a way to move forward on this.

But I will say this - those who seek Christ will find him. And once you experience God you will never be able to doubt Him again, but you will still be unable to prove His existence to anyone.

First we have to know which definition of god you are talking about because there are many.

If you are talking about The Christian god, you are monotheistic and denounce polytheism because you think you are the elite.

Why not take it down even further and say there is zero god?

Samseau, it sounds like you've been brainwashed to accept what has been told to you, just because it was told to you when you were a child.

I've already outlined why intelligent design is a plausible reason to believe in God and there's no need to rehash this. Either you believe everything is an accident or you think scientifically and assume reasons and laws govern the cosmos.

[Wadsworth]

(09-10-2013 05:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:43 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

The premise that morality is a part of that design is problematic if you refuse to accept organized religion's version of god like I do.

Not at all - why can't one reject organized religion while accepting that morality is part of God's design?

Abortion is part of God's design.

^ non-sequitur

It's no more a non-sequitur than it is to say abortion is wrong because of God. And before you argue, realize that any discussion that would follow would necessarily be one rooted in reason. So if we're going to invoke reason as a proxy on behalf of God, then why invoke God in the first place? Why not just invoke reason?

[Samseau]

(09-10-2013 05:54 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 05:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:43 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

The premise that morality is a part of that design is problematic if you refuse to accept organized religion's version of god like I do.

Not at all - why can't one reject organized religion while accepting that morality is part of God's design?

Abortion is part of God's design.

^ non-sequitur

It's no more a non-sequitur than it is to say abortion is wrong because of God. And before you argue, realize that any discussion that would follow would necessarily be one rooted in reason. So if we're going to invoke reason as a proxy on behalf of God, then why invoke God in the first place? Why not just invoke reason?

Abortion can be wrong because of God if God forbids it. However, when most people claim abortion is wrong because of religious reasons, it's because most religions hold a deep sanctity of human life. If you believe life is sacred it's not a big leap to oppose abortion.

Next, reason isn't a proxy for God, reason is really it's own authority. However, reason doesn't tell us much, now does it? Reason doesn't tell you what color the sky is, doesn't tell you how to treat your neighbor, and it doesn't tell you how to be a good friend. Reason doesn't tell you how to raise a family, and it doesn't tell you why you should obey the law. So, what exactly does invoking reason do?

[Wadsworth]

(09-10-2013 06:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 05:54 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 05:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:43 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Not at all - why can't one reject organized religion while accepting that morality is part of God's design?

Abortion is part of God's design.

^ non-sequitur

It's no more a non-sequitur than it is to say abortion is wrong because of God. And before you argue, realize that any discussion that would follow would necessarily be one rooted in reason. So if we're going to invoke reason as a proxy on behalf of God, then why invoke God in the first place? Why not just invoke reason?

Abortion can be wrong because of God if God forbids it. However, when most people claim abortion is wrong because of religious reasons, it's because most religions hold a deep sanctity of human life. If you believe life is sacred it's not a big leap to oppose abortion.

Next, reason isn't a proxy for God, reason is really it's own authority. However, reason doesn't tell us much, now does it? Reason doesn't tell you what color the sky is, doesn't tell you how to treat your neighbor, and it doesn't tell you how to be a good friend. Reason doesn't tell you how to raise a family, and it doesn't tell you why you should obey the law. So, what exactly does invoking reason do?

Abortion can equally be right because of God if God allows it.

[Samseau]

Yes, and?

[Wadsworth]

(09-10-2013 06:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Yes, and?

How then should we decide which interpretation of God is more morally justifiable for our society?

[soup]

(09-10-2013 06:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Yes, and?

Sam do you believe that complexity can arise out of simplicity?

[Hotwheels]

So no one has won this argument yet?

[soup]

(09-10-2013 08:03 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

So no one has won this argument yet?

I won.

[Quintus Curtius]

I think we need to hug it out...

[GameTheory]

(09-10-2013 08:03 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

So no one has won this argument yet?

[Samseau]

(09-10-2013 07:04 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 06:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Yes, and?

How then should we decide which interpretation of God is more morally justifiable for our society?

That's a tough one. Because there isn't a society on earth today whose morality wasn't shaped by a religion.

We don't know if our morality was shaped by God or we simply have a morality independently of God. Or if it is a mixture. A part of morality may have come about independently of organized religion, and another part came about because of organized religion.

So ultimately, when trying to decide the religion that's best, based on the morality criteria, is to figure out exactly what you think is right or wrong to begin with. This alone is an impossible task. No one knows how to resolve all problems.

After, you'd need to find how much of it matches up with Christianity. If it doesn't match up, then you can reject Aquinas's argument for Christ.

[Chillen0707]

Read Max Weber's the protestant work ethic. In calvinist sects wealth was oftentimes interpreted as a sign that you were predestined for heaven. Christianity also praises work ethic as godly. Religion establishes an arbitrary structure of rules, over which an individual exerts no control, that govern society. These can be seen as training wheels for capitalism. Replace money with god, theology with economics and you will see a rapid, smooth transition from a religious society to a capitalist one.

[Chillen0707]

Of course you can use reason to discern moral truths. Read Kant or Rowles.

[Chillen0707]

Sorry for multiple posts. We have no way of verifying whether god exists or whether the bible is truly god's message to man. In my opinion, man created biblical morality, which, if true, evinces that man can successfully create a moral code by way of rationality. As for whether morality as we understand it is intuitive or not.... It is hard to say. If it is intuitive, why the need for police? Legal systems? The bible in the first place? However, it is very interesting to note that the human societies which never had contact with each other often established similar moral codes. This suggests that we are hardwired in a certain way. On the other hand, perhaps the basic moral code found in the bible is simply an efficient way of organizing society. I'll leave on this note, a bit of Nietzsche. Christian morality, after it has been codified, that is, made a legal code, promotes cravenness. Lions in a society become outcasts. Those who act on impulse, the honest ones, are condemned. Here is the twist. You may say what the murderer is good? See christianity promotes the notion of hell. The victims of crime don't have the courage to act upon the world themselves, so they conjure up a deity to torment the brave for eternity.

[Samseau]

(09-11-2013 01:28 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

Of course you can use reason to discern moral truths. Read Kant or Rowles.

I'm a direct disciple of Kant arguing his logic in this thread, FYI. Kant was the man who argued the hardest against the limits of reason.

[Chillen0707]

(09-11-2013 05:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 01:28 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

Of course you can use reason to discern moral truths. Read Kant or Rowles.

I'm a direct disciple of Kant arguing his logic in this thread, FYI. Kant was the man who argued the hardest against the limits of reason.

Honestly I have read very little of Kant, regardless I know that he creates a moral code using reason. Of course rationality is subject to the whims of subjectivity. Regardless, both men established moral codes based upon rationality. Is Kant known primarily for his categorical imperative, that is, the golden rule; treat others as you would have them treat you.

[Samseau]

(09-11-2013 05:38 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 01:28 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

Of course you can use reason to discern moral truths. Read Kant or Rowles.

I'm a direct disciple of Kant arguing his logic in this thread, FYI. Kant was the man who argued the hardest against the limits of reason.

Honestly I have read very little of Kant, regardless I know that he creates a moral code using reason. Of course rationality is subject to the whims of subjectivity. Regardless, both men established moral codes based upon rationality. Is Kant known primarily for his categorical imperative, that is, the golden rule; treat others as you would have them treat you.

The categorical imperative is to never treat someone as merely as a means to an end. And it's not based off reason; it's based off the idea that since we all have reason we carry obligations to respect one another's reason since reason is what makes humans special.

But even Kant admits, deep in his second Critique, that reason cannot justify itself, and that reason points to a morality which is a thing-in-itself, which is something that cannot be proven or detected by ordinary sense-experience. Thus, morality, like religion, has no ultimate justification.

[Samseau]

(09-11-2013 05:38 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 01:28 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

Of course you can use reason to discern moral truths. Read Kant or Rowles.

I'm a direct disciple of Kant arguing his logic in this thread, FYI. Kant was the man who argued the hardest against the limits of reason.

Honestly I have read very little of Kant, regardless I know that he creates a moral code using reason. Of course rationality is subject to the whims of subjectivity. Regardless, both men established moral codes based upon rationality. Is Kant known primarily for his categorical imperative, that is, the golden rule; treat others as you would have them treat you.

The categorical imperative is to never treat someone as merely as a means to an end. And it's not based off reason; it's based off the idea that since we all have reason we carry obligations to respect one another's reason since reason is what makes humans special.

But even Kant admits, deep in his second Critique, that reason cannot justify itself, and that reason points to a morality which is a thing-in-itself, which is something that cannot be proven or detected by ordinary sense-experience. Thus, morality, like religion, has no ultimate justification.

[soup]

(09-11-2013 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:38 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 01:28 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

Of course you can use reason to discern moral truths. Read Kant or Rowles.

I'm a direct disciple of Kant arguing his logic in this thread, FYI. Kant was the man who argued the hardest against the limits of reason.

Honestly I have read very little of Kant, regardless I know that he creates a moral code using reason. Of course rationality is subject to the whims of subjectivity. Regardless, both men established moral codes based upon rationality. Is Kant known primarily for his categorical imperative, that is, the golden rule; treat others as you would have them treat you.

The categorical imperative is to never treat someone as merely as a means to an end. And it's not based off reason; it's based off the idea that since we all have reason we carry obligations to respect one another's reason since reason is what makes humans special.

But even Kant admits, deep in his second Critique, that reason cannot justify itself, and that reason points to a morality which is a thing-in-itself, which is something that cannot be proven or detected by ordinary sense-experience. Thus, morality, like religion, has no ultimate justification.

Is this your reason for believing in Santa?

[Samseau]

(09-12-2013 11:24 AM)soup Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:38 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 01:28 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

Of course you can use reason to discern moral truths. Read Kant or Rowles.

I'm a direct disciple of Kant arguing his logic in this thread, FYI. Kant was the man who argued the hardest against the limits of reason.

Honestly I have read very little of Kant, regardless I know that he creates a moral code using reason. Of course rationality is subject to the whims of subjectivity. Regardless, both men established moral codes based upon rationality. Is Kant known primarily for his categorical imperative, that is, the golden rule; treat others as you would have them treat you.

The categorical imperative is to never treat someone as merely as a means to an end. And it's not based off reason; it's based off the idea that since we all have reason we carry obligations to respect one another's reason since reason is what makes humans special.

But even Kant admits, deep in his second Critique, that reason cannot justify itself, and that reason points to a morality which is a thing-in-itself, which is something that cannot be proven or detected by ordinary sense-experience. Thus, morality, like religion, has no ultimate justification.

Is this your reason for believing in Santa?

No more of a Santa than your belief in not banging fatties.

[soup]

(09-12-2013 01:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:24 AM)soup Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:38 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm a direct disciple of Kant arguing his logic in this thread, FYI. Kant was the man who argued the hardest against the limits of reason.

Honestly I have read very little of Kant, regardless I know that he creates a moral code using reason. Of course rationality is subject to the whims of subjectivity. Regardless, both men established moral codes based upon rationality. Is Kant known primarily for his categorical imperative, that is, the golden rule; treat others as you would have them treat you.

The categorical imperative is to never treat someone as merely as a means to an end. And it's not based off reason; it's based off the idea that since we all have reason we carry obligations to respect one another's reason since reason is what makes humans special.

But even Kant admits, deep in his second Critique, that reason cannot justify itself, and that reason points to a morality which is a thing-in-itself, which is something that cannot be proven or detected by ordinary sense-experience. Thus, morality, like religion, has no ultimate justification.

Is this your reason for believing in Santa?

No more of a Santa than your belief in not banging fatties.

I don't understand this sentence.

What belief in not banging fatties? How does that work?

I don't like fat chicks.

[Samseau]

(09-12-2013 02:24 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 01:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:24 AM)soup Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:38 PM)Chillen0707 Wrote:  

Honestly I have read very little of Kant, regardless I know that he creates a moral code using reason. Of course rationality is subject to the whims of subjectivity. Regardless, both men established moral codes based upon rationality. Is Kant known primarily for his categorical imperative, that is, the golden rule; treat others as you would have them treat you.

The categorical imperative is to never treat someone as merely as a means to an end. And it's not based off reason; it's based off the idea that since we all have reason we carry obligations to respect one another's reason since reason is what makes humans special.

But even Kant admits, deep in his second Critique, that reason cannot justify itself, and that reason points to a morality which is a thing-in-itself, which is something that cannot be proven or detected by ordinary sense-experience. Thus, morality, like religion, has no ultimate justification.

Is this your reason for believing in Santa?

No more of a Santa than your belief in not banging fatties.

I don't understand this sentence.

What belief in not banging fatties? How does that work?

I don't like fat chicks.

A moral statement is as reasonable as a religious statement.