|
|
|
 |

November 11th, 2003, 01:36 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dundas, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,498
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Real World Philospohy
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it (GW mentioned something about that as well, as I recall). This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught (and the sad fact is, most don't unless they make a career out of it, and even then, it may well take thirty or forty years to catch up with them).
|
WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!
A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.
|

November 11th, 2003, 01:42 PM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Solomon Islands
Posts: 1,180
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Real World Philospohy
Hey, Jack Simth, I don't quite know what you're driving, because you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, but don't really dissent from the view that science, while not being perfect, is still by far the best method that we know of of obtaining knowledge about the universe.
I have no doubt that human nature being what it is, truths are being bent everyday in the name of science, and if all you're asking for is a general skepticism towards the most extreme, hard-to-prove claims in science, then I don't think anyone will object.
But the thing is that if you have a specific grievance or objection to what is considered accepted truth in science, and you believe that you can formulate a reasonable argument in its support, then you could always raise it in a venue more serious than a game forum, such as an academic institution or a scientific journal. And if they give you short shrift, then I'm sure plenty of mainstream news organizations would like to have your story.
|

November 11th, 2003, 03:38 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,311
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Real World Philospohy
Quote:
Originally posted by deccan:
I would also agree that anybody who reads Nietzsche for the purpose of formulating a rational argument against organized religion is looking in the wrong place. In fact, much of Nietzsche's work appears to disparage the rational, or Apollonian, approach to life in favor of the emotional, or Dionysian approach, though I would say that after his relationship with Wagner soured, Nietzsche started to shift in the opposite direction.
|
There's a lot of truth to this. Nietzsche would probably have disparaged the very idea of trying to formulate rational trends in his writings. But there are those who have followed him, in spirit if not exactly to the letter (Foucault comes to mind immediately), and I believe that the conclusions they draw from him are well-founded in his texts
Quote:
Nietzsche's strength was never in appealing to the intellect but in appealing to intuitions and emotions. This is emphasized by his approach in "Thus Spake Zarathustra" which imitated the style and lyrical prose of the Bible for Nietzsche's anti-Christian agenda. Of course, the fact is that for many people, Christian parables and lessons appeal to the emotions and the intuitions as well, and being very aware of that, Nietzsche probably did it consciously.
|
Again, there's a lot of truth here. Nietzsche was not an idiot - far from it. But, speaking as a rationalist, that's exactly where his arguments fall to the ground. The anthropological proofs of his "slave-caste" origins of religion are - to put it charitably - thin.
Quote:
So to sum up, I agree that Nietzsche would be an atrocious example of a detached starting point, but only the unintiated would even expect Nietzsche to be one.
|
Which is why I am very grateful to my teachers for not just telling me about Nietzsche - but actually having me read him for myself.
|

November 11th, 2003, 03:43 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,311
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Real World Philospohy
Quote:
Originally posted by DavidG:
WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!
A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.
|
In an intuitive sense, this is certainly correct - people of all stripes do make similar distinctions between right and wrong. But these standards are not completely universal - some religions bid you love your neighbors, some bid you to eat them. And having an intuitive sense of right and wrong still does not answer why it is right or wrong, nor does it give any compelling external reason to insist on what is "good" in the face of desires for the opposite.
|

November 11th, 2003, 04:10 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dundas, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,498
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Real World Philospohy
Quote:
Originally posted by General Woundwort:
In an intuitive sense, this is certainly correct - people of all stripes do make similar distinctions between right and wrong. But these standards are not completely universal - some religions bid you love your neighbors, some bid you to eat them. And having an intuitive sense of right and wrong still does not answer why it is right or wrong, nor does it give any compelling external reason to insist on what is "good" in the face of desires for the opposite.
|
I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Sure standards of what is right or wrong vary sure, but my point is it IS possible to know what is right or wrong without religion. And it is not even hard to figure out why these things are wrong. Would I be pissed if John Doe stole my car? Yea. So would it be wrong for me to steal his? Yea.
The implication that all athiests don't know it is wrong to rape or murder and don't know why is just ridiculous.
|

November 11th, 2003, 04:47 PM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Rosario, Argentina
Posts: 1,047
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Real World Philospohy
It's not intuition, it's judgemnent.
In some aspects it looks like religions say, don't think, this is what God commands, all you have to do is obey.
|

November 11th, 2003, 04:50 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brazil
Posts: 827
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Real World Philospohy
It is possible to develop morality without religion, but it is definitely harder. It is much easier to do it by instilling supernatural fear in people, but that does not mean that this is the only way.
The main incentive for behaving morally is that everyone profits from it. Supposing everyone in my immediate area began to behave morally tomorrow, there would be huge savings - less taxes, less insurance, no expense with private security services, and so on.
__________________
Have you ever had... the sudden feeling... that God is out to GET YOU?
Well, my girl dumped me and I'm stuck with the raftmates from Hell in the middle of the sea and... what was the question again???
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|