I have no problem with possibility of gods existence

[PratchettFan]

I think I have a different outlook on religion than many others. It's not all that complicated.

As a little background, I was raised in the Presbyterian Church, spent about 4 or so years of my life in a Presbyterian orphanage. I do not attend church today except for weddings or funerals. Do I believe in God? Yes. I saw the hypocrisy in my own family, I saw (and had) bloody bruising beatings in the orphanage while I heard "God is love." Oddly enough, in the orphanage the one Bible verse we were not allowed to say (because it is the shortest verse in the Bible and required no thought) was "Jesus wept."

Still, I look at religion as a necessary thing. Belief in God, Buddha, or whatever is based in faith. Rather than a building, a congregation, I think that faith is a thing inside us - our soul. A private sort of thing - our bodies being the temple of God, if you will. If this faith, or belief, is something that gives a person peace, comfort, strength against life's storms ... who is someone else to deny that?

Some churches are really hard core in their teaching/interpretations of the Bible. Others not so much. Some think every single word in the Bible was spoken by God or Jesus. Realistically thinking, I don't know how many centuries ago man started putting language down in words, but in the case of the Bible as we know it today, history tells us that as the Bible was translated from one language to another words were changed. There were words in Hebrew for which there was no matching word in another language, so interpreters had to sort of "punt" (for lack of a better word). We also have to consider that some things, rather than being absolute, are likely analogies.

I essentially think that all we need to know about how to live our lives are found in the Ten Commandments. They are all good rules and ring very, very true when one really thinks about it. Are we going to screw up sometimes and break those rules? Yes. Absolutely. We are not perfect beings. We have choices and those choices dictate our behaviors: right versus wrong; good versus evil.

I have issues with what I call the Jesus thing. I've never quite gotten my head wrapped around the Holy Trinity thing. I keep having this thought in my head that, "Thou shall have no other gods before Me." It seems to me that in Christianity it is Jesus who has become the central point of worship, with God taking a second seat as a part of this Holy Trinity. I may be wrong about that. I have my relationship with God and it works for me, no matter how screwed up it might sound to someone else. No one has to answer for me and I don't have to answer for anyone else when it comes down to sins and omissions.

A valid approach. Personally, I have always seen right vs wrong, good vs evil, as purely theoretical. What you actually get in life - at least for the decisions which really matter - is the choice between wrong and more wrong, evil and more evil. Not, how do I do good but how do I do the least harm.

And that choice whether to do right or wrong, or do good or evil is what is called conscience. Without a conscience people just don't give a damn - they do wrong, wrong and more wrong and evil, evil and more evil. They don't care about consequences, don't see consequences. They perceive themselves as "smarter than ..." Once caught, or moreover tried and convicted, have you ever noticed how some of these people don't want the death sentence for themselves? The life of someone else never crossed their mind or even mattered until that life was their own life.

The same holds true with other choices. Without conscience people can live their lives in wanton rebellion, wild promiscuity, and whatever it is they want to do without the "threat" of consequences. My opinion is that this is part of the war against religion whether anyone wants to admit to that or not. I'm not exactly sure how to state this, but conscience I think could be equated as a sort of "cause and effect" or "action and reaction" type of thing. Religion tends to bring conscience into a situation where conscience is not wanted or welcomed.

I disagree it is conscience. I think that relates more to punishment and reward. I think it is called empathy. It is an understanding that what I do affects you and I care whether or not that affect is negative. If I do not rob you because I am afraid I will be caught and punished, then my conscience is controling my behavior. If I do not rob you because it will harm you, then it is empathy. I consider the latter to be in keeping with morality.

I do not believe religion brings anything to the table in terms of moral choices. They do, however, bring punishment and reward - just as governments do. Those who require such outside influences to enforce choices which empathy would otherwise provide, certainly benefit from religion - just as they benefit from government. If fear does not stop you from hitting me over the head with a stick, it saves the surprise of finding out that I have a larger stick.

 

[Aristotle]

I'm an agnostic atheist because I find insufficient evidence to support the claim that any god exists. I'm an agnostic, with respect to some possible, as-yet-defined supernatural agent that loosely fits the definition of "god." I'm a gnostic atheist towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, and most others claimed by humans, given their internally inconsistent self-definition (ie., the Euthyphro Dilemma, the omni-potency/omniscience paradox, the evidential problem of evil).

Often, being an atheist, we are bombarded with insults such as "god-hater".

No. I am not a god hater.

If a supernatural creative force presented itself to the human race, altogether, in a grand showing whose sight was not contingent upon subjective interpretations or personal judgements about realty, but is was objectively verifiable (ie., a demonstration that could be recorded on television, seen by the whole planet, and verified by science as a supernatural force that was interacting with us), I would believe. In other words, if god came down tomorrow (god defined as a supernatural creative force for the universe, at the very least), I would believe in god.

I post this only to dispel any attempts by theists here to call me a god-hater. I logically can not hate something that does not exist. What I hate are the effects of religion on humans' behavior, who can become self-righteous, bigoted, and hateful of everyone who doesn't act according to their standard of morality, which they themselves can't keep.

More importantly, as I have hypothetically demonstrated in this thought experiment (should you have belief in my conviction), I do not hate god. I am atheist because of a lack of evidence. Should objective, verifiable evidence present itself, I would change my mind, because of the evidence. I will not do it for faith. "Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence." -Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience)

I have no problem with a person's belief. I sometimes have a problem with the corresponding actions to that belief. However, to change action, the belief must first be changed, and theists do not want to do this willingly, and understandably. Human psychology is based on core beliefs that form our identity and sense of self. Often, religious beliefs can be held at this level of core identity, in which case they are guarded with intense fury. Atheists also have core beliefs, but not tied with atheism, since it has no ontology. (My definition of atheism is "a lack of belief in god. It is NOT a belief that god doesn't exist, with certainty)

Edit: I am not going to respond to trolling, which I define as illogical emotional appeals to ridicule.

I am not Muslim but in the Holy Qur'an God says that even if he showed man clear signs of his existence (angels appearing to everyone, flying etc) people would still disbelieve

 

[Granny]

I don't present this as an argument to your concept. If you are comfortable with your beliefs then that is what matters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "First, do no harm" and "Do unto others ..."

I believe the Bible - well, I tend to give more weight to the Old Testament - contains a lot of teachings on morality. I don't think of it as "crime and punishment" so much as actions and consequences. (Although you may have gotten that impression with my comments on criminal behavior.)

I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" preachers who instill great fear into their congregation through screaming damnation. I prefer my God to be cognizant that we are not perfect and therefore be a loving and forgiving God. Jumping up and down with threats of hell and damnation and burning in flames for eternity conjure up a cruel and not so forgiving God and it just doesn't do it for me. I tend to think hell is right here on earth.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't present this as an argument to your concept. If you are comfortable with your beliefs then that is what matters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "First, do no harm" and "Do unto others ..."

I believe the Bible - well, I tend to give more weight to the Old Testament - contains a lot of teachings on morality. I don't think of it as "crime and punishment" so much as actions and consequences. (Although you may have gotten that impression with my comments on criminal behavior.)

I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" preachers who instill great fear into their congregation through screaming damnation. I prefer my God to be cognizant that we are not perfect and therefore be a loving and forgiving God. Jumping up and down with threats of hell and damnation and burning in flames for eternity conjure up a cruel and not so forgiving God and it just doesn't do it for me. I tend to think hell is right here on earth.

I don't accept the concept of hell at all. Here or anywhere. Nor does that impact what I was saying. The fear of being ostracized from the group is quite punishment enough for most people.

Morality comes from within, not from without. Morality only exists when I see you as your own person and equal to me. I do not rob from you because to do so would be wrong, not because there are consequences from it. If right or wrong comes from the group (you can read that as the Bible as well, it is the same thing) then it is not morality but conformity.

 

[tipofthespear]

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

I seriously doubt you visited the two links provided to read the entire articles....otherwise you would know, even though you may deny, that the articles directly contradict your idea of man being "born a blank slate." Given that they do an excellent job of disproving your idea, it is no surprise you would suggest they have nothing to do with what you posted.

Still, others will probably see the connection/contradiction.....and that is the purpose.

It still has nothing to do with what I posted.

Of course not, for it "refutes" the idea of man being born as a "Blank Slate." Why ever would you acknowledge your ideology as flawed?

 

[tipofthespear]

I don't present this as an argument to your concept. If you are comfortable with your beliefs then that is what matters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "First, do no harm" and "Do unto others ..."

I believe the Bible - well, I tend to give more weight to the Old Testament - contains a lot of teachings on morality. I don't think of it as "crime and punishment" so much as actions and consequences. (Although you may have gotten that impression with my comments on criminal behavior.)

I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" preachers who instill great fear into their congregation through screaming damnation. I prefer my God to be cognizant that we are not perfect and therefore be a loving and forgiving God. Jumping up and down with threats of hell and damnation and burning in flames for eternity conjure up a cruel and not so forgiving God and it just doesn't do it for me. I tend to think hell is right here on earth.

I don't accept the concept of hell at all. Here or anywhere. Nor does that impact what I was saying. The fear of being ostracized from the group is quite punishment enough for most people.

Morality comes from within, not from without. Morality only exists when I see you as your own person and equal to me. I do not rob from you because to do so would be wrong, not because there are consequences from it. If right or wrong comes from the group (you can read that as the Bible as well, it is the same thing) then it is not morality but conformity.

If, as you suggest, morality "comes from within," when exactly did this "inner born morality" come to occupy the "Blank Slate" you also believe in?

I was talking to God and He was smiling about your "not accepting the concept of hell at all." I dunno, but He was marking in a really big book, and the page had your name on it....maybe you should take the time to give thought to the various meanings of the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

(just saying...........)

 

[tipofthespear]

I don't present this as an argument to your concept. If you are comfortable with your beliefs then that is what matters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "First, do no harm" and "Do unto others ..."

I believe the Bible - well, I tend to give more weight to the Old Testament - contains a lot of teachings on morality. I don't think of it as "crime and punishment" so much as actions and consequences. (Although you may have gotten that impression with my comments on criminal behavior.)

I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" preachers who instill great fear into their congregation through screaming damnation. I prefer my God to be cognizant that we are not perfect and therefore be a loving and forgiving God. Jumping up and down with threats of hell and damnation and burning in flames for eternity conjure up a cruel and not so forgiving God and it just doesn't do it for me. I tend to think hell is right here on earth.

this makes no sense whatsoever..........

QUOTE: "I believe the Bible - well, I tend to give more weight to the Old Testament - contains a lot of teachings on morality.............................. I prefer my God to be cognizant that we are not perfect and therefore be a loving and forgiving God." END QUOTE

You say you give more "weight" to the Old Testament, which is a collection of 66 Books of writings which mostly contain the Law of God, the Laws of Moses, and all the additional burdens Jews added to God's Laws which DIRECTLY CONDEMN all mankind, for no man can live perfect to the Law.............and you "prefer your GOD to be cognizant that we are not perfect......and be a loving and forgiving God,"

AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT, THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST IS ALL ABOUT!

THE NEW TESTAMENT ESTABLISHED G-R-A-C-E!!!!!!!! Which is God's salvation plan for man...........A LOVING AND FORGIVING GOD REPLACED THE LAW WITH GRACE SO MANKIND COULD BE FORGIVEN!

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't present this as an argument to your concept. If you are comfortable with your beliefs then that is what matters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "First, do no harm" and "Do unto others ..."

I believe the Bible - well, I tend to give more weight to the Old Testament - contains a lot of teachings on morality. I don't think of it as "crime and punishment" so much as actions and consequences. (Although you may have gotten that impression with my comments on criminal behavior.)

I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" preachers who instill great fear into their congregation through screaming damnation. I prefer my God to be cognizant that we are not perfect and therefore be a loving and forgiving God. Jumping up and down with threats of hell and damnation and burning in flames for eternity conjure up a cruel and not so forgiving God and it just doesn't do it for me. I tend to think hell is right here on earth.

I don't accept the concept of hell at all. Here or anywhere. Nor does that impact what I was saying. The fear of being ostracized from the group is quite punishment enough for most people.

Morality comes from within, not from without. Morality only exists when I see you as your own person and equal to me. I do not rob from you because to do so would be wrong, not because there are consequences from it. If right or wrong comes from the group (you can read that as the Bible as well, it is the same thing) then it is not morality but conformity.

If, as you suggest, morality "comes from within," when exactly did this "inner born morality" come to occupy the "Blank Slate" you also believe in?

I was talking to God and He was smiling about your "not accepting the concept of hell at all." I dunno, but He was marking in a really big book, and the page had your name on it....maybe you should take the time to give thought to the various meanings of the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

(just saying...........)

Your god is smiling at the idea of me in hell. And you wonder why I am not impressed? Or perhaps it is just you smiling at the idea? (just saying....)

 

[Mom]

Hockey god = Wayne Gretzky
Guitar god = Jimi Hendrix

 

[Granny]

I don't present this as an argument to your concept. If you are comfortable with your beliefs then that is what matters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "First, do no harm" and "Do unto others ..."

I believe the Bible - well, I tend to give more weight to the Old Testament - contains a lot of teachings on morality. I don't think of it as "crime and punishment" so much as actions and consequences. (Although you may have gotten that impression with my comments on criminal behavior.)

I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" preachers who instill great fear into their congregation through screaming damnation. I prefer my God to be cognizant that we are not perfect and therefore be a loving and forgiving God. Jumping up and down with threats of hell and damnation and burning in flames for eternity conjure up a cruel and not so forgiving God and it just doesn't do it for me. I tend to think hell is right here on earth.

this makes no sense whatsoever..........

QUOTE: "I believe the Bible - well, I tend to give more weight to the Old Testament - contains a lot of teachings on morality.............................. I prefer my God to be cognizant that we are not perfect and therefore be a loving and forgiving God." END QUOTE

You say you give more "weight" to the Old Testament, which is a collection of 66 Books of writings which mostly contain the Law of God, the Laws of Moses, and all the additional burdens Jews added to God's Laws which DIRECTLY CONDEMN all mankind, for no man can live perfect to the Law.............and you "prefer your GOD to be cognizant that we are not perfect......and be a loving and forgiving God,"

AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT, THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST IS ALL ABOUT!

THE NEW TESTAMENT ESTABLISHED G-R-A-C-E!!!!!!!! Which is God's salvation plan for man...........A LOVING AND FORGIVING GOD REPLACED THE LAW WITH GRACE SO MANKIND COULD BE FORGIVEN!

It makes perfect sense. I think this "perfection" you speak of (or at least the only thing I've known of it) is the direction for us to be perfect as Christ was perfect. Not going to happen. "Original sin" refers to the apple incident in the Garden of Eden which was created a perfect place. Eve's disobedience caused the fall of mankind from grace. God KNOWS we're imperfect, and gave us guidelines by which to live. He also gave us free will to choose whether to do good or bad. God never "took back" the law. I was raised in a Christian church and I think Christians pay less attention to the Old Testament than they do to the teachings of Christ's disciples.

The New Testament contains the writings of the followers of Christ. Still, today, mankind believes it can create this Utopia on earth - One World Order or whatever it's called. Ain't going to happen. Mankind cannot outdo God and that's part of the rub against religion today. You do know that Jesus was a rabbi, right? Jews today still await the coming of the Messiah.

I'm sorry, but your post sort of gave me the impression that you're one of those "hellfire and damnation" screeching Christians I spoke of in an earlier post. If that's your belief, I have no problem with that ... it's just not what I believe. I believe that God looks at each of us as individuals, knows what's in our hearts and how/why it got there. I believe He takes into consideration the earthly circumstances of the individual, which is why we are responsible for our own actions/souls and not the actions/souls of others.

 

[tipofthespear]

I give you credit that you are searching Scriptures..........to discover the Truth. That is far more than some here are doing, and makes this a worthy discussion in my opinion, so I will act accordingly.

First: Because there are so many misunderstandings (in my opinion) of Scripture in your comments, we need to establish a certain understanding of the two Testaments.

Do you agree that the First Testament was "Law?"

Do you agree that the New Testament is "Grace?"

Do you believe that Law was established by God to provide Salvation for mankind?

Do you believe Grace was established by God to provide Salvation for mankind?

Do you profess to be a Christian? If so, do you realize that such a profession means that you believe in Jesus Christ, and claim Him as your Lord and Saviour, and that you "STRIVE" to walk Christ-like, and walk in "obedience" to His commandments?

If you profess that the First Testament is your belief, then you are not a Christian, for Christianity did not exist during the times prior to the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You may well consider yourself a Jew........as described in the First Testament, but that is not one in the same as being a Christian, which by definition is a disciple of Christ.

If we can come to some sort of understanding of these, then we can proceed to discuss the merits of the First and New Testaments..............Law vs. Grace.

God bless........

 

[tipofthespear]

I don't accept the concept of hell at all. Here or anywhere. Nor does that impact what I was saying. The fear of being ostracized from the group is quite punishment enough for most people.

Morality comes from within, not from without. Morality only exists when I see you as your own person and equal to me. I do not rob from you because to do so would be wrong, not because there are consequences from it. If right or wrong comes from the group (you can read that as the Bible as well, it is the same thing) then it is not morality but conformity.

If, as you suggest, morality "comes from within," when exactly did this "inner born morality" come to occupy the "Blank Slate" you also believe in?

I was talking to God and He was smiling about your "not accepting the concept of hell at all." I dunno, but He was marking in a really big book, and the page had your name on it....maybe you should take the time to give thought to the various meanings of the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

(just saying...........)

Your god is smiling at the idea of me in hell. And you wonder why I am not impressed? Or perhaps it is just you smiling at the idea? (just saying....)

Your ignorance is amusing............why don't you leave discussions of Theology to the grown ups? You know, people who actually have a concept of what the discussion entails. As well, for one who proclaims such superior intellect, how is it possible that you can't even grasp the concept of humor? Seriously, just try and prove the existence of "wind." Maybe you can accomplish that minor task eh?

 

[PratchettFan]

If, as you suggest, morality "comes from within," when exactly did this "inner born morality" come to occupy the "Blank Slate" you also believe in?

I was talking to God and He was smiling about your "not accepting the concept of hell at all." I dunno, but He was marking in a really big book, and the page had your name on it....maybe you should take the time to give thought to the various meanings of the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

(just saying...........)

Your god is smiling at the idea of me in hell. And you wonder why I am not impressed? Or perhaps it is just you smiling at the idea? (just saying....)

Your ignorance is amusing............why don't you leave discussions of Theology to the grown ups? You know, people who actually have a concept of what the discussion entails. As well, for one who proclaims such superior intellect, how is it possible that you can't even grasp the concept of humor? Seriously, just try and prove the existence of "wind." Maybe you can accomplish that minor task eh?

And you wonder why I am not impressed.

 

[tipofthespear]

Your god is smiling at the idea of me in hell. And you wonder why I am not impressed? Or perhaps it is just you smiling at the idea? (just saying....)

Your ignorance is amusing............why don't you leave discussions of Theology to the grown ups? You know, people who actually have a concept of what the discussion entails. As well, for one who proclaims such superior intellect, how is it possible that you can't even grasp the concept of humor? Seriously, just try and prove the existence of "wind." Maybe you can accomplish that minor task eh?

And you wonder why I am not impressed.

Actually, no. I do not wonder why you are not impressed. Your being "impressed" or "not impressed" is of absolutely NO IMPORTANCE to the world.

 

[PratchettFan]

Your ignorance is amusing............why don't you leave discussions of Theology to the grown ups? You know, people who actually have a concept of what the discussion entails. As well, for one who proclaims such superior intellect, how is it possible that you can't even grasp the concept of humor? Seriously, just try and prove the existence of "wind." Maybe you can accomplish that minor task eh?

And you wonder why I am not impressed.

Actually, no. I do not wonder why you are not impressed. Your being "impressed" or "not impressed" is of absolutely NO IMPORTANCE to the world.

To the world, certainly. But you, it may come as a suprise, are not the world.

Now, if you are actually interested in a discussion on theology, I'll be happy to oblige. But so far, you seem to be only interested in telling others what they are supposed to believe. That is not a discussion.

 

[Aristotle]

I don't present this as an argument to your concept. If you are comfortable with your beliefs then that is what matters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "First, do no harm" and "Do unto others ..."

I believe the Bible - well, I tend to give more weight to the Old Testament - contains a lot of teachings on morality. I don't think of it as "crime and punishment" so much as actions and consequences. (Although you may have gotten that impression with my comments on criminal behavior.)

I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" preachers who instill great fear into their congregation through screaming damnation. I prefer my God to be cognizant that we are not perfect and therefore be a loving and forgiving God. Jumping up and down with threats of hell and damnation and burning in flames for eternity conjure up a cruel and not so forgiving God and it just doesn't do it for me. I tend to think hell is right here on earth.

I don't accept the concept of hell at all. Here or anywhere. Nor does that impact what I was saying. The fear of being ostracized from the group is quite punishment enough for most people.

Morality comes from within, not from without. Morality only exists when I see you as your own person and equal to me. I do not rob from you because to do so would be wrong, not because there are consequences from it. If right or wrong comes from the group (you can read that as the Bible as well, it is the same thing) then it is not morality but conformity.

If, as you suggest, morality "comes from within," when exactly did this "inner born morality" come to occupy the "Blank Slate" you also believe in?

I was talking to God and He was smiling about your "not accepting the concept of hell at all." I dunno, but He was marking in a really big book, and the page had your name on it....maybe you should take the time to give thought to the various meanings of the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

(just saying...........)

Yea and my god laughed at yours because earth is hell for some people. My god laughed, because your god should have known that.

Just Sayin...

 

[newpolitics]

It is common statement that we are all born atheists. I think that is incorrect, we are instead all born as a blank slate. But the idea is the same. What beliefs we have are taught to us. That is an action. Our beliefs arise out of action. We then react in accordance with those beliefs and there are reactions to our actions, which modify the beliefs. But it is always action which precedes belief - even if the beliefs then modify subsequent action. But no belief makes us do anything which we would not do otherwise.

There is no action you can point to that I cannot find in someone else with an entirely different belief. Show me a religious zealot willing to kill and I'lll show you a soccer zealot willing to kill. The key here is that both of them are human, and you can always find a human zealot willing to kill. The belief isn't the source of the violence, it is just the excuse given.

It makes little sense that action precedes belief. Then, what causes the action? Are you saying action just happens, for no reason? We take in information using our five sense, asses that information, and react to the situation. The assessment is where beliefs are "consulted," in order to know what to do, or referenced against a "database" of prior experience and knowledge. What you are implying is that we are automotons who have no idea why we do anything. We simply do something, turn around and go, "well, I believe this now." Beliefs about ourself form our perceptions of ourself, and subsequently the world. If I truly believe I am a piece of shit, I am going to act that way. If I believe I am an awesome, funny person, I will act that way. If I believe the person sitting next to me has a bomb because I see a bomb on their lap, I am going to act in accordance with what I belief I see coming in through my five senses. Belief precedes action. Always. The only possible exception are instinctive reactions which bypass certain parts of the brain in order to allow a quicker reaction time in emergency situations. Even then, there is an implicit acknowledgement (however superficial) that a threat exists, and based on this awareness on whatever level, action must be taken.

So what you are saying is much what the other poster is saying. That belief simply comes into being. That poster claims it comes from God. Where do you say it comes from?

Human nature is not much different than it was when the species first evolved. Beliefs have changed, but not how we react to conditions or the violence we exhibit. Our beliefs merely justify the behavior. As I have already said, there is not a single human behavior you might relate to one belief that I can't give an example of in another. There is no human action which is created by any given belief. I believe I kill because it is for "God" or "Mom and Apple Pie" - but the reality is that I kill because I am told to.

No one is saying belief simply comes into being. It starts by processing sensory data from the world around us, which we assimilate as information, and we become CONVINCED of a proposition about the world being true, for whatever reason. That doesn't mean we are right. Belief formation is not usually voluntary, and is not a choice. I can not choose to believe I can fly, even if I wanted to. I know this to be impossible. Or, I believe the universe exists, but I can not know this. It could all be a simulation (the problem of hard solipsism) and there is no way to prove or disprove this. What you are suggesting flies in the face if epistemology. As I already said, our internal model of the exterior world, which is formed by our beliefs about the outer world, will affect how we interact with the exterior world, and this "interaction" is what we call "action." There is no way around this. Action, is different than belief, in that we don't have to act on our beliefs. We do have a choice. But even then, that is based on some belief that we have chosen was the better course of action for whatever reason. I can't think of a single instance in which an action is not referenced first against one's beliefs, except, as I said, in emergency instinctive reactions (removing ones hand from a hot stove top).

You have simply made a claim that belief follows action but failed to explain this at all, and dump responsibility for action on human nature. This is a placeholder for something you can not explain, and this is as vacuous as saying "god did it." You provide no mechanism for what determines our action, and hence no explanatory power. "Human nature" is not a causal explanation, but a descriptive one of a general set of behavioral characteristics associated with our species. Please provide a cause for generic action other than this, as it inadequately explains the phenomenon at hand.

 

[PratchettFan]

It makes little sense that action precedes belief. Then, what causes the action? Are you saying action just happens, for no reason? We take in information using our five sense, asses that information, and react to the situation. The assessment is where beliefs are "consulted," in order to know what to do, or referenced against a "database" of prior experience and knowledge. What you are implying is that we are automotons who have no idea why we do anything. We simply do something, turn around and go, "well, I believe this now." Beliefs about ourself form our perceptions of ourself, and subsequently the world. If I truly believe I am a piece of shit, I am going to act that way. If I believe I am an awesome, funny person, I will act that way. If I believe the person sitting next to me has a bomb because I see a bomb on their lap, I am going to act in accordance with what I belief I see coming in through my five senses. Belief precedes action. Always. The only possible exception are instinctive reactions which bypass certain parts of the brain in order to allow a quicker reaction time in emergency situations. Even then, there is an implicit acknowledgement (however superficial) that a threat exists, and based on this awareness on whatever level, action must be taken.

So what you are saying is much what the other poster is saying. That belief simply comes into being. That poster claims it comes from God. Where do you say it comes from?

Human nature is not much different than it was when the species first evolved. Beliefs have changed, but not how we react to conditions or the violence we exhibit. Our beliefs merely justify the behavior. As I have already said, there is not a single human behavior you might relate to one belief that I can't give an example of in another. There is no human action which is created by any given belief. I believe I kill because it is for "God" or "Mom and Apple Pie" - but the reality is that I kill because I am told to.

No one is saying belief simply comes into being. It starts by processing sensory data from the world around us, which we assimilate as information, and we become CONVINCED of a proposition about the world being true, for whatever reason. That doesn't mean we are right. Belief formation is not usually voluntary, and is not a choice. I can not choose to believe I can fly, even if I wanted to. I know this to be impossible. Or, I believe the universe exists, but I can not know this. It could all be a simulation (the problem of hard solipsism) and there is no way to prove or disprove this. What you are suggesting flies in the face if epistemology. As I already said, our internal model of the exterior world, which is formed by our beliefs about the outer world, will affect how we interact with the exterior world, and this "interaction" is what we call "action." There is no way around this. Action, is different than belief, in that we don't have to act on our beliefs. We do have a choice. But even then, that is based on some belief that we have chosen was the better course of action for whatever reason. I can't think of a single instance in which an action is not referenced first against one's beliefs, except, as I said, in emergency instinctive reactions (removing ones hand from a hot stove top).

You have simply made a claim that belief follows action but failed to explain this at all, and dump responsibility for action on human nature. This is a placeholder for something you can not explain, and this is as vacuous as saying "god did it." You provide no mechanism for what determines our action, and hence no explanatory power. "Human nature" is not a causal explanation, but a descriptive one of a general set of behavioral characteristics associated with our species. Please provide a cause for generic action other than this, as it inadequately explains the phenomenon at hand.

I agree we become convinced by sensory input, but that is action. We are told certain things are true and we accept them, which is also action. Human beings are animals and we react to our environment as animals. If certain beliefs are re-enforced, we follow them. If we received negative re-enforcement we drop them. It's your basic Skinner box. I'm not sure how else to describe that in a brief manner other than calling it "human nature".

Belief is merely an example of human behavior, it is not a cause. One person will believe as strongly as another but will not cause anyone harm, while another person with exactly the same belief will kill. It is not the belief which does it, it is the nature of the person to resort to violence. Take away the belief and the violence does not go away, it just manifests in a different belief.

Most of us are quite capable of extreme violence. All we require is someone to tell us to do it. This too is merely an excuse. And, in fact, is exactly the same thing as a religious fanatic. After all, whether the order comes from God or from amorphous "leader", it all boils down to just following orders.

 

[tipofthespear]

I don't accept the concept of hell at all. Here or anywhere. Nor does that impact what I was saying. The fear of being ostracized from the group is quite punishment enough for most people.

Morality comes from within, not from without. Morality only exists when I see you as your own person and equal to me. I do not rob from you because to do so would be wrong, not because there are consequences from it. If right or wrong comes from the group (you can read that as the Bible as well, it is the same thing) then it is not morality but conformity.

If, as you suggest, morality "comes from within," when exactly did this "inner born morality" come to occupy the "Blank Slate" you also believe in?

I was talking to God and He was smiling about your "not accepting the concept of hell at all." I dunno, but He was marking in a really big book, and the page had your name on it....maybe you should take the time to give thought to the various meanings of the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

(just saying...........)

Yea and my god laughed at yours because earth is hell for some people. My god laughed, because your god should have known that.

Just Sayin...

Two points, the first being the most important.............for you have now, in writing, claimed to have A GOD that you serve..............that refutes much of what I have read in your other comments...........

Second, if you or your god believe earth is "hell," you guys are in for a huge shock one day. .........just saying........This earthy life can at times be "hellish," but it is far from Hell. For, in this earthy life there is both good and evil, light and darkness, happiness and sorrow, life and death............but in Hell, there is NO GOOD, NO LIGHT, NO HAPPINESS....there is only evil, darkness and sorrow.

Every person that lives has at one time or another experienced the things I mentioned, and for that reason your suggestion that "earth is hell" falls short of any reasonable acceptability.

 

[Mom]

If, as you suggest, morality "comes from within," when exactly did this "inner born morality" come to occupy the "Blank Slate" you also believe in?

I was talking to God and He was smiling about your "not accepting the concept of hell at all." I dunno, but He was marking in a really big book, and the page had your name on it....maybe you should take the time to give thought to the various meanings of the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

(just saying...........)

Yea and my god laughed at yours because earth is hell for some people. My god laughed, because your god should have known that.

Just Sayin...

Two points, the first being the most important.............for you have now, in writing, claimed to have A GOD that you serve..............that refutes much of what I have read in your other comments...........

Second, if you or your god believe earth is "hell," you guys are in for a huge shock one day. .........just saying........This earthy life can at times be "hellish," but it is far from Hell. For, in this earthy life there is both good and evil, light and darkness, happiness and sorrow, life and death............but in Hell, there is NO GOOD, NO LIGHT, NO HAPPINESS....there is only evil, darkness and sorrow.

Every person that lives has at one time or another experienced the things I mentioned, and for that reason your suggestion that "earth is hell" falls short of any reasonable acceptability.

You lie, the Great Spaghetti Monster says there is no hell when you die, just good food. Your god is mean, mine's much nicer. Good luck with that.