|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Dec 3, 2004 16:23:34 GMT -5
Did I say everything is arbitrary? I don't believe I did, but perhaps you misinterpreted what I said. Anyway. Gravity is a poor example. Gravity can be proved through science. Science can prove gravity in such a way that there is no question about it. Values cannot proven to be right, because, we must ask ourselves, 'What are values?' Values are a set of beliefs we invented to justify actions. Values are a result of human intelligence to order ourselves. Values are arbitrary because they are not absolute. Values are wholly beliefs and not facts -- unlike gravity, values change between person to person. Unless you believe values are instituted by God.  Also, opinions and morality are hopelessly different - saying green is cooler that purple is an opinion; saying murder is wrong is a moral. See the difference? One is asthetic in its purpose; the other ethical. And yes, there must be moral absolutes; otherwise there are no right and wrong, which means I can go kill someone and no one can accuse me of doing something I shouldn't have. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Dec 3, 2004 16:34:37 GMT -5
To focus more on tolerance: I believe, tolerance is simply allowing others to have and to hold their own views, as long as they do not cause harm to others. It does not mean agreeing with or believing in those views. Part of tolerance is tolerating intolerance  A tolerant society is easily created by removing extremism, and perhaps in a way, some religion. Without religion, the values believed absolute and irrefutable by some, are not present. Britain is an extremely tolerant society, and has a very low number of extremist religious people. A kind of secular set of values arise, formed mostly by society's influences and thoughts for the best, and thus tolerance becomes easy, due to similar beliefs. This is not to say there is no religion in Britain - there are a large number of religions, but they do not condemn. Most preach tolerance, in fact. As long as their values are constant with this society, the actual religious beliefs don't matter. If they believe this and that to be crimes, and this not be, then the fact that they believe monkeys made the earth out of cheese is irrelevant. Then we also must remove atheism, for it is a religion; just as black is *not* color, rather the abscence of, so is atheism. Black is still a standard crayon color for Crayola. Also, many "secular" values are very harmful: abortion, which robs a fetus of potential life (cut it however you want, the thing ceases to live, or, if you don't like that, it is robbed of its chance to live), one that is far more obscure (don't say I didn't say few believe it), i.e. the "survival of the fittest" where dumb and elderly people shouldn't have a right to live and are a strain on the economy; also that there is no right and wrong, the fastest way to breed pure anarchy. And Oily... every belief - including secularism - condemns. Secularism condemns (absolute) morals If you have different religious beliefs, how can you have the same values? By that, I mean near exact, as you seemed to imply. o0 Please explain a little more, I'm kinda confused. Oily, if you don't believe your beliefs are right, why do you believe them? Not saying you're wrong, just... why do you? And if you can prove something to yourself, you can do so to others. Trust me. And to believe that someone else is wrong is not egotism; I say whoever claims the sky of blueberries is wrong, and I'm not an egotist for saying so. So if the popular vote disagrees with your morals, you will abandon them? And religious values tend to directly tie in with the moral, inasmuch as I know. If it's ok, can you explain to me a little more? I will tolerate any belief, but I will neither condone nor apoprove of it. And there are beliefs (i.e. how old is the world, why some things happened in the Bible, etc.) that don't mess with my actual faith I am open to opinion to. The only things I find concrete are things that pass judgment, all of which show potential harm since God isnt a cosmic killjoy (and I say homosexual marriage can cause harm, but that's another topic). Those are my beliefs in a very small nutshell. Same, but some find beliefs that don't harm others actually can, and vice versa, and that is where things become 'complicated'. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Dec 5, 2004 7:47:56 GMT -5
Then we also must remove atheism, for it is a religion; just as black is *not* color, rather the abscence of, so is atheism. Black is still a standard crayon color for Crayola. Atheism, in itself, I do not believe a religion (Yes, I know some court judged it so). But yes, it is a “colour”. It is actively denying the existence of God. And I would agree with you that is should not be there. Religion is, therefore, actively acknowledging it. It is also a “colour.” I did not suggest that society changes itself to actively deny a god – that would be horrific, and I would be against it. Imagining that world give me shivers. Merely, the issue just does not come up. The existence is neither denied nor accepted. It is just left to you. That is secularism. Unfortunately, some religions believe that by not actively mentioning god the whole time, you are denying him. This is not true Lack of religion and atheism does not mean acceptance or condemnation of them. It means ignoring them, allowing people to hold their own views. Black is how society should be. An absence of mentioning belief in God doesn’t equal an absence of belief in him. Also, many "secular" values are very harmful: abortion, which robs a fetus of potential life (cut it however you want, the thing ceases to live, or, if you don't like that, it is robbed of its chance to live), one that is far more obscure (don't say I didn't say few believe it), i.e. the "survival of the fittest" where dumb and elderly people shouldn't have a right to live and are a strain on the economy; also that there is no right and wrong, the fastest way to breed pure anarchy. Yep, some secular values you would believe harmful, and some I would believe harmful also. But these do not have to be accepted secular values. It is possible to be without religion, and still not believe in abortion. If society in general begins to understand the reasoning behind this, then it will change. The abortion issue does not have to be influenced by religion. Secular values ever shift, but religious ones do rarely. As society changes, so do the secular values. And Oily... every belief - including secularism - condemns. Secularism condemns (absolute) morals I wasn’t saying secularism doesn’t condemn I was just saying our religions tend to be less extreme, I think, and more liberal in general. If you have different religious beliefs, how can you have the same values? By that, I mean near exact, as you seemed to imply. o0 Please explain a little more, I'm kinda confused. This is where you see where I come from. Religion does not matter. Values are held independently of religion, perhaps influenced by them, but independent. Whether you believe in God A or God B, it is possible to interpret your holy book/holy teachings to find that the overall message is one of love, tolerance, justice, equality and so on. All my friends are for gay marriage, from Christian to atheist – the Bible may condemn it a couple of times, but they have just accepted the overall message of love and tolerance over it. It is possible to share the same values regardless of religion. On things like abortion, some are for, some are against. But it is personal beliefs and views that change this. You will see no difference between the religious ones of us and the non religious, except belief in a god. The other values must be decided by the person, perhaps incorporating their church’s view. And so, most of my friends share the same values, irrespective of religion. If we differ, it is not because of religion, but because of ourselves, and we have logic, and fact, to back us up. Oily, if you don't believe your beliefs are right, why do you believe them? Not saying you're wrong, just... why do you? And if you can prove something to yourself, you can do so to others. Trust me. And to believe that someone else is wrong is not egotism; I say whoever claims the sky of blueberries is wrong, and I'm not an egotist for saying so. I believe they are right to some extent. I believe for me, that they make most sense, on available information, here and now. I do not believe they are right beyond reasonable doubt, that they are right for now and for ever, and are the only truth. I can prove it to myself, but that does not mean I can prove it to others. If you have your own iron cast beliefs, then they will be too hard to change – and I would not rob someone of their religion. You can prove to people that the sky is not made of blueberries, by explaining light and scattering and atmospheres and science. But religion is belief, not science, though it may be influenced by it. The reason that the sky being made of blueberries is not a common belief, is because it has been disproved. Until someone can definitely prove or disprove God’s existence, I have chosen not to believe. But to tell everyone that God cannot exist because I say so, and my view is the only one that matters – that is egotism to me. I would not wish everyone to be atheist. I just wish them to hold the same moral values So if the popular vote disagrees with your morals, you will abandon them? And religious values tend to directly tie in with the moral, inasmuch as I know. If it's ok, can you explain to me a little more? Hmm, I’m not really sure what I was saying in that passage. I will always believe my morals and values right if I have looked at evidence to prove them so and thought about them properly. When others believe in my values, I will think the people who believe in them right, and others who do not share those exact beliefs wrong. But this depends on the strength of the argument against. I am for abortion, and yet I also totally see how people are against it. I have just made a decision for myself. But on some issues, I cannot see any sense to the other side, and so will believe myself in the right there. I will tolerate any belief, but I will neither condone nor apoprove of it. And there are beliefs (i.e. how old is the world, why some things happened in the Bible, etc.) that don't mess with my actual faith I am open to opinion to. The only things I find concrete are things that pass judgment, all of which show potential harm since God isnt a cosmic killjoy (and I say homosexual marriage can cause harm, but that's another topic). Those are my beliefs in a very small nutshell. I approve, even, of many views on God. Some views are very beautiful. I approve of the direction and salvation of a person that faith can bring. You see, your beliefs are also in believing in the strength of your beliefs Some find the age of the world as solid and concentrate as the judgement – it’s all the word of God, it’s all in the Bible, it’s all absolute truth. How can you pick and judge the bits to be absolutely true, and the bits you believe open to debate? That is your belief too Same, but some find beliefs that don't harm others actually can, and vice versa, and that is where things become 'complicated'. Mm, but evidence can be used to prove some things are harmful. If there was a strong belief in beating women, it could be proved it was injurious to their mental and physical health. I have not found that a belief in a certain deity by one person is harmful to another (unless that person is very intolerant and seeks to cause harm to those who believe differently). However, some things can be proved not harmful, and the evidence should be carefully considered here. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Dec 5, 2004 9:55:46 GMT -5
Only one comment I wanted to make to Oily: About why I believe some views are "concrete" and others not: Some views directly affect the Christian faith. Others, like I said, the age of the world, do not affect salvation or whether or not God exists. And thank you for explaining to me what you meant.  |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Dec 5, 2004 10:38:58 GMT -5
Mm, but evidence can be used to prove some things are harmful. If there was a strong belief in beating women, it could be proved it was injurious to their mental and physical health. I have not found that a belief in a certain deity by one person is harmful to another (unless that person is very intolerant and seeks to cause harm to those who believe differently). However, some things can be proved not harmful, and the evidence should be carefully considered here. But what you COULDN'T prove is that what's harmful to women is harmful to the world. See, that's how it is with animals. No one denies that eating hamburgers is bad for cows, but they still believe there's nothing wrong with it. By that logic, you could also systematicly section off parts of humanity as "okay to hurt." By the time you start doing that, it becomes difficult to draw a line at all. Eventually, human life, the core of all morality, becomes irrelevant. So we're back to everything being arbitrary. But that's a paradox, so we're back to there actually being some set of rules of right and wrong ordained by something greater. But since that too is impossible to prove, what we eventually have to fall back on is sheer hopelessness, and knowledge that we are all wrong, but that we couldn't function if we let that knowledge get in the way of what we believe. Yes, I'm aware that what I'm saying is complete nonsense. But it's so much FUN! I personally believe that this reality IS fundamentally skewed, that it does in fact exist in paradoxes and that we're programmed to not be able to wrap our puny minds around it. Basicly, I think that the formula for the universe could very well be said to be 7x8=42, because it was created in a different reality, where even worldly absolutes like math are arbitrary. When you start learning about higher sciences such as quantum mechanics, you realize that this is a very distinct possibility. I have found this to be a very healthy belief, because when I embrace it my mind burns itself out in its futile mission to understand, leaving me to follow my heart. Which brings us to another impossible point: that it's possible to truely believe something not because you think you know it, but because believing it is beneficial. And not just manufactured beliefs you create to serve your purposes (such as Calvin's decision that virtue is arbitrary, to refer back to the beginning of the thread) but core values that you've invested your entire soul in. Me, I find beliefs that are beneficial easier to believe, because it seems to me they were made that way for a reason. But that goes back to my belief that we were created by something ultimately good and yet existing outside the realm of good and evil, that could bend reality in ways we could never even imagine. Another paradox. Yay! Okay, okay, one more. This one about the difference between knowledge and belief. What if we live in a world where some beliefs are actually truer than scientific knowledge? This would work in a nillist world, an illusion world, or a world, as I said earlier, founded on an external system of 7x8=42 where internally it equals 56. In such a world, anything you could prove scientificly would be true within the illusion or the system, but on a grander scale it would be completely incorrect. Then, the only things a human mind could concieve that would be accurate would be ideas founded outside of and perhaps contrary to the realm of science. Okay, I have to stop now. My brain is breaking. Wheee! It feels all tingly and free! |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Dec 5, 2004 10:45:54 GMT -5
But what you COULDN'T prove is that what's harmful to women is harmful to the world. See, that's how it is with animals. No one denies that eating hamburgers is bad for cows, but they still believe there's nothing wrong with it. By that logic, you could also systematicly section off parts of humanity as "okay to hurt." By the time you start doing that, it becomes difficult to draw a line at all. Eventually, human life, the core of all morality, becomes irrelevant. So we're back to everything being arbitrary. But that's a paradox, so we're back to there actually being some set of rules of right and wrong ordained by something greater. But since that too is impossible to prove, what we eventually have to fall back on is sheer hopelessness, and knowledge that we are all wrong, but that we couldn't function if we let that knowledge get in the way of what we believe. Yes, I'm aware that what I'm saying is complete nonsense. But it's so much FUN! I personally believe that this reality IS fundamentally skewed, that it does in fact exist in paradoxes and that we're programmed to not be able to wrap our puny minds around it. Basicly, I think that the formula for the universe could very well be said to be 7x8=42, because it was created in a different reality, where even worldly absolutes like math are arbitrary. When you start learning about higher sciences such as quantum mechanics, you realize that this is a very distinct possibility. I have found this to be a very healthy belief, because when I embrace it my mind burns itself out in its futile mission to understand, leaving me to follow my heart. Which brings us to another impossible point: that it's possible to truely believe something not because you think you know it, but because believing it is beneficial. And not just manufactured beliefs you create to serve your purposes (such as Calvin's decision that virtue is arbitrary, to refer back to the beginning of the thread) but core values that you've invested your entire soul in. Me, I find beliefs that are beneficial easier to believe, because it seems to me they were made that way for a reason. But that goes back to my belief that we were created by something ultimately good and yet existing outside the realm of good and evil, that could bend reality in ways we could never even imagine. Another paradox. Yay! Okay, okay, one more. This one about the difference between knowledge and belief. What if we live in a world where some beliefs are actually truer than scientific knowledge? This would work in a nillist world, an illusion world, or a world, as I said earlier, founded on an external system of 7x8=42 where internally it equals 56. In such a world, anything you could prove scientificly would be true within the illusion or the system, but on a grander scale it would be completely incorrect. Then, the only things a human mind could concieve that would be accurate would be ideas founded outside of and perhaps contrary to the realm of science. Okay, I have to stop now. My brain is breaking. Wheee! It feels all tingly and free! ... You just broke my brain. I shall now follow my heart. Crystal's heart: OMG LYK DRAW KANRIK/KASS SLASH!!!111!! NOWNOWNOW^12863r4923y40!!!111!!! OMG LYK why the fail PR0N!!!!!111!!!111!!! >___________< On second thought.... |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Dec 5, 2004 10:55:37 GMT -5
*blink* *again* See, some of those aren't really paradoxes, but the others... Are you sure that was a tingly, free sensation instead of a throbbing, advil-desiring one? |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Dec 5, 2004 16:23:34 GMT -5
But what you COULDN'T prove is that what's harmful to women is harmful to the world. See, that's how it is with animals. No one denies that eating hamburgers is bad for cows, but they still believe there's nothing wrong with it. By that logic, you could also systematicly section off parts of humanity as "okay to hurt." By the time you start doing that, it becomes difficult to draw a line at all. Eventually, human life, the core of all morality, becomes irrelevant. So we're back to everything being arbitrary. But that's a paradox, so we're back to there actually being some set of rules of right and wrong ordained by something greater. But since that too is impossible to prove, what we eventually have to fall back on is sheer hopelessness, and knowledge that we are all wrong, but that we couldn't function if we let that knowledge get in the way of what we believe. Yes, I'm aware that what I'm saying is complete nonsense. But it's so much FUN! I personally believe that this reality IS fundamentally skewed, that it does in fact exist in paradoxes and that we're programmed to not be able to wrap our puny minds around it. Basicly, I think that the formula for the universe could very well be said to be 7x8=42, because it was created in a different reality, where even worldly absolutes like math are arbitrary. When you start learning about higher sciences such as quantum mechanics, you realize that this is a very distinct possibility. I have found this to be a very healthy belief, because when I embrace it my mind burns itself out in its futile mission to understand, leaving me to follow my heart. Which brings us to another impossible point: that it's possible to truely believe something not because you think you know it, but because believing it is beneficial. And not just manufactured beliefs you create to serve your purposes (such as Calvin's decision that virtue is arbitrary, to refer back to the beginning of the thread) but core values that you've invested your entire soul in. Me, I find beliefs that are beneficial easier to believe, because it seems to me they were made that way for a reason. But that goes back to my belief that we were created by something ultimately good and yet existing outside the realm of good and evil, that could bend reality in ways we could never even imagine. Another paradox. Yay! Okay, okay, one more. This one about the difference between knowledge and belief. What if we live in a world where some beliefs are actually truer than scientific knowledge? This would work in a nillist world, an illusion world, or a world, as I said earlier, founded on an external system of 7x8=42 where internally it equals 56. In such a world, anything you could prove scientificly would be true within the illusion or the system, but on a grander scale it would be completely incorrect. Then, the only things a human mind could concieve that would be accurate would be ideas founded outside of and perhaps contrary to the realm of science. Okay, I have to stop now. My brain is breaking. Wheee! It feels all tingly and free! I feel I should get a cookie for understanding that all Now, hamburgers. I will only eat good hamburgers, from an organic farm that we now. I think eating meat as long as the animal had a full happy life is fine. But I hate the cruelty we treat animals with, and it should be changed. But cows are not humans. However, your beliefs in vegetarianism are based in fact in some way. We know animals feel pain, we can see that they suffer. And, you could prove beating women was harmful to the world, in some way or another. As you could with cows, if necessary. No part of humanity is OK to hurt. To punish if they cause harm to others - then yes. That is why we have laws and a legal system. In which case, what man was not meant to know, he shall never comprehend. If we cannot judge what to be truer within the illusion, then let us obey the rules of the illusion. If it exists, if science exists within it, then we may as well base our morals on scientific values. If the universe is paradoxical, then we cannot hope to understand it, and need never try. So we can base our values on what we think instead If we largely hold benefical values too, the illusion must exist for a reason. The value of being beneficial is also arbitary, remember ... You just broke my brain. I shall now follow my heart. Crystal's heart: OMG LYK DRAW KANRIK/KASS SLASH!!!111!! NOWNOWNOW^12863r4923y40!!!111!!! OMG LYK why the fail PR0N!!!!!111!!!111!!! >___________< On second thought.... .__. Please fix your brain soon *whimper* However, Kanrik/Galem...hmmm. 111!!!1 |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Dec 5, 2004 17:23:05 GMT -5
I feel I should get a cookie for understanding that all Now, hamburgers. I will only eat good hamburgers, from an organic farm that we now. I think eating meat as long as the animal had a full happy life is fine. But I hate the cruelty we treat animals with, and it should be changed. But cows are not humans. However, your beliefs in vegetarianism are based in fact in some way. We know animals feel pain, we can see that they suffer. And, you could prove beating women was harmful to the world, in some way or another. As you could with cows, if necessary. No part of humanity is OK to hurt. To punish if they cause harm to others - then yes. That is why we have laws and a legal system. In which case, what man was not meant to know, he shall never comprehend. If we cannot judge what to be truer within the illusion, then let us obey the rules of the illusion. If it exists, if science exists within it, then we may as well base our morals on scientific values. If the universe is paradoxical, then we cannot hope to understand it, and need never try. So we can base our values on what we think instead If we largely hold benefical values too, the illusion must exist for a reason. The value of being beneficial is also arbitary, remember I just had a thought... Why isn't it ok to hurt any humans, but you can kill an animal for its meat, regardless of it's lifespan? o0 My teacher would argue we are above animals and they don't have souls (something I don't believe 100% - still debating it), but if you don't believe in a God, therefore all animals are equal, and therefore, squashing a fly is as unjust and cruel as murdering your own dog. o0 Ok, maybe not, but nonetheless.. And how could one prove beating women is harmful tp the world, really? I "can" prove abortion is harmful, but does that mean everyone will think it is? No. With an endless tolerance of systems of belief, that's not true. And if I remember correctly, the Taliban was pretty harsh to women, and some (extreme) Muslims beat their wives to show discipline to their children.  That argument would say the beating is beneficial, by showing discpline. So where do we put the line? And Ember: the one thing wrong with your abritrarian paradox is this (ooh, big wordses ^-^) - it only works if their is no greater good Which really doesn't mean it doesn't work if you don't believe in God, so... |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Dec 5, 2004 17:46:21 GMT -5
If you read To Kill a Mockingbird, you find that it suggests that there are different rules for different people.
This is a harsh example, but in some countries, the crime isn't raping, it's being raped. They even do it as a form of punishment, and the government endorses it. It's what they see as right. Of course, those who know otherwise argue against it and are trying to change it, but do you see?
And about the no part of humanity is ok to hurt, consider this. Firstly, are you talking about humanity as a whole, or do individuals count? If individuals matter, think about this. You know abortion? Some young women are for it because having the baby might severely hurt or kill them. If the woman is a part of humanity, she's being harmed.
Who is at fault? Is it the man and woman for having sex? The man if he raped her? The womans own fault for concieving child? The child for hurting the woman? If the woman decides against abortion, she pays the price. If the woman goes for it, the child. If one suggests the man is at fault, what happens to him? He just gets a child or doesn't.
Which hurt do we tolerate? You're gonna say no one is at fault. So that negates the statement about punishing those who hurt others, because you can't find someone at fault to punish.
|
|
That argument would say the beating is beneficial, by showing discpline. So where do we put the line?