Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and ...

Options
12357…12

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    So, let's get this straight. You would willingly undergo excruciating physical torment for the sake of your cat?

    It's only for a while and afterwards I get to live in eternal bliss so why not? Maybe doing it for a cat is pushing it a bit but my point is that if it's followed by eternal bliss it's not that big a deal and it's not that big a sacrifice.


  • Options
    #123
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Cutting this a bit short.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Careful, you sound like you might be about to accuse me of something nasty again.

    It isn't my intention to make any accusations, as this would be an ad-hominem not relevant to the argument.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I'm still unconvinced that you have grasped the point we are trying to make. In my opinion, we do not make a "moral" judgement about whether or not to kill someone. I do not consider the behaviours "kill" or "not kill" to be equally valid as probable behaviours. We have evolved as a society that promotes "not killing members of our species" as the "normal" behaviour. We do not have to make any decision about whether this is "correct" or "moral" or analyse "how do we know it's moral?". I would be seriously worried about us if we needed to make a conscious effort not to kill people.

    It's not that I don't grasp it, but I find morality based on the presupposition of survival to be royally deficient, and it certainly isn't the moral system I apply to my life.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    The label of "moral" behaviour is an artifical construction.

    You're claiming I follow the same morals as you do?
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I don't even know how to address this. If you begin to use "obligation" and "duty" as reasons not to kill others, you're going to rightfully face the anger of atheists demanding how you can remotely dare question their "moral" code in the absence of an authority figure.

    Why does empathy have to be "given". Empathy is a chemical reaction in the brain. In fact, I watched a very interesting lecture yesterday about manipulating the region of the brain responsible for our ability "perceiving what other people think/feel". Why do you feel empathy is a "special" behaviour?

    If I have to face the "anger" of atheists in presenting my views I will. I mean, I'd like to not tread on as many toes as possible, but in reality my view is always going to go against those of atheists. I have a duty not to kill others, and I have a duty to uphold the moral law and to live justly in this world. It's a project, but I intend to fulfil it day by day.

    The Gospel is about pleasing God, and doing what is right by other people. It isn't about compromising your beliefs to suit others.

    If I am going to believe in a Creator God, I will believe that He gave us empathy. Empathy is summed up in the end of Genesis 1 for Christians. We are to do what is right to other members of mankind, precisely because we are all created in His image.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Whether they murder or not says absolutely nothing about whether they feel it's right or wrong to murder. Sam has covered this very well so I'll say no more.

    Many people have felt justified in murder. For example, if one killed a murderer in revenge.


  • Options
    #124
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's only for a while and afterwards I get to live in eternal bliss so why not? Maybe doing it for a cat is pushing it a bit but my point is that if it's followed by eternal bliss it's not that big a deal and it's not that big a sacrifice.

    Really? So it wouldn't be a big deal to you to suffer the most excruciating pain imaginable to a human being sustained for a few hours? A pain worse than childbirth, worse than a kick in the gonads, worse than having your skin pulled off in tiny strips with hooks?

    I once had a good bit of skin burnt off my body. I would find it a very big deal to suffer that kind of pain ever again - even for just a few minutes.


  • Options
    #125
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's not that I don't grasp it, but I find morality based on the presupposition of survival to be royally deficient, and it certainly isn't the moral system I apply to my life.

    It's not morality based on your own survival, it's morality based on group survival and by extension your own survival. As long as people have a desire for themselves and their loved ones to live it's logically impossible to arrive at a system of morality that sees nothing wrong with killing. The closest you can ever come is deciding that some other group is different to you in some way so you can justify not applying the same rules to them as you do to your own group


  • Options
    #126
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    Really? So it wouldn't be a big deal to you to suffer the most excruciating pain imaginable to a human being sustained for a few hours? A pain worse than childbirth, worse than a kick in the gonads, worse than having your skin pulled off in tiny strips with hooks?

    Oh it's a sacrifice alright, don't get me wrong, but many many people in history have made sacrifices just as hard if not worse with no guarantee of eternal bliss on the right hand of god afterwards so it wasn't "the most selfless act"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's not morality based on your own survival, it's morality based on group survival and by extension your own survival. As long as people have a desire for themselves and their loved ones to live it's logically impossible to arrive at a system of morality that sees nothing wrong with killing. The closest you can ever come is deciding that some other group is different to you in some way so you can justify not applying the same rules to them as you do to your own group

    Who is your group? Racial? Religious? Political? - This isn't an effective moral system. There must be a system that encompasses decent behaviour for all.

    The suggestions that yourself and doctoremma have posed seem deficient to me.


  • Options
    #128
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Oh it's a sacrifice alright, don't get me wrong, but many many people in history have made sacrifices just as hard if not worse with no guarantee of eternal bliss on the right hand of god afterwards so it wasn't "the most selfless act"

    Actually they haven't. The Christian belief is that the suffering Christ endured on the Cross was many multiplied times worse than that ever endured by any human being.

    So, according to Christian belief (which is what matters in this forum) it was the most selfless act.


  • Options
    #129
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Who is your group? Racial? Religious? Political? - This isn't an effective moral system. There must be a system that encompasses decent behaviour for all.

    The suggestions that yourself and doctoremma have posed seem deficient to me.

    Why must there be? Because you want there to be? The idea that people have a concept of right and wrong but that it's often only applied to certain groups seems to be very much the reality so I don't think there must be any such thing.


    The point I am making here is that it is possible to discern that killing is wrong based on the desire for yourself and your loved ones to live whether or not god exists. It is possible to say that killing is wrong without god and it is in fact logically impossible to say that there is nothing wrong with it as long as you have a desire to live.


  • Options
    #130
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    Actually they haven't. The Christian belief is that the suffering Christ endured on the Cross was many multiplied times worse than that ever endured by any human being.

    So, according to Christian belief (which is what matters in this forum) it was the most selfless act.

    Oh right so


  • Options
    #131
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Cutting this a bit short.

    Lol, posts tend to accumulate more and more points to address as they go along :)
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's not that I don't grasp it, but I find morality based on the presupposition of survival to be royally deficient,

    Deficient as a biological theory to explain our behaviour? Deficient as it's not intellectually stimulating enough? Deficient because it doesn't require a god?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You're claiming I follow the same morals as you do?

    No, I'm claiming you follow the same behaviour as I do (assuming you don't go around murdering, raping and pillaging). According to you, I am amoral (or was it immoral?). It's you who creating some kind of "moral angst" about why we perform these behaviours. To me, it's crystal-clear. I don't have a "moral" choice about not killing people - it's hardwired into me not to.

    And to be honest, if you choose to call behaving "nicely" in the absence of a god/obligation/sense of duty "amoral" or "immoral", I am comfortable with that :)
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If I have to face the "anger" of atheists in presenting my views I will.

    Fine. Who's the "nicest" person? One who doesn't kill because the thought of extinguishing a life sickens them and because they can already feel the person's pain, even though they're only contemplating it as part of a messageboard discussion? Or someone who doesn't kill out of a sense of duty to god?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have a duty not to kill others

    We all do, it's just my "duty" is driven by my empathy skills and my humanity. Yours is based in a book.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Many people have felt justified in murder. For example, if one killed a murderer in revenge.

    Being "justified" i.e. having your reasons for murder accepted as "valid", is not the same as murder suddenly becoming "moral" or "correct" in that instance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Deficient as a biological theory to explain our behaviour? Deficient as it's not intellectually stimulating enough? Deficient because it doesn't require a god?

    Deficient as a moral guide for living, and deficient as a code for relating with the rest of mankind.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    No, I'm claiming you follow the same behaviour as I do (assuming you don't go around murdering, raping and pillaging). According to you, I am amoral (or was it immoral?). It's you who creating some kind of "moral angst" about why we perform these behaviours. To me, it's crystal-clear. I don't have a "moral" choice about not killing people - it's hardwired into me not to.

    I reckon that other behaviours will differ. I don't claim to be perfect, but I do claim to be following a perfect God who is my source of guidance.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    And to be honest, if you choose to call behaving "nicely" in the absence of a god/obligation/sense of duty "amoral" or "immoral", I am comfortable with that :)

    Morality isn't about being "nice". Being just sometimes causes offence, and isolation to the people calling out against it. Many of the Old Testament prophets were killed because the people didn't want to hear what they were doing wrong, repent and change.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Fine. Who's the "nicest" person? One who doesn't kill because the thought of extinguishing a life sickens them and because they can already feel the person's pain, even though they're only contemplating it as part of a messageboard discussion? Or someone who doesn't kill out of a sense of duty to god?

    The person who doesn't kill at the thought of extinguishing a life sickens them because they can feel the pain, and at the thought of depriving another of a God given gift.

    You're ignoring that I said duty and empathy together are key in moral behaviour. You only dealt with duty.

    The person who has the empathy and who fulfils their duty while doing so is what is just.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    We all do, it's just my "duty" is driven by my empathy skills and my humanity. Yours is based in a book.

    You're ignoring what I said about empathy.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Being "justified" i.e. having your reasons for murder accepted as "valid", is not the same as murder suddenly becoming "moral" or "correct" in that instance.

    Who is to determine this?


  • Options
    #133
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Deficient as a moral guide for living, and deficient as a code for relating with the rest of mankind.

    You'll forgive me for ignoring the first sentence. I have already explained that my position is one where we don't need to define a moral code for living. The dreaming up of such a list of rules and imagining that you have invented it is, in my opinion, an entirely intellectual exercise.

    The second part is more interesting. Do you have preconceptions when you meet a new person? Do you assume they might want to kill you? Or do you assume they don't? I favour the latter when making new acquaintances. Are you saying this is naive? Should I not be relying on my own feelings about society to assume something about other people's views?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I reckon that other behaviours will differ. I don't claim to be perfect, but I do claim to be following a perfect God who is my source of guidance.

    Whatever you want to claim is up to you. It's worth noting that some people kill when purporting to be following god's guidance, while some people manage to get through life without murdering anyone in the absence of god's guidance.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Morality isn't about being "nice".

    What's it about then? I think if I were to "invent" a moral code, being "nice" is a pretty solid basis.

    Edit: We have already been through what most of us heathens would decide is "nice"...
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The person who doesn't kill at the thought of extinguishing a life sickens them because they can feel the pain, and at the thought of depriving another of a God given gift.

    So because you would add the second part about god to your motive for not killing, does that make you better than me?

    And note: I'm not ignoring what you said about empathy, I just don't see why it has to be a god-given trait.


  • Options
    #134
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Sorry, missed this:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Who is to determine this?

    Me. My "moral" code is not as plastic as yours :)


  • Options
    #135
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The person who doesn't kill at the thought of extinguishing a life sickens them because they can feel the pain, and at the thought of depriving another of a God given gift.
    But if the gift wasn't god given the thought of depriving another of it wouldn't sicken them :confused:

    What difference does it make how you came to be given the gift?


  • Options
    #136
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But if the gift wasn't god given the thought of depriving another of it wouldn't sicken them :confused:

    What difference does it make how you came to be given the gift?

    I think the distinction is between it being a gift and being a biological accident.


  • Options
    #137
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    I think the distinction is between it being a gift and being a biological accident.

    Right but whether my life is a god given gift or a "biological accident" doesn't actually change the reality of my life. I still have the same family and friends, the same wants, desires and fears, the same things that I bring to the community at large. It's the same life no matter how I came to be given it so why is it ok to extinguish it if there's no god but not if there is? Why should one scenario sicken people but not the other?


  • Options
    #138
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Right but whether my life is a god given gift or a "biological accident" doesn't actually change the reality of my life. I still have the same family and friends, the same wants, desires and fears, the same things that I bring to the community at large. It's the same life no matter how I came to be given it so why is it ok to extinguish it if there's no god but not if there is? Why should one scenario sicken people but not the other?

    But it's not about your life. It's about the life of others.

    We human beings tend to be very egocentric. We value our family, friends, wants, desires and fears as being very important - but frequently fail to accord the same valuation to others.

    This egocentrism can be taken to its extreme when we devalue others to the extent that they are viewed as no more valuable than animals. Regimes that practice torture, for example, routinely encourage their enforcers to see their victims as less than human.

    The idea that human life is a gift from God, not just a biological accident, may not cause you to view your life any differently. But it can encourage you to view someone else's life differently.


  • Options
    #139
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    I think the distinction is between it being a gift and being a biological accident.

    The evolution of a such finely-tuned sense of empathy (or indeed any complex behaviour) is not the result of a biological accident!


  • Options
    #140
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    The idea that human life is a gift from God, not just a biological accident, may not cause you to view your life any differently. But it can encourage you to view someone else's life differently.

    As can the realisation that for us to be here, sharing this planet and contributing to society, is pretty special.


  • Options
    #141
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    The evolution of a such finely-tuned sense of empathy (or indeed any complex behaviour) is not the result of a biological accident!

    I'm using the word 'accident' as in accident or design.

    However, I am happy for us to agree that empathy is a result of design. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    However, I am happy for us to agree that empathy is a result of design. :)

    As long as it's accompanied by the idea that nature can be the "designer" :)


  • Options
    #143
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doctoremma wrote: »
    As long as it's accompanied by the idea that nature can be the "designer" :)

    You're hardly going to get that from a Christian.


  • Options
    #144
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You're hardly going to get that from a Christian.

    A quick google will demonstrate that there are significant numbers (if not the majority) of Christians who believe in evolution. Once you accept that principle, everything we've said on this thread is a piece of cake.


  • Options
    #145
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Unless you believe that evolution itself is a divinely created process. Then we're back to square one.


  • Options
    #146
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Unless you believe that evolution itself is a divinely created process. Then we're back to square one.

    Well, it'll be no surprise to you to find that my opinion is once you've accepted evolution, you don't really need a god for anything else :)


  • Options
    #147
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Well, it'll be no surprise to you to find that my opinion is once you've accepted evolution, you don't really need a god for anything else :)

    Just a goddess called 'nature'.


  • Options
    #148
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    Just a goddess called 'nature'.

    Nature has no god-like properties and is utterly neutral on the fate of the earth, the universe and its inhabitants. S/he offers no comfort in times of trouble and is the ultimate non-interventionist. How does this match with your god? :)


  • Options
    #149
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Nature has no god-like properties and is utterly neutral on the fate of the earth, the universe and its inhabitants. S/he offers no comfort in times of trouble and is the ultimate non-interventionist. How does this match with your god? :)

    True, your goddess is vastly inferior to my God.


  • Options
    #150
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    True, your goddess is vastly inferior to my God.

    I don't have a goddess. Or god. Or any other invisible friends.

    I'm not a pantheist. Stop strawmanning :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I don't have a goddess. Or god. Or any other invisible friends.

    I'm not a pantheist. Stop strawmanning :)

    I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it. Do you want nature to be a designer or not?

    If nature is a designer then you've invented a deity.

    If there is no designer then empathy has evolved by accident.


Advertisement