Reality and Morality

[Skylar]

It depends on the disagreement.

I know that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

And someone that believes that salvation is found through the word of Allah, as revealed by his prophet Mohammad......deluded by the devil, are they?

It's the standard nowhere end to all religious conversations. Where it becomes so incredibly circular it's impossible to have any further discussion.

He has simply presented the argument that you are wrong because he is right.

It is the most simple form of begging the question.

The only thing left for him to do is prove that he is right. You and I both know he can't. The argument is over you have won.

And that's my point. Even using the logic of religion, almost all theists are self deluded. As almost all religions are mutually exclusive. So if one is right, all others are wrong. We have only 3 logical conclusions.

1) That god tells different people different things.
2) That only one sect is correct about the 'will of god' and all other theists are self deluded.
3) That no one is corrrect about the will of god.

The first conclusion obliterates the foundation of 'universal truth'. The second means that its ridiculously unlikely that any given mutually exclusive sect is right. The third means that no theist knows the will of God.

Which means, AT BEST, its ridiculously unlikely that any given sect is correct. And far, far more likely that they are wrong. And entirely possible that all of them are wrong. And that's if we accept the axioms 1) There is a god 2) he has a plan for us 3) that plan is knowable.

And none of those axioms are necessarily true either. Rendering theism as a whole a very, very poor bet for universal truth.

I agree with number three.

Universal truth really has nothing to do with theism.

LoL. It's impossible to be certain with #3. I doubt you know what others know, which makes your claim of universal error to be based on pure fantasy. LoL.

It is impossible to be certain with number 3. Which is kind of the point. In scenario number 2, there are billions of theists that are 'certain'. And they're also wrong and self deluded.

So certainty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accuracy.

 

[Mertex]

In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly interfering with our natural inclinations. C. S. Lewis

I think morals are lubricant between people. Not within them. If there were only one person on earth I think it would be very difficult for them to commit an immoral act.

Morals had to come from somewhere......within someone's mind or soul, not out of thin air.

 

[Skylar]

In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly interfering with our natural inclinations. C. S. Lewis

I think morals are lubricant between people. Not within them. If there were only one person on earth I think it would be very difficult for them to commit an immoral act.

Morals had to come from somewhere......within someone's mind or soul, not out of thin air.

Oh, morals come from within a person. But its mostly for the benefit of others. Murder, theft, rape, lies, etc all require a second party.

 

[Mertex]

In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly interfering with our natural inclinations. C. S. Lewis

I think morals are lubricant between people. Not within them. If there were only one person on earth I think it would be very difficult for them to commit an immoral act.

Morals had to come from somewhere......within someone's mind or soul, not out of thin air.

Oh, morals come from within a person. But its mostly for the benefit of others. Murder, theft, rape, lies, etc all require a second party.

I was just responding to your comment where you said "not within them"....but I don't agree that it is just for the benefit of others. Doing what is good gives a person a sense of well-being, Many crimes do require an action against another person, but if there was only one person on earth, that one person could be driven to suicide.

 

[Skylar]

In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly interfering with our natural inclinations. C. S. Lewis

I think morals are lubricant between people. Not within them. If there were only one person on earth I think it would be very difficult for them to commit an immoral act.

Morals had to come from somewhere......within someone's mind or soul, not out of thin air.

Oh, morals come from within a person. But its mostly for the benefit of others. Murder, theft, rape, lies, etc all require a second party.

I was just responding to your comment where you said "not within them"....but I don't agree that it is just for the benefit of others. Doing what is good gives a person a sense of well-being, Many crimes do require an action against another person, but if there was only one person on earth, that one person could be driven to suicide.

I didn't say 'just'. I said mostly. And 'doing good' overwhelmingly involves some other person. If there were no other person on earth, it would be very difficult for you to commit an immoral act.

And I don't think I've ever said that morality can't be generated internally. The application of one's own capacity for moral reasoning in making morally sound choices is one of my foundational arguments. My 'not within them' is the lubricant effects of morality.

 

[Inevitable]

And someone that believes that salvation is found through the word of Allah, as revealed by his prophet Mohammad......deluded by the devil, are they?

It's the standard nowhere end to all religious conversations. Where it becomes so incredibly circular it's impossible to have any further discussion.

He has simply presented the argument that you are wrong because he is right.

It is the most simple form of begging the question.

The only thing left for him to do is prove that he is right. You and I both know he can't. The argument is over you have won.

And that's my point. Even using the logic of religion, almost all theists are self deluded. As almost all religions are mutually exclusive. So if one is right, all others are wrong. We have only 3 logical conclusions.

1) That god tells different people different things.
2) That only one sect is correct about the 'will of god' and all other theists are self deluded.
3) That no one is corrrect about the will of god.

The first conclusion obliterates the foundation of 'universal truth'. The second means that its ridiculously unlikely that any given mutually exclusive sect is right. The third means that no theist knows the will of God.

Which means, AT BEST, its ridiculously unlikely that any given sect is correct. And far, far more likely that they are wrong. And entirely possible that all of them are wrong. And that's if we accept the axioms 1) There is a god 2) he has a plan for us 3) that plan is knowable.

And none of those axioms are necessarily true either. Rendering theism as a whole a very, very poor bet for universal truth.

I agree with number three.

Universal truth really has nothing to do with theism.

LoL. It's impossible to be certain with #3. I doubt you know what others know, which makes your claim of universal error to be based on pure fantasy. LoL.

It is impossible to be certain with number 3. Which is kind of the point. In scenario number 2, there are billions of theists that are 'certain'. And they're also wrong and self deluded.

So certainty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accuracy.

A healthy level of skepticism as well as understanding human nature can really help in defining who you should listen to.

I like to talk about ideas with people but I don't care to hear church/cult dogma barked back at me. Those aren't ideas they are blank minded rantings of fools.

So few people in this subject have ideas.

Any time I hear somebody tell me that some arrogant church dogma is correct I basically write them off as idiots.

 

[Inevitable]

In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly interfering with our natural inclinations. C. S. Lewis

I think morals are lubricant between people. Not within them. If there were only one person on earth I think it would be very difficult for them to commit an immoral act.

Morals had to come from somewhere......within someone's mind or soul, not out of thin air.

Empathy, they come from empathy.

 

[Skylar]

It's the standard nowhere end to all religious conversations. Where it becomes so incredibly circular it's impossible to have any further discussion.

He has simply presented the argument that you are wrong because he is right.

It is the most simple form of begging the question.

The only thing left for him to do is prove that he is right. You and I both know he can't. The argument is over you have won.

And that's my point. Even using the logic of religion, almost all theists are self deluded. As almost all religions are mutually exclusive. So if one is right, all others are wrong. We have only 3 logical conclusions.

1) That god tells different people different things.
2) That only one sect is correct about the 'will of god' and all other theists are self deluded.
3) That no one is corrrect about the will of god.

The first conclusion obliterates the foundation of 'universal truth'. The second means that its ridiculously unlikely that any given mutually exclusive sect is right. The third means that no theist knows the will of God.

Which means, AT BEST, its ridiculously unlikely that any given sect is correct. And far, far more likely that they are wrong. And entirely possible that all of them are wrong. And that's if we accept the axioms 1) There is a god 2) he has a plan for us 3) that plan is knowable.

And none of those axioms are necessarily true either. Rendering theism as a whole a very, very poor bet for universal truth.

I agree with number three.

Universal truth really has nothing to do with theism.

LoL. It's impossible to be certain with #3. I doubt you know what others know, which makes your claim of universal error to be based on pure fantasy. LoL.

It is impossible to be certain with number 3. Which is kind of the point. In scenario number 2, there are billions of theists that are 'certain'. And they're also wrong and self deluded.

So certainty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accuracy.

A healthy level of skepticism as well as understanding human nature can really help in defining who you should listen to.

I like to talk about ideas with people but I don't care to hear church/cult dogma barked back at me. Those aren't ideas they are blank minded rantings of fools.

So few people in this subject have ideas.

Any time I hear somebody tell me that some arrogant church dogma is correct I basically write them off as idiots.

I think certainty is a prerequisite of extremism. You don't find many suicide bombers who are filled with a healthy skepticism. You have to believe absolutely.

That's not to say that anyone who is certain is a suicide bomber. Only that they've crossed a threshold that every suicide bomber did.

Even rationally, absolute certainty is stupid. As it precludes the possibility of additional information. And tends to encourage a person to embrace the confirmation fallacy. It'll go as far as reasonably sure. But I always leave room for the possibility that I could be wrong. As I may be.

 

[Inevitable]

And that's my point. Even using the logic of religion, almost all theists are self deluded. As almost all religions are mutually exclusive. So if one is right, all others are wrong. We have only 3 logical conclusions.

1) That god tells different people different things.
2) That only one sect is correct about the 'will of god' and all other theists are self deluded.
3) That no one is corrrect about the will of god.

The first conclusion obliterates the foundation of 'universal truth'. The second means that its ridiculously unlikely that any given mutually exclusive sect is right. The third means that no theist knows the will of God.

Which means, AT BEST, its ridiculously unlikely that any given sect is correct. And far, far more likely that they are wrong. And entirely possible that all of them are wrong. And that's if we accept the axioms 1) There is a god 2) he has a plan for us 3) that plan is knowable.

And none of those axioms are necessarily true either. Rendering theism as a whole a very, very poor bet for universal truth.

I agree with number three.

Universal truth really has nothing to do with theism.

LoL. It's impossible to be certain with #3. I doubt you know what others know, which makes your claim of universal error to be based on pure fantasy. LoL.

It is impossible to be certain with number 3. Which is kind of the point. In scenario number 2, there are billions of theists that are 'certain'. And they're also wrong and self deluded.

So certainty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accuracy.

A healthy level of skepticism as well as understanding human nature can really help in defining who you should listen to.

I like to talk about ideas with people but I don't care to hear church/cult dogma barked back at me. Those aren't ideas they are blank minded rantings of fools.

So few people in this subject have ideas.

Any time I hear somebody tell me that some arrogant church dogma is correct I basically write them off as idiots.

I think certainty is a prerequisite of extremism. You don't find many suicide bombers who are filled with a healthy skepticism. You have to believe absolutely.

That's not to say that anyone who is certain is a suicide bomber. Only that they've crossed a threshold that every suicide bomber did.

Even rationally, absolute certainty is stupid. As it precludes the possibility of additional information. And tends to encourage a person to embrace the confirmation fallacy. It'll go as far as reasonably sure. But I always leave room for the possibility that I could be wrong. As I may be.

Wonderfully stated.

 

[MaxGrit]

And that's my point. Even using the logic of religion, almost all theists are self deluded. As almost all religions are mutually exclusive. So if one is right, all others are wrong. We have only 3 logical conclusions.

1) That god tells different people different things.
2) That only one sect is correct about the 'will of god' and all other theists are self deluded.
3) That no one is corrrect about the will of god.

The first conclusion obliterates the foundation of 'universal truth'. The second means that its ridiculously unlikely that any given mutually exclusive sect is right. The third means that no theist knows the will of God.

Which means, AT BEST, its ridiculously unlikely that any given sect is correct. And far, far more likely that they are wrong. And entirely possible that all of them are wrong. And that's if we accept the axioms 1) There is a god 2) he has a plan for us 3) that plan is knowable.

And none of those axioms are necessarily true either. Rendering theism as a whole a very, very poor bet for universal truth.

I agree with number three.

Universal truth really has nothing to do with theism.

LoL. It's impossible to be certain with #3. I doubt you know what others know, which makes your claim of universal error to be based on pure fantasy. LoL.

It is impossible to be certain with number 3. Which is kind of the point. In scenario number 2, there are billions of theists that are 'certain'. And they're also wrong and self deluded.

So certainty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accuracy.

A healthy level of skepticism as well as understanding human nature can really help in defining who you should listen to.

I like to talk about ideas with people but I don't care to hear church/cult dogma barked back at me. Those aren't ideas they are blank minded rantings of fools.

So few people in this subject have ideas.

Any time I hear somebody tell me that some arrogant church dogma is correct I basically write them off as idiots.

I think certainty is a prerequisite of extremism. You don't find many suicide bombers who are filled with a healthy skepticism. You have to believe absolutely.

That's not to say that anyone who is certain is a suicide bomber. Only that they've crossed a threshold that every suicide bomber did.

Even rationally, absolute certainty is stupid. As it precludes the possibility of additional information. And tends to encourage a person to embrace the confirmation fallacy. It'll go as far as reasonably sure. But I always leave room for the possibility that I could be wrong. As I may be.

Are you absolutely certain?

 

[Skylar]

I agree with number three.

Universal truth really has nothing to do with theism.

LoL. It's impossible to be certain with #3. I doubt you know what others know, which makes your claim of universal error to be based on pure fantasy. LoL.

It is impossible to be certain with number 3. Which is kind of the point. In scenario number 2, there are billions of theists that are 'certain'. And they're also wrong and self deluded.

So certainty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accuracy.

A healthy level of skepticism as well as understanding human nature can really help in defining who you should listen to.

I like to talk about ideas with people but I don't care to hear church/cult dogma barked back at me. Those aren't ideas they are blank minded rantings of fools.

So few people in this subject have ideas.

Any time I hear somebody tell me that some arrogant church dogma is correct I basically write them off as idiots.

I think certainty is a prerequisite of extremism. You don't find many suicide bombers who are filled with a healthy skepticism. You have to believe absolutely.

That's not to say that anyone who is certain is a suicide bomber. Only that they've crossed a threshold that every suicide bomber did.

Even rationally, absolute certainty is stupid. As it precludes the possibility of additional information. And tends to encourage a person to embrace the confirmation fallacy. It'll go as far as reasonably sure. But I always leave room for the possibility that I could be wrong. As I may be.

Are you absolutely certain?

Nope. And it wouldn't matter if I were. As certainty and accuracy don't have any particular relationship.

 

[Gadawg73]

Morality does not have anything to do with any Gods.

 

[Skylar]

Morality does not have anything to do with any Gods.

It can. It may. But it doesn't have to.

 

[MaxGrit]

LoL. It's impossible to be certain with #3. I doubt you know what others know, which makes your claim of universal error to be based on pure fantasy. LoL.

It is impossible to be certain with number 3. Which is kind of the point. In scenario number 2, there are billions of theists that are 'certain'. And they're also wrong and self deluded.

So certainty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accuracy.

A healthy level of skepticism as well as understanding human nature can really help in defining who you should listen to.

I like to talk about ideas with people but I don't care to hear church/cult dogma barked back at me. Those aren't ideas they are blank minded rantings of fools.

So few people in this subject have ideas.

Any time I hear somebody tell me that some arrogant church dogma is correct I basically write them off as idiots.

I think certainty is a prerequisite of extremism. You don't find many suicide bombers who are filled with a healthy skepticism. You have to believe absolutely.

That's not to say that anyone who is certain is a suicide bomber. Only that they've crossed a threshold that every suicide bomber did.

Even rationally, absolute certainty is stupid. As it precludes the possibility of additional information. And tends to encourage a person to embrace the confirmation fallacy. It'll go as far as reasonably sure. But I always leave room for the possibility that I could be wrong. As I may be.

Are you absolutely certain?

Nope. And it wouldn't matter if I were. As certainty and accuracy don't have any particular relationship.

Well I can see why you would have that much problems with your thinking.

 

[Skylar]

It is impossible to be certain with number 3. Which is kind of the point. In scenario number 2, there are billions of theists that are 'certain'. And they're also wrong and self deluded.

So certainty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accuracy.

A healthy level of skepticism as well as understanding human nature can really help in defining who you should listen to.

I like to talk about ideas with people but I don't care to hear church/cult dogma barked back at me. Those aren't ideas they are blank minded rantings of fools.

So few people in this subject have ideas.

Any time I hear somebody tell me that some arrogant church dogma is correct I basically write them off as idiots.

I think certainty is a prerequisite of extremism. You don't find many suicide bombers who are filled with a healthy skepticism. You have to believe absolutely.

That's not to say that anyone who is certain is a suicide bomber. Only that they've crossed a threshold that every suicide bomber did.

Even rationally, absolute certainty is stupid. As it precludes the possibility of additional information. And tends to encourage a person to embrace the confirmation fallacy. It'll go as far as reasonably sure. But I always leave room for the possibility that I could be wrong. As I may be.

Are you absolutely certain?

Nope. And it wouldn't matter if I were. As certainty and accuracy don't have any particular relationship.

Well I can see why you would have that much problems with your thinking.

If you remember you could be wrong, or have an unshaking and perfect faith in your own infallibility....it really has nothing to do with the accuracy of your beliefs. As being certain doesn't mean you're right. As so many of the devoutly religious who are wrong demonstrate.

The difference between myself and many of the 'certain' is self awareness.