God is necessary for morality to survive | Polichickster v Dante

[Michelle420]

Dear Dante and Drifter:...
Thank you,
Emily

I like the thought you put into your posts, thanks for the shout out

but she seems oblivious to replies.

Sincerity goes far in my world

It's hard to be at your level Dante, you are very worldly from what I gather reading your posts.

I love your intelligence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Spirituality and dreams, myths and mythology, symbolism, metaphor all come from within. Religion comes from outside.

When god is mistaken as being out there, you get religion. When god is recognized as being within...no more hocus pocus and societal controls

I think it's all man made. There's too many non-believers worldwide who have their own cultural conceptions of morality for me to accept an either or philosophy. So I attribute it all to man, both secularism and spirituality.

It's all one and the same to me.

[IMGhttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_15yjI-RtaW4/TQqngKIpV-I/AAAAAAAABT4/8HRK6BhOomo/s1600/Ying_Yang.jpg[/IMG]

Some of it is for sure. But I have to believe that some force greater than ourselves is driving the process. Otherwise there would be no incentive to be unselfish, selfless, or care about anything other than our own benefit.

I am convinced that most religion is manmade. I am equally convinced that God is not.

It seems like you believe in a god first and work backwards not matter how you frame it.

We know instinct drives us. We know it is most likely adaptability that has allowed us, as a species, to survive. I have heard no credible reason other than adaptability. If you have one, can you please lay it out?

Your presuppose that the incentive for people being nice, civil, unselfish and caring -- empathic, is somehow a reaction. This reaction is to a punishment or reward in a later life?

When the ancestors of homo sapiens left the African continent and spread out across the Earth, they did not all survive. Who survived? It appears the ones who developed empathy. Empathy allows individuals to see themselves in others. 'We are one' -- that would drive humanity. Where do I get this from? Comparative religion and mythology. A deeper reading and understanding of history than most people care to seek out will bring you to this as the only conclusion...and then again we don't know what we don't know.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I like the thought you put into your posts, thanks for the shout out

but she seems oblivious to replies.

Sincerity goes far in my world

It's hard to be at your level Dante, you are very worldly from what I gather reading your posts.

I love your intelligence.

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

 

[Michelle420]

but she seems oblivious to replies.

Sincerity goes far in my world

It's hard to be at your level Dante, you are very worldly from what I gather reading your posts.

I love your intelligence.

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Point taken.

I should rephrase and say sincerity allows me to approach a person in where they are coming from to understand them rather then where I am coming from.

Eventually however, if the opposing opinions are drastic it falls apart.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sincerity goes far in my world

It's hard to be at your level Dante, you are very worldly from what I gather reading your posts.

I love your intelligence.

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Point taken.

I should rephrase and say sincerity allows me to approach a person in where they are coming from to understand them rather then where I am coming from.

Eventually however, if the opposing opinions are drastic it falls apart.

Outside here I might feel and act the same. Although I do not suffer fools gladly, I am compassionate and truly interested in people. But we are on the web. Virtual reality

 

[yidnar]

a lot of the moral foundations were written into law by religious people who changed gods like we today change sock puppets.

what constituted religion as tribes laid down laws? human sacrifice? eating bark off of trees n order to communicate with the gods?

religion may have started that way to appease an angry god ,but most beliefs in god have evolved which helped lead to the betterment of society.

Most of the time the state religion have different duties. Ethics and morals as human constructs evolved out of the minds of man. Societies develop codes and laws in order to survive and flourish. Putting lipstick on a pig or putting human ideas on a god...same thing

in ancient times it was kill or be killed .the fear of an angry gods wrath was critical in enforcing laws and legitimizing the authority of a king or chief Pharaoh ect.. and having a moral system helped to insure cohesion amongst the people to work together to help insure the survival of the tribe or kingdom.

 

[emilynghiem]

but she seems oblivious to replies.

Sincerity goes far in my world

It's hard to be at your level Dante, you are very worldly from what I gather reading your posts.

I love your intelligence.

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

 

[emilynghiem]

It seems like you believe in a god first and work backwards not matter how you frame it.

We know instinct drives us. We know it is most likely adaptability that has allowed us, as a species, to survive. I have heard no credible reason other than adaptability. If you have one, can you please lay it out?

Your presuppose that the incentive for people being nice, civil, unselfish and caring -- empathic, is somehow a reaction. This reaction is to a punishment or reward in a later life?

When the ancestors of homo sapiens left the African continent and spread out across the Earth, they did not all survive. Who survived? It appears the ones who developed empathy. Empathy allows individuals to see themselves in others. 'We are one' -- that would drive humanity. Where do I get this from? Comparative religion and mythology. A deeper reading and understanding of history than most people care to seek out will bring you to this as the only conclusion...and then again we don't know what we don't know.

Dear Dante:
1. for adaptability, do we agree the human learning curve tends toward positive good growth vs. negative setbacks and destruction. If we agree the driving force in life is toward betterment, justice or good, then that can still be equated with what "God's will" means.
God's will does not have to mean some consequence in an afterlife, it can mean the impact on future generations on earth and still be either about positive or negative consequences of actions or decisions we make in the present.
2. regarding empathy, again our relations and influence/impact on others are easily aligned with Christian principles about how we treat our neighbors with love and equal respect.
this does not have to be credited to God in the Bible to be recognized as universal laws that naturally govern humanity.

If you agree that forgiveness and charity toward others makes for more healthy relations and more sustainable society that is enough to reconcile with Christianity. it does not have to be anything supernatural or deified to be consistent with the spirit of the message.

You seem like a just person, by nature not by religious indoctrination or conditioning.
3. Do you believe it is possible to align views and standards of justice
with the meaning of Jesus so there can be agreement in truth, regardless of the
source of this drive in humanity? If not, what are the objections or obstacles to alignment, and what do you believe it will take to resolve those so consensus can be reached?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Dante and Drifter:...
Thank you,
Emily

I like the thought you put into your posts, thanks for the shout out

but she seems oblivious to replies.

Dear Dante and Drifter:
Sorry I did try to reply to Dante!

Drifter thanks for your words of encouragement.

Between your feedback if I can clarify my messages
i won't come across so much as a troll or whatever!

I really am trying to iron out what differences can be
resolved and what are the key points of contigency
that would benefit from being called out and addressed here.

Thank you both
Yours truly,
Emily

And no I wouldn't call Dante "worldly" though nontheists often
do have a keener natural ability to focus more "objectively and empirically"
than people who perceive spiritual ideas outside the secular realm. (I have
some friends so spiritually gifted in this area, that when it comes to logistic
business they are completely lost because their minds don't focus that way)
Whatever you call that, being able to focus in plain black and white where
the human eye is otherwise confused by diverse colors can be a strength.

Of course the ideal is to use both to the best advantages, since
any strength can be a weakness, and any weakness can be a strength
in different contexts.

And no I would not say Hitler and Gandhi were both "sincere";
if one has more forgiveness and compassion than unforgiveness for others,
this affects your judgment because the mind has to go into denial about the
pain and suffering it is costing someone else you are holding unequal to yourself.
If you mean "committed," Hitler may have well been more committed in his actions than someone who takes a more relative approach of including diverse input and thus come across as being more scattered and less focused than Hitler was in his intent.
But I would not word that in terms of sincerity, I would use a different word there.
Driven or committed? Sincerity would not be fair if you are excluding the denial involved.

Sorry to go on about a minor point that is interesting to me because I
have run into it in my own experiences.
In the peace and justice community, which strives to act by consensus and nonviolence, I have found a handicap when activists within the group have conflicts between them, and their very conscientiousness prevents them from working together until this is resolved.
So instead of being as "ruthless as the bad guys" who out of selfish desire for profit would team up with even their enemies to mow someone else down for money, these sensitive conscientious types will protest what they perceive to be wrong with what the other is doing and not be as unified as if those less unconscionable who don't care about ethics!
So again what are strengths can sometimes be a weakness, and I have urged many activists to be as ruthless about doing good as the "bad guys" protested for doing wrong.
if they can forgive each other's pasts to team up and conspire to do evil, surely people with good intentions can forgive wrongs and team up to conspire to do good! We can still learn to be more effective from how others abuse these same tactics we can use in good ways.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

religion may have started that way to appease an angry god ,but most beliefs in god have evolved which helped lead to the betterment of society.

Most of the time the state religion have different duties. Ethics and morals as human constructs evolved out of the minds of man. Societies develop codes and laws in order to survive and flourish. Putting lipstick on a pig or putting human ideas on a god...same thing

in ancient times it was kill or be killed .the fear of an angry gods wrath was critical in enforcing laws and legitimizing the authority of a king or chief Pharaoh ect.. and having a moral system helped to insure cohesion amongst the people to work together to help insure the survival of the tribe or kingdom.

Your knowledge and understanding of the histories of culture, civilizations and human beings is woefully lacking

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sincerity goes far in my world

It's hard to be at your level Dante, you are very worldly from what I gather reading your posts.

I love your intelligence.

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It seems like you believe in a god first and work backwards not matter how you frame it.

We know instinct drives us. We know it is most likely adaptability that has allowed us, as a species, to survive. I have heard no credible reason other than adaptability. If you have one, can you please lay it out?

Your presuppose that the incentive for people being nice, civil, unselfish and caring -- empathic, is somehow a reaction. This reaction is to a punishment or reward in a later life?

When the ancestors of homo sapiens left the African continent and spread out across the Earth, they did not all survive. Who survived? It appears the ones who developed empathy. Empathy allows individuals to see themselves in others. 'We are one' -- that would drive humanity. Where do I get this from? Comparative religion and mythology. A deeper reading and understanding of history than most people care to seek out will bring you to this as the only conclusion...and then again we don't know what we don't know.

Dear Dante:
1. for adaptability, do we agree the human learning curve tends toward positive good growth vs. negative setbacks and destruction. If we agree the driving force in life is toward betterment, justice or good, then that can still be equated with what "God's will" means.
God's will does not have to mean some consequence in an afterlife, it can mean the impact on future generations on earth and still be either about positive or negative consequences of actions or decisions we make in the present.
2. regarding empathy, again our relations and influence/impact on others are easily aligned with Christian principles about how we treat our neighbors with love and equal respect.
this does not have to be credited to God in the Bible to be recognized as universal laws that naturally govern humanity.

If you agree that forgiveness and charity toward others makes for more healthy relations and more sustainable society that is enough to reconcile with Christianity. it does not have to be anything supernatural or deified to be consistent with the spirit of the message.

You seem like a just person, by nature not by religious indoctrination or conditioning.
3. Do you believe it is possible to align views and standards of justice
with the meaning of Jesus so there can be agreement in truth, regardless of the
source of this drive in humanity? If not, what are the objections or obstacles to alignment, and what do you believe it will take to resolve those so consensus can be reached?

the above

...

was in reply to

...

Do not agree: "the driving force in life is toward betterment, justice or good"

Correlations does not equal causation. "our relations and influence/impact on others are easily aligned with Christian principles" Here you stray into the land of interweb logic: logical fallacy

 

[Michelle420]

I like the thought you put into your posts, thanks for the shout out

but she seems oblivious to replies.

Dear Dante and Drifter:
Sorry I did try to reply to Dante!

Drifter thanks for your words of encouragement.

Between your feedback if I can clarify my messages
i won't come across so much as a troll or whatever!

I really am trying to iron out what differences can be
resolved and what are the key points of contigency
that would benefit from being called out and addressed here.

Thank you both
Yours truly,
Emily

And no I wouldn't call Dante "worldly" though nontheists often
do have a keener natural ability to focus more "objectively and empirically"
than people who perceive spiritual ideas outside the secular realm. (I have
some friends so spiritually gifted in this area, that when it comes to logistic
business they are completely lost because their minds don't focus that way)
Whatever you call that, being able to focus in plain black and white where
the human eye is otherwise confused by diverse colors can be a strength.

Of course the ideal is to use both to the best advantages, since
any strength can be a weakness, and any weakness can be a strength
in different contexts.

In my opinion mostly through observation, Dante is a well thought out poster.

Beyond this thread and topic he appears to be well read with a vast insight of real life experiences that enhances his knowledge.

He is an intellectual on a wide variety of issues, this puts him in the top percentage of posters here who can debate many varieties of topics.

Myself, I confess I am not so good at formal debate and I do not have the life experience nor the academic or self education on a variety of topics, I am limited to just a few that I have researched and experienced.

There are others at the board who I may disagree with that also demonstrate these similar traits and abilities to debate.

I was just complimenting Dante because I lean towards his opinions more often then not.

You conduct your posts in a well thought out poised response which I also recognize and appreciate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

drifter, it is your avatar I like most.

 

[emilynghiem]

Do not agree: "the driving force in life is toward betterment, justice or good"

Correlations does not equal causation. "our relations and influence/impact on others are easily aligned with Christian principles" Here you stray into the land of interweb logic: logical fallacy

OK thanks we may be getting closer to where we agree or disagree or both
1. I agree that we could talk about correlations and not have to argue about causation.
2. do you agree there is correlation between "empathy" in your views of human relations
and "charity" in the Christian teachings?
3. it is clear you do not agree that there is some higher or external drive toward good.
But do you acknowledge that empathy toward others comes from an internal drive?
What do you call the motivations in the human conscience and social relations with others?
We can agree not to frame it as a causal relationship, but are you okay with Correlation?

I am okay with aligning by correlating concepts or principles and not needing to agree or discuss causality in order to synchronize between theistic and nontheistic views.

 

[Redbone]

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.

They did not stand for the same rights of people to be free . Hitler was a mass murderer yet you link him with Gandhi to what end if not to attempt to give his life and actions greater validity? If it is an attempt to represents ends of an extreme suffering the same fate it still fails because the death of Hitler was by his own order and a coward's way out.
Gandhi's death was not.

I disagree about Hitler's sincerity in his presented political beliefs. His actions were that of a power mad dictator that use propaganda very effectively. So effectively that many to this day see him as a great leader of Germany merely following his dream of a nation fighting to address past wrongs. A very nice fantasy but far from the truth of the matter. Personal ambition and hate fueled the man. Madness consumed him and eventually fate delivered a just result.

 

[emilynghiem]

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.

In that aspect, isn't the common factor the retributive actions of the "killers"
(regardless of whatever you see similar or dissimilar in the people they killed).

Are you going to assess and compare people by the motivations of those who killed them?
isn't that equally or more a reflection on the killers and why they acted as they did?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do not agree: "the driving force in life is toward betterment, justice or good"

Correlations does not equal causation. "our relations and influence/impact on others are easily aligned with Christian principles" Here you stray into the land of interweb logic: logical fallacy

OK thanks we may be getting closer to where we agree or disagree or both
1. I agree that we could talk about correlations and not have to argue about causation.
2. do you agree there is correlation between "empathy" in your views of human relations
and "charity" in the Christian teachings?
3. it is clear you do not agree that there is some higher or external drive toward good.
But do you acknowledge that empathy toward others comes from an internal drive?
What do you call the motivations in the human conscience and social relations with others?
We can agree not to frame it as a causal relationship, but are you okay with Correlation?

I am okay with aligning by correlating concepts or principles and not needing to agree or discuss causality in order to synchronize between theistic and nontheistic views.

please. this is not a freshman or sophomore English class, logic class, any class.

If you fully comprehended what you read and jump ahead of asking confirmation of already implied and agreed upon things. correlations exist.

Human instinct.

and many of my own ideas, and new insights and new ideas on this subject, have been flushed out and articulated by Adolf Bastian, and Joseph Campbell among others: Joseph Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[emilynghiem]

Human instinct.

OK human instinct: do you agree that by human instinct
the empathetic reactions to FEAR and the response to LOVE

can be shown to run parallel with
whatever SATAN and GOD represent?

ie if God represents love and Satan represents fear
then these values can be expressed consistently
in terms of "human instinct or empathy with others"
and still align in principle, or correlate or whatever.

if God represents love of truth
and Satan represents fear of the unknown
then again this aligns with natural patterns
of "human instinct or empathy"

Are you okay with aligning naturally
occurring concepts with the things symbolized in religion?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Redbone is dismissed

Sincerity goes far in my world

It's hard to be at your level Dante, you are very worldly from what I gather reading your posts.

I love your intelligence.

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.



-----------------------

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.

They did not stand for the same rights of people to be free . Hitler was a mass murderer yet you link him with Gandhi to what end if not to attempt to give his life and actions greater validity? If it is an attempt to represents ends of an extreme suffering the same fate it still fails because the death of Hitler was by his own order and a coward's way out.
Gandhi's death was not.

I disagree about Hitler's sincerity in his presented political beliefs. His actions were that of a power mad dictator that use propaganda very effectively. So effectively that many to this day see him as a great leader of Germany merely following his dream of a nation fighting to address past wrongs. A very nice fantasy but far from the truth of the matter. Personal ambition and hate fueled the man. Madness consumed him and eventually fate delivered a just result.

Ignoratio elenchi jump to: navigation, search

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies. It is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.

How nice that you disagree about the sincerity of Hitler's political beliefs, yet agree with the sincerity of Gandhi's political beliefs. What does the how and why, of how people develop political beliefs, have to do with the sincerity of those beliefs?

Winston Churchill used to refer to Gandhi as a fakir, in a play on words. One fantasy you appear to connect very well with is Hitler as a one-dimensional stick figure. Hitler was a very complex individual of great presence and being.

I think fate was served well, but humanity was not. Better if Hitler had faced trial and judgement in an extra-judicial process. The man became a super-human myth that even his enemies are prone to give too much power to.

Myth and symbolism.

Mahatma Gandhi Album- Churchill on Gandhi "It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor." - Winston Churchill, 1930