Thoughts from a Simple Man

[theword]

My perspective of the world is a bit different.

Humans are incredibly interesting creatures. Homo sapiens the scientific call us. We make up ideas and concepts for us and everyone else to live by. Laws, beliefs, and morals don't exist without us. People argue to make them. The words we use were created by those who came before us, as well as the meanings these people attached to them. There's something about humans that is incredibly difficult to understand. Although we're born on some random rock in space, and our existences have no objective purposes, we seem to feel that our lives have some meaning. Then again, others feel (or understand?) that life has no real point. We're just, well, odd.

We have created everything unnatural in this world we currently live in. This includes language, morality, concepts, beliefs, religion, laws, everything. Words are created and given meaning by different peoples. The existence of multiple languages adds credence to this notion. Language morphs and evolves due in part to changing norms and the passage of time. The concepts of right and wrong, too, were created by us. Like what we call "gods," we create all of these things that we live by. Out of the convoluted depths of what we call our "hearts," "minds," or "souls," we make all of these things, and learn about them in our own time. What is particularly fascinating is etymology, because it, too, shows how words originated (were created) in the past and morphed and changed over time. Perhaps the creation of language by humans was necessary, because what came before language, grunting and other sounds, was likely not helpful. Then again, the very fact that animals do have ways to communicate may lend weight to the argument that all language, though created by humans, is naturally inevitable. What I do know is that all of these intangible notions and ideas require humans to "exist." If humans were wiped off of the face of the Earth, in that no humans exist in the untamed wilderness, none of these immaterial things can exist.

I argue that there is no right and wrong. Laws have no meaning, because laws are fabrications. Morals, too, are made, not existing by themselves. We raise our offspring to have certain morals and values. This is true for atheists to the religious... every single human out there (I suppose). Morals and values, which are created, are the building blocks of all beliefs. Feelings are the result of chemicals in the brain, as well as all of the things we think and do. I don't understand how feelings exist, or what the triggers are. I'm inclined to believe that there is a scientific explanation for the existence of feelings. It may very well be the inability of the brain to cope with certain situations. Or empathy? If so I wonder what the scientific underpinnings of empathy itself would be (pinning down the material atoms and chemicals involved). When I think of humans I think of them as individuals in a strange and cruel world where they're expected to behave under the expectations and designs of those humans who lived before them. Humans are naturally scared; all have a certain level of fear deep within the unconscious mind. They are likely fearful of disobeying the orders their parents tell them, or the peculiar and unnatural laws society dictates for them. I have no regard for the law, because laws aren't real. Any person in a state of power, where others fear him/her, can scribble down some words and call it a law. Think back to any of the bizarre laws you've ever heard of; you may know of at least one. You may wonder to yourself, "Why would a law like that exist?" I think that people find certain laws to be natural because they feel that it resonates with their feelings, perspectives, and morals/values.

Why do we do this? For example most of us believe murder is wrong. Why? Because we don't like the thought of it happening to us. Our parents taught us to despise it? It just seems that people think murder is wrong because they feel it is, or because they were told it was from a young age. I question every single notion of right and wrong, and first and foremost I hold in my mind that absolutely nothing is right and wrong, good or evil. That may sound very odd to you. My reasoning is because science has not ascertained the physical, objective existence of morals, laws, etc. All of these notions cannot be discerned by any of the five senses. You can't touch a moral, smell a law, taste a belief, see a god, or hear evil. There is no scientific basis towards the objective existence of these things. Humans make all of these things in the hopes of binding people together to create societies. Imagine what may happen if man lived wildly and freely like the wolves and deer in nature? There would likely be wanton killing, raping, fighting, etc. In nature male wolves fight each other for the females, and then mount their "prize." No mating or civility, there. Likewise, these wolves, both males and females, hunt down other animals and kill and eat them. Society may not work so well if all of us mildly hairy mammals did the same.

But then, there are other things to consider. Quite a few creatures have ways to communicate with themselves. Other animals create their own, unique societies. Ants, for example, have the ability to signal meanings to fellow ants. If ants can have their own societies and means to communicate, maybe there is some natural sense in what humans have done, too. It could be true that humans have a society far more unique and "better" than other species because humans are bigger, more adaptable, and have far more intelligence. Wouldn't it be a scary thought if ants were as big as us, could walk upright, and had double our average intellect? They may very well have had greater cities and constructs than we could ever hope to create. It would be quite interesting if we learned that we weren't the only highly intelligent, humanoid species in the universe.

On the notion of god there is much to question. Many believe that man was created in the image of god, but it's my contention that god was created in the image of man. At some point tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago, the concept of religion was born. I cannot explain what it is exactly that causes people to create and worship the idea of a god. In those times, you had incredibly good reason to be scared. Everything was out to kill you, and there was no Obamacare to rely on. People were incredibly fearful of everything, they likely had little or no education/reason, and they wanted to feel as if they could place trust in something in order to reassure themselves with the warm feelings of hope. Praying is a way to relieve stress. Though the deity doesn’t exist, the act of praying to it helps relieve the person. "Why" is a good question. Other reasons to question the idea of god is because, throughout time, hundreds of different deities have been created. Respectfully I find it amusing when certain mainstream groups like Christians or Muslims denounce the existence of other gods, as if they have some sort of scientific leverage to decide which fabricated deity exists. Let's consider the Christian god. It's been assigned a male gender. I wonder that. Why would a deity have a gender? If a god was a god and was everlasting it wouldn't need a gender. If these things have genders, well, these things may also have sex. The existence of gender implies the inevitability of sex. And why would a god have a gender and the ability to have sex? Gods can't die, right? If these deities have genders and sex then likely it is because these things worry about death and extinction so they need to propagate the herd. This is even more reason to believe that god was created in the image of man. That's because humans are living creatures with genders, the need for sex, the inevitability of death, and the risk of extinction. Imagine what these humans can do with these gods they create. They can make people fear. They can make people help and support others. They can make people dead.

It's as though the real world has been decorated with all of these created, unnatural things. We have laws that are indeed imaginary and subject to change/be distorted by the whims of ever-changing people. Or is it that we create our own reality? We make a law and presume that we have now changed the face of reality.

Perhaps it may be true that the only reality we have is that life is pointless and meaningless. And... I suppose we have to make do with what we've got. We're mammals living on a planet where morals, good, evil, equality, justice, laws, beliefs, religions, and every other man-made hypothetical structure don't exist. Yet in spite of these truths, those of us who understand this to an extent... follow these things anyways.

We are living creatures with a certain level of intelligence. We can know this for sure. Beyond that, we run the risk of walking past the border of subjectivity.

What are your thoughts, please? (I wanna know where I went wrong. )

Your Taxes, Your Beliefs​

If you'd like to hear the thoughts from "Christ", let me know. You'd be amazed at how some of your thoughts align with the invisible "Kingdom of God".

Life is energy (stored thoughts of God) that is processed and experienced in a way we beings can understand. This is a thought from "Christ".

 

[Wake]

What are your thoughts, please?

Thanks for a thoughtful post, Wake. Unfortunately, what I believe was indentured into my mind at around age 9 when I memorized the Presbyterian catechism about the purpose of man being to love God through the teachings of his only son, Jesus Christ. I still believe it. Christ taught the 10 Commandments by summation when he was talking to a young lawyer to basically (1) Love and practice God's purposes and law and (2) Love one's neighbor as yourself.

We live in an imperfect world and have imperfect reactions to it. I believe in God's precepts for mankind and accept that I don't have to understand everything because love and trust fill in the gaps.

I also believe love is not always what we think it is. Sometimes love is a parent correcting an unruly child with a little flyswatter to the butt so he or she will not make an ass of him or herself again in the future. It doesn't get you love back, but it does make children think before they go head-straight into trouble once they learn respect for other people.

And that's what I've thought for years, although I think I may have been the only Presbyterian in my high school, because few of them thought so and acted accordingly. So I just learned to let the world go on by, tend to my own self-improvement, and when pinned down, tell my thoughts as honestly as I know how. I also learned that people with no beliefs are prone to tripping, and I spend a few minutes reviewing my day at night when my health permits to ask God to help them overcome the blindness that causes themselves and others pain.

Thanks for asking my opinion. I do not expect it would mean much to anyone else.

I've read your post, and I have a few contrasting thoughts on it. I can disagree and argue against some of your points but truly respect and appreciate your company. Please don't begrudge my differing opinions.

Reading your post, it's true that your beliefs were indentured into your mind when you were around 9 years old. Likewise, when I was around the age of 9, my parents indoctrinated me into their Apostolic-Pentecostal beliefs. They taught me to fear the heated, cavernous Hell beneath the earth, and to not disobey them or else I'd go to Hell for being rebellious. They opined that all people, even little ones and the unborn, would wind up in Hell if they weren't baptized both in water and through the indwelling of the holy Spirit, evidence by speaking in tongues. (In spite of my seemingly atheistic and existentialist views, speaking in tongues has always been a phenomenon I could never quite explain away.)

When we are little... when we are young... we rarely question. We accept what we're taught by our parents as the truth. We're conditioned to behave in certain ways as well, while we're young, in the hopes of our parents that we'll behave and abide in those same ways. I was spanked as a child for stealing and other bad deeds, with resolve, and to this day I have kept myself out of trouble with the law. The mere temptation to steal an item conjures up memories of a swift swatting with a trusty, oak board. It's behavioral conditioning, psychology 101.

The chemical feeling known as love exists, but some people think of it differently than others. I don't understand the scientific reasoning to it. Maybe it's part of the natural order, in that it would for sure help creatures survive and procreate. A female crocodile loves her little ones so badly that she's willing to sit atop the nest to protect them, and even guard them in her toothed mouth to keep them safe. Maybe love is a chemical necessary for the survival of the species.

I question the notion of god because people don't know things. They don't know if a deity exists. They put their faiths in a legion of different gods. How can one person of a religious faith tell another that his god doesn't exist? I'm inclined to believe that all religions can't be true, so therefore they must all be false... created and transformed due to changing people and time. Every different era and every different people brings about a new, distinct god... another variation, more variations! Consider Christianity. You are, I think, Presbyterian. How do you know you're right? What if you're wrong and the Catholics are on the right path? How can their version of god be more true than yours? What about the Apostolics? The Baptists? The Lutherans?

It is people and their collective yet different views that shape their view of "the god." If I destroy 2/3 of the world and lay waste to most of technology, how do you imagine the god of that era would evolve and become? See, it is true that the ideas of god change with time, people, and circumstance. And the more afraid a people are, the more violent and cruel that "god" becomes, because it is THEIR views. The Aztecs and the Mayans were afriad in their times. They dealt with plagues, warring tribes, famine, death and rape every which way... why not have a god who wants sacrifices? Make it as violent and gory as possible to brand something in the minds of the fearful people, to inspire them, to make them believe. To make them strong and lethal. Nowadays, people don't fear that much, so their respective gods (mascots I call them), are far less violent.

That conceptual "seedling" our parents put into our minds when we are so young and pliable... more often than not it takes root.

You're right on most counts.

Here's the thing. Most successful species on the planet adopt some rules of the road.

Which allows them to be successful.

Bear in mind, this all may become meaningless if some superior life form decides this planet is blocking their view of the sun.

They make rules to help themselves survive. Is that natural? What we call "nature" would likely dictate that we be hunting animals and eating them, while mating and killing across the earth. We seem to have thought up better ways to keep ourselves alive, though.

If aliens invade, they'll likely farm us and steal our food and recipes. Oh, and our technological designs.

Okay, Wake....

Seriously.

You obviously took a lot of time and effort in your OP.
You also took the time to multi-PM some of us to get our thoughts.

So, I guess, I owe you the same courtesy of time.
This is a really long-winded reply for me when I'm not c/p-ing.

But, WADR, your views of right and wrong worry me as they tend to fit the definition of a sociopath

Although I'm not a sociopath, what if it were true that right and wrong doesn't exist? I mean, the scientific method has discerned they're empirical existences, yet. They can't be discerned through the five senses, much like religion.

Without delving into this in any great detail you are pretty much on the right track here, Wake. However you are edging close to the philosophical precipice of Existentialism. Are you sure that this is the direction you want to go in? You might not be in the right place to find "intellectual heavyweights".

I doubt I fit into the shoebox of existentialism. Well, maybe, but maybe not.

Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of late 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences,[1][2][3] shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual.[4] In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[5] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophies, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.[6][7]

Søren Kierkegaard is generally considered to have been the first existentialist philosopher,[8][9][10] though he himself did not use the term existentialism. He proposed that each individual—not society or religion—is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and living it passionately and sincerely ("authentically").[11][12] Existentialism became popular in the years following World War II, and strongly influenced many disciplines besides philosophy, including theology, drama, art, literature, and psychology.[13

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

I simply think people are born on this planet, and they make things up as they go along. They made it all up. They made up language. The made up morality. They made up religion. If all humans die and it's just the crickets and the birds, what happens to it? What happens to morality? The birds don't need it. They've never participated in it, because it doesn't exist. The pigs never cared for the notion of religion, except for certain days like Lent and such.

People made it all up and it's all been carried through the generatons ever since the beginning. We're born into the "construct" our ancestors started building.

My 1st thought was anarchist. and a tad hyper,that's along winded!!

Anarchy is likely the ideal "nature" intended. True freedom is anarchy. It's what the animals have. What any politician promises as "freedom" really isn't, chickenwing. It's just a slightly less restrictive cage they promise.

 

[theword]

What are your thoughts, please?

Thanks for a thoughtful post, Wake. Unfortunately, what I believe was indentured into my mind at around age 9 when I memorized the Presbyterian catechism about the purpose of man being to love God through the teachings of his only son, Jesus Christ. I still believe it. Christ taught the 10 Commandments by summation when he was talking to a young lawyer to basically (1) Love and practice God's purposes and law and (2) Love one's neighbor as yourself.

We live in an imperfect world and have imperfect reactions to it. I believe in God's precepts for mankind and accept that I don't have to understand everything because love and trust fill in the gaps.

I also believe love is not always what we think it is. Sometimes love is a parent correcting an unruly child with a little flyswatter to the butt so he or she will not make an ass of him or herself again in the future. It doesn't get you love back, but it does make children think before they go head-straight into trouble once they learn respect for other people.

And that's what I've thought for years, although I think I may have been the only Presbyterian in my high school, because few of them thought so and acted accordingly. So I just learned to let the world go on by, tend to my own self-improvement, and when pinned down, tell my thoughts as honestly as I know how. I also learned that people with no beliefs are prone to tripping, and I spend a few minutes reviewing my day at night when my health permits to ask God to help them overcome the blindness that causes themselves and others pain.

Thanks for asking my opinion. I do not expect it would mean much to anyone else.

I've read your post, and I have a few contrasting thoughts on it. I can disagree and argue against some of your points but truly respect and appreciate your company. Please don't begrudge my differing opinions.

Reading your post, it's true that your beliefs were indentured into your mind when you were around 9 years old. Likewise, when I was around the age of 9, my parents indoctrinated me into their Apostolic-Pentecostal beliefs. They taught me to fear the heated, cavernous Hell beneath the earth, and to not disobey them or else I'd go to Hell for being rebellious. They opined that all people, even little ones and the unborn, would wind up in Hell if they weren't baptized both in water and through the indwelling of the holy Spirit, evidence by speaking in tongues. (In spite of my seemingly atheistic and existentialist views, speaking in tongues has always been a phenomenon I could never quite explain away.)

When we are little... when we are young... we rarely question. We accept what we're taught by our parents as the truth. We're conditioned to behave in certain ways as well, while we're young, in the hopes of our parents that we'll behave and abide in those same ways. I was spanked as a child for stealing and other bad deeds, with resolve, and to this day I have kept myself out of trouble with the law. The mere temptation to steal an item conjures up memories of a swift swatting with a trusty, oak board. It's behavioral conditioning, psychology 101.

The chemical feeling known as love exists, but some people think of it differently than others. I don't understand the scientific reasoning to it. Maybe it's part of the natural order, in that it would for sure help creatures survive and procreate. A female crocodile loves her little ones so badly that she's willing to sit atop the nest to protect them, and even guard them in her toothed mouth to keep them safe. Maybe love is a chemical necessary for the survival of the species.

I question the notion of god because people don't know things. They don't know if a deity exists. They put their faiths in a legion of different gods. How can one person of a religious faith tell another that his god doesn't exist? I'm inclined to believe that all religions can't be true, so therefore they must all be false... created and transformed due to changing people and time. Every different era and every different people brings about a new, distinct god... another variation, more variations! Consider Christianity. You are, I think, Presbyterian. How do you know you're right? What if you're wrong and the Catholics are on the right path? How can their version of god be more true than yours? What about the Apostolics? The Baptists? The Lutherans?

It is people and their collective yet different views that shape their view of "the god." If I destroy 2/3 of the world and lay waste to most of technology, how do you imagine the god of that era would evolve and become? See, it is true that the ideas of god change with time, people, and circumstance. And the more afraid a people are, the more violent and cruel that "god" becomes, because it is THEIR views. The Aztecs and the Mayans were afriad in their times. They dealt with plagues, warring tribes, famine, death and rape every which way... why not have a god who wants sacrifices? Make it as violent and gory as possible to brand something in the minds of the fearful people, to inspire them, to make them believe. To make them strong and lethal. Nowadays, people don't fear that much, so their respective gods (mascots I call them), are far less violent.

That conceptual "seedling" our parents put into our minds when we are so young and pliable... more often than not it takes root.

You're right on most counts.

Here's the thing. Most successful species on the planet adopt some rules of the road.

Which allows them to be successful.

Bear in mind, this all may become meaningless if some superior life form decides this planet is blocking their view of the sun.

They make rules to help themselves survive. Is that natural? What we call "nature" would likely dictate that we be hunting animals and eating them, while mating and killing across the earth. We seem to have thought up better ways to keep ourselves alive, though.

If aliens invade, they'll likely farm us and steal our food and recipes. Oh, and our technological designs.



Although I'm not a sociopath, what if it were true that right and wrong doesn't exist? I mean, the scientific method has discerned they're empirical existences, yet. They can't be discerned through the five senses, much like religion.



I doubt I fit into the shoebox of existentialism. Well, maybe, but maybe not.

Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of late 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences,[1][2][3] shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual.[4] In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[5] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophies, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.[6][7]

Søren Kierkegaard is generally considered to have been the first existentialist philosopher,[8][9][10] though he himself did not use the term existentialism. He proposed that each individual—not society or religion—is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and living it passionately and sincerely ("authentically").[11][12] Existentialism became popular in the years following World War II, and strongly influenced many disciplines besides philosophy, including theology, drama, art, literature, and psychology.[13

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

I simply think people are born on this planet, and they make things up as they go along. They made it all up. They made up language. The made up morality. They made up religion. If all humans die and it's just the crickets and the birds, what happens to it? What happens to morality? The birds don't need it. They've never participated in it, because it doesn't exist. The pigs never cared for the notion of religion, except for certain days like Lent and such.

People made it all up and it's all been carried through the generatons ever since the beginning. We're born into the "construct" our ancestors started building.

My 1st thought was anarchist. and a tad hyper,that's along winded!!

Anarchy is likely the ideal "nature" intended. True freedom is anarchy. It's what the animals have. What any politician promises as "freedom" really isn't, chickenwing. It's just a slightly less restrictive cage they promise.

True "freedom" won't be understood until the next age. Then we'll understand that being slaves of our Creator is the freedom we've been searching for.

 

[Wake]

Not sociopathic but the age old murky world of the moral relativist. Wake is arguing that there are no objective moral principles. And yet I would lay odds that his own behavior betrays his own assertion.

Somewhere I read the story of the college student who wrote an eloquently expressed paper on moral relativism arguing, as Wake has, that there is no right and wrong. By all academic standards, the paper, impeccably structured and encased in a new blue cover, merited an A. But when the student received his paper back, he saw a large red F and the professor's notation: I don't like blue covers. The student stormed into the professor's office and demanded an explanation. The professor asked, "Isn't yours the paper that argued that there or no objective moral principles such as fairness and justice?" "Yes," said the student. "Well," said the professor, I don't like blue covers, so the grade is an F." And the student thereby realized his error.

Whether it is a sense of the Divine or somethng simply inate in the human species, it seems that we all are born with some sense of right and wrong, virtue and guilt, justice and injustice. When cultural lines are crossed, we don't always agree on what is right and wrong, but we all have a sense of it just the same.

Moral relativism is one thing. Complete denial of made up ideas is another. Moral relativism is about the differences in morals among people and cultures throughout time. In order for me to believe in moral relativism I'd have to believe that morals were scienitifcally concrete. They aren't. I don't. Morals don't exist. No variation does.

The world really would be something different if humans unshackled themselves from all of the ideas and concepts they've created.

I too am a Christian (S. Baptist). I am also of a scientific background in biology etc. It seems to me that with a lot of this you have to address who or what created us and our world. That can be argued ad nauseum, but I believe in God the creator. When I used to be an agnostic over 40 years ago, I asked "who created God," so you can go around and around with these things. It gets down to logic and faith to me.

One can be scientific pertaining to the sciences in mathematics, yet cling to the erroneous notion of an ever-morphing deity.

What do you know about God, your Creator, birddog? What makes the other Christians wrong, and you right? If you have never met god, seen its face, and talked to it, how do you know? You have faith, and it is alright to have, but you don't have the undeniable knowledge to know things for sure. You can put bacteria under a microscope and study it. You can't put a deity under it and do the same.

Logic neither affirms nor denies the existence of a deity (or deities). A god(s) may or may not exist, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence if they are to be taken seriously by everyone.

Wake, I can't argue with a lot of what you said, because it is your viewpoint and opinion, and I respect that you believe it. I think you have made several great observations about humans and mankind, but this is the part I think you and I disagree on:

On the notion of god there is much to question. Many believe that man was created in the image of god, but it's my contention that god was created in the image of man. At some point tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago, the concept of religion was born. I cannot explain what it is exactly that causes people to create and worship the idea of a god.

I think it is neither or both, and not 'either/or'. Everything living and physical, was the creation of spiritual energy. It has to be, because physical energy can't create itself from non-existence. Humans, for whatever reason you wish to assign, have the ability to understand and relate with spiritual nature, unlike any other living thing. Although, spiritual nature is not evidenced by our five limited senses, we have an intrinsic and profound faith in it's presence. THIS is what has enabled us to create all you spoke of in the OP. THIS is the basis for our mortal fears and need to explain, as well as our moral construction. It's the very thing that makes us unique and different, as a form of physical life. Spiritual connection.

That said, our ability to comprehend spiritual nature and connect with it, has fostered a variety of beliefs through our imaginations. We create God's and Religions with humanistic attributes and reasoning, because we don't fully grasp this thing we call spiritual nature. Because spiritual nature isn't evidenced by physical senses we possess, this opens the door to "fish tales" ...you know, that 6" fish you caught but he got away, can be a record-size trophy bass, no one will know the difference. So we are left with various 'incarnations' of spiritual nature, centered around our imaginative beliefs in various gods or deities, because this is how we can relate as humans to something we can't fully grasp.

There is so much about this universe that we simply don't know and will never know. Yet some people assume we know everything. It's all explained. Science has figured it all out, and there can't be any kind of God or spiritual nature, it's just scientifically impossible... again, this is the product of human imagination. It's as much "FAITH" to proclaim God can't exist, as it is to claim God does exist. Regardless of whether any particular incarnation of "God" exists, spiritual nature is present, it is evidenced by the achievements of mankind. No other living thing has aspired to such greatness as man, nothing even remotely close. If there were nothing but physical science and evolution, we would see very little difference between humans and other upper primates, in terms of advancement. In fact, humans which had to depend on the 'crutch' of spiritual worship, would have been superseded by others who were stronger and didn't need the crutch. So even the theories of Darwin evolution, support the idea that human spirituality is fundamental to our species. It simply can't be denied, but people certainly try.

A 'disbeliever' once chortled at me, "What if we discover life on another planet, what does that do to your God Theory?" As if, believing in God means there can't be life elsewhere. I countered with the follow-up: What if we discover life elsewhere, and they also worship a power greater than self? I believe it's just as plausible, because human spirituality is what has been the source of inspiration for humans since we emerged from the jungles. Nothing we've accomplished, would have been possible without spirituality. I don't believe in "intelligent design" because I believe spirituality created intelligence in humans, the design was spiritual design. Something bestowed the characteristics on the things of the physical world and gave them order and semblance. Something enables inorganic elements to become organic, gravity and electricity to function as it does in the natural world, and science/math/physics to be predictable and not random. Some want to take these things for granted as part of "reality" but again, "reality" is the creation of spiritual nature.

We rely on our five limited senses, and this is what defines "reality" for many. If it can't be confirmed by our five limited senses, it must not "exist" in reality. That is our rationalization, but it is purely incorrect. I can demonstrate this very easily... do you know when it's time to pollinate the flowers? Can you travel, right now, to the very SPOT in which you were birthed? (not the hospital, but the actual room) Well, other animals in nature can, and do. A butterfly for instance. Here's an amazing creature... It starts as a caterpillar in a tree somewhere. After some time, it surrounds itself in a cocoon, and it's physical body essentially turns into mush, then it regenerates itself into a butterfly, which emerges to fly away... thousands of miles, sometimes. It then returns to the very tree it began life in, to give birth to the next generation. We see life all around us, with amazing abilities to sense and detect things that humans simply have no ability to do whatsoever, yet we somehow think our five limited senses control all of reality? Get real, man!

I would like to debate everything God with you, Boss, in a seperate thread. I fear if we get into it here we'd inconvenience everyone else.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why mankind finds the need to create something to worship, aka "gods?"

It's because God created us that way, we were created to worship Him.

However, when we don't we find another substitute for it.

Some drink, some gossip, some are promiscuous, some idolize celebrities (sports, entertainment and/or otherwise), but all find some other substitute. The need isn't filled unless and until they've found Christ though.

Those are my thoughts.

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

The notion that god created people that believe in him to have them believe in him because he exists seems circular to me. That, and it spits in the face of the notion of choosing to believe in god or not. Of going to heaven or hell.

And the whole notion of praying to god in order to find salvation, in itself, seems selfish. These people pray and prostrate themselves for their lord in order to pass through the pearly gates. They don't do it because it's "right," but because they don't want to burn.

You are wrong simply because you are too confused.

You are taking what you know, and applying to to what you don't know, as if you knew that too. Although it would be really interesting to find out how you determined that God has a gender and a sex!

Perhaps we could learn from ancient and more primitive people who believed that a God could take on the form of a man, a woman, a cow, a swan, a pool of water, a storm or a burning bush. That does more to put God into perspective than the deep thinkers who ponder whether God has a sex and a gender.

I'm an incredibly simply and unthoughtful man, Katz, and I would appreciate it if you showed me exactly where my errors are. Thank you.

Relativism.

Don't do it.

It's neither relativism or absolutism. I contend all of these man-made hypothetical structures were made up. Like, say, rastarianism. It supposedly originated in the 1930's, from Jamaica. Koshergrl, can rastarianism exist without the existence of humans? If rastafarianism was "born" (created) a little less than 90 years ago, what else could have been made up?

 

[Wake]

The Founding Fathers struggled with similar philosophical issues and they decided that laws created by the people were far superior than anything so far in the history of humanity. We have the Constitution which is the greatest document ever created. Live it, love it and learn from it.

I fear that the Constiution, like all other ideas on paper, is man-made. They created what they thought was best for our nation. Their decisions have changed our views on reality ever since.

Swimming through hot garbage rather than shake hands with us swill sucking swine. OK, do it. Just a little hyperbole? No? Aren't you just as bad as the rest of us scum sucking demons? Your ego is bigger. Screw you. Typical.

Not to go on a tangent, but it should be addressed.

Mary, what you perceive in my signature to be a personal attack towards you is actually part of a character-themed montage. If you read the quote, you'd see that it was directed towards Crowley, not you. The quote is part of a dialect between two opposing antagonists in the hit TV series, Supernatural. One antogonist is Dick Roman, the leader of the leviathans, and the other is Crowley, the King of Hell.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBHsYnqZxA]Supernatural 7x06 - Crowley Talks To The Leviathan In His Limousine - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

Not sociopathic but the age old murky world of the moral relativist. Wake is arguing that there are no objective moral principles. And yet I would lay odds that his own behavior betrays his own assertion.

Somewhere I read the story of the college student who wrote an eloquently expressed paper on moral relativism arguing, as Wake has, that there is no right and wrong. By all academic standards, the paper, impeccably structured and encased in a new blue cover, merited an A. But when the student received his paper back, he saw a large red F and the professor's notation: I don't like blue covers. The student stormed into the professor's office and demanded an explanation. The professor asked, "Isn't yours the paper that argued that there or no objective moral principles such as fairness and justice?" "Yes," said the student. "Well," said the professor, I don't like blue covers, so the grade is an F." And the student thereby realized his error.

Whether it is a sense of the Divine or somethng simply inate in the human species, it seems that we all are born with some sense of right and wrong, virtue and guilt, justice and injustice. When cultural lines are crossed, we don't always agree on what is right and wrong, but we all have a sense of it just the same.

Moral relativism is one thing. Complete denial of made up ideas is another. Moral relativism is about the differences in morals among people and cultures throughout time. In order for me to believe in moral relativism I'd have to believe that morals were scienitifcally concrete. They aren't. I don't. Morals don't exist. No variation does.

The world really would be something different if humans unshackled themselves from all of the ideas and concepts they've created.

No, friend, moral relativism is not about scientifically concrete ideas or differences. And while what is called 'description moral relativism' is basically the acknowledgement that people do disagree in concepts of right and wrong, 'meta-ethical moral relativism' suggests that when they disagree, nobody is objectively right or wrong. (Objectively in this sense means that we are unbiased re whether this person or group is more right than another.) Which is pretty much the position you took in the OP, yes?

"Normative moral relativism' is the concept of tolerance; i.e. because there is no objective right or wrong, we should tolerate and not interfere in what others choose to do whether or not what they do would be right or wrong for us personally.

In your suggested world, there would be no law and only anarchy. And that is no way to live.

Disclaimer: They never should have let somebody like me into a philosophy class.

 

[Ropey]

Disclaimer: They never should have let somebody like me into a philosophy class.

Letting you out of it was the problem.

 

[Wake]

No, friend, moral relativism is not about scientifically concrete ideas or differences. And while what is called 'description moral relativism' is basically the acknowledgement that people do disagree in concepts of right and wrong, 'meta-ethical moral relativism' suggests that when they disagree, nobody is objectively right or wrong. (Objectively in this sense means that we are unbiased re whether this person or group is more right than another.) Which is pretty much the position you took in the OP, yes?

"Normative moral relativism' is the concept of tolerance; i.e. because there is no objective right or wrong, we should tolerate and not interfere in what others choose to do whether or not what they do would be right or wrong for us personally.

In your suggested world, there would be no law and only anarchy. And that is no way to live.

Disclaimer: They never should have let somebody like me into a philosophy class.

I suppose moral relativism doesn't imply that morals are scientifically concrete (I knew that, lol); that should mean that they're manmade.

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures.* My perspective is that they all don't exist, and that no matter how different they are they're all made up by people to regulate and control people.

I don't think anyone is right or wrong, because those concepts don't exist. Everything just... "is." We humans exist, and that's about it. Everything else we make up.

Living within these created confines does seem to help our survival. Then again, it just means that we can live in any way we want, no matter how good or bad we view it, if it means it helps us survive.

 

[freedombecki]

Without delving into this in any great detail you are pretty much on the right track here, Wake. However you are edging close to the philosophical precipice of Existentialism. Are you sure that this is the direction you want to go in? You might not be in the right place to find "intellectual heavyweights".

Why didn't you simply say you wished to discuss the pros and cons of Kohlberg Theory of Moral Development in mankind?

 

[Foxfyre]

No, friend, moral relativism is not about scientifically concrete ideas or differences. And while what is called 'description moral relativism' is basically the acknowledgement that people do disagree in concepts of right and wrong, 'meta-ethical moral relativism' suggests that when they disagree, nobody is objectively right or wrong. (Objectively in this sense means that we are unbiased re whether this person or group is more right than another.) Which is pretty much the position you took in the OP, yes?

"Normative moral relativism' is the concept of tolerance; i.e. because there is no objective right or wrong, we should tolerate and not interfere in what others choose to do whether or not what they do would be right or wrong for us personally.

In your suggested world, there would be no law and only anarchy. And that is no way to live.

Disclaimer: They never should have let somebody like me into a philosophy class.

I suppose moral relativism doesn't imply that moral are scientifically concrete; that should mean that they're manmade.

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures.* My perspective is that they all don't exist, and that no matter how different they are they're all made up by people to regulate and control people.

I don't think anyone is right or wrong, because those concepts don't exist. Everything just... "is." We humans exist, and that's about it. Everything else we make up.

Living within these created confines does seem to help our survival. Then again, it just means that we can live in any way we want, no matter how good or bad we view it, if it means it helps us survive.

Controlling others can be objective or subjective.

Objectively it is "I don't eat meat and therefore nobody will be allowed to eat meat." (Where did our reluctance to eat meat come from; i.e. conscious choice or something inate within us? But forcing others to conform to our own lifestle is indeed coercive and controlling.)

Subjectively it is "It is morally wrong to eat meat and those who do should feel ashamed. If we make it shameful enough all will stop eating meat." (Where did the 'morally wrong' come from? Conscious choice or inate? But manipulating others to accept our morals is indeed coercive and controlling.)

But going back to the food choices thing. Many cultures routinely butcher and eat dogs, cats, horses. The very thought of that triggers revulsion in the average American.

Why?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

[ame=http://youtu.be/7m6LnOL8qL0]Alfred Hitchcock's Rope (1948) (6/12) You don't really approve of murder - YouTube[/ame]

One of my favorite movies Alfred Hitchcock's ROPE. Reading the posts on this thread made me think of this movie since it touches on some of the points that have been made here.

 

[daws101]

“It was Christianity which first painted the devil on the worlds wall; It was Christianity which first brought sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken to it's deepest roots; but belief in the sickness which it taught and propagated continues to exist'. ” - Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[freedombecki]

What are your thoughts, please?

Thanks for a thoughtful post, Wake. Unfortunately, what I believe was indentured into my mind at around age 9 when I memorized the Presbyterian catechism about the purpose of man being to love God through the teachings of his only son, Jesus Christ. I still believe it. Christ taught the 10 Commandments by summation when he was talking to a young lawyer to basically (1) Love and practice God's purposes and law and (2) Love one's neighbor as yourself.

We live in an imperfect world and have imperfect reactions to it. I believe in God's precepts for mankind and accept that I don't have to understand everything because love and trust fill in the gaps.

I also believe love is not always what we think it is. Sometimes love is a parent correcting an unruly child with a little flyswatter to the butt so he or she will not make an ass of him or herself again in the future. It doesn't get you love back, but it does make children think before they go head-straight into trouble once they learn respect for other people.

And that's what I've thought for years, although I think I may have been the only Presbyterian in my high school, because few of them thought so and acted accordingly. So I just learned to let the world go on by, tend to my own self-improvement, and when pinned down, tell my thoughts as honestly as I know how. I also learned that people with no beliefs are prone to tripping, and I spend a few minutes reviewing my day at night when my health permits to ask God to help them overcome the blindness that causes themselves and others pain.

Thanks for asking my opinion. I do not expect it would mean much to anyone else.

I've read your post, and I have a few contrasting thoughts on it. I can disagree and argue against some of your points but truly respect and appreciate your company. Please don't begrudge my differing opinions.

Reading your post, it's true that your beliefs were indentured into your mind when you were around 9 years old. Likewise, when I was around the age of 9, my parents indoctrinated me into their Apostolic-Pentecostal beliefs. They taught me to fear the heated, cavernous Hell beneath the earth, and to not disobey them or else I'd go to Hell for being rebellious. They opined that all people, even little ones and the unborn, would wind up in Hell if they weren't baptized both in water and through the indwelling of the holy Spirit, evidence by speaking in tongues. (In spite of my seemingly atheistic and existentialist views, speaking in tongues has always been a phenomenon I could never quite explain away.)

When we are little... when we are young... we rarely question. We accept what we're taught by our parents as the truth. We're conditioned to behave in certain ways as well, while we're young, in the hopes of our parents that we'll behave and abide in those same ways. I was spanked as a child for stealing and other bad deeds, with resolve, and to this day I have kept myself out of trouble with the law. The mere temptation to steal an item conjures up memories of a swift swatting with a trusty, oak board. It's behavioral conditioning, psychology 101.

The chemical feeling known as love exists, but some people think of it differently than others. I don't understand the scientific reasoning to it. Maybe it's part of the natural order, in that it would for sure help creatures survive and procreate. A female crocodile loves her little ones so badly that she's willing to sit atop the nest to protect them, and even guard them in her toothed mouth to keep them safe. Maybe love is a chemical necessary for the survival of the species.

I question the notion of god because people don't know things. They don't know if a deity exists. They put their faiths in a legion of different gods. How can one person of a religious faith tell another that his god doesn't exist? I'm inclined to believe that all religions can't be true, so therefore they must all be false... created and transformed due to changing people and time. Every different era and every different people brings about a new, distinct god... another variation, more variations! Consider Christianity. You are, I think, Presbyterian. How do you know you're right? What if you're wrong and the Catholics are on the right path? How can their version of god be more true than yours? What about the Apostolics? The Baptists? The Lutherans?

It is people and their collective yet different views that shape their view of "the god." If I destroy 2/3 of the world and lay waste to most of technology, how do you imagine the god of that era would evolve and become? See, it is true that the ideas of god change with time, people, and circumstance. And the more afraid a people are, the more violent and cruel that "god" becomes, because it is THEIR views. The Aztecs and the Mayans were afriad in their times. They dealt with plagues, warring tribes, famine, death and rape every which way... why not have a god who wants sacrifices? Make it as violent and gory as possible to brand something in the minds of the fearful people, to inspire them, to make them believe. To make them strong and lethal. Nowadays, people don't fear that much, so their respective gods (mascots I call them), are far less violent.

That conceptual "seedling" our parents put into our minds when we are so young and pliable... more often than not it takes root.

I question the notion of god because people don't know things. They don't know if a deity exists. They put their faiths in a legion of different gods. How can one person of a religious faith tell another that his god doesn't exist? I'm inclined to believe that all religions can't be true, so therefore they must all be false... created and transformed due to changing people and time. Every different era and every different people brings about a new, distinct god... another variation, more variations! Consider Christianity. You are, I think, Presbyterian. How do you know you're right? What if you're wrong and the Catholics are on the right path? How can their version of god be more true than yours? What about the Apostolics? The Baptists? The Lutherans?

Sorry for being so simple, but in my (narrow) view, if you believe in the Apostle's Creed's precepts of God's word being made flesh in Christ's teachings, there is no east nor west whether one calls oneself Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, etc. There are exceptions, such as the Christian Church Disciples' breakaway Jim Jones, who took a thousand Americans to Guyana and murdered all of them with cyanide-laced koolaid and sedatives when Congressman Leo Ryan came to take 16 members back to America who felt the project had become a labor concentration camp run by a deep-into-drug-use leader Jim Jones, Congressman
Ryan is the only congressman to have ever been killed in the line of duty of saving Americans' lives. I also had contact with people who believed in salvation characterized by unknown tongues who thought everybody else was going to burn in hell except them and their small circle of 50 or 60 people, which ticked me off, because I knew my ministerial ancestors were people in good standing with the word of the Lord, on both sides of the family. I could not see a single one of these kindly people going to Hades for their sins of loving their communities and living exemplary lives dedicated to helping people down on their luck, organizing fundraisers for hospitalizing and housing wounded veterans in every war the United States of America ever fought. They knew a lot of scriptures and were impressive but forgot some charter scriptures direct from Jesus' lips about not interfering with obedient others who loved him and preached truthful things in his name.

Our Book of Order of 1967 is scripture-compatible and calls for the church to be an agent of reconciliation of man to God and reconciliation of man to other men and to do so in an orderly way.

I also feel a kinship to Christ's contemporary Jews and acknowledge he taught in Jewish synagogues oftener than he did by the sea to masses. He got along with most of them except those who used the temple to make a killing off the people with dishonest transactions and sales of merchandise.

 

[freedombecki]

“It was Christianity which first painted the devil on the worlds wall; It was Christianity which first brought sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken to it's deepest roots; but belief in the sickness which it taught and propagated continues to exist'. ” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Apparently Nietzsche failed to read the book of Job among others.

 

[daws101]

“It was Christianity which first painted the devil on the worlds wall; It was Christianity which first brought sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken to it's deepest roots; but belief in the sickness which it taught and propagated continues to exist'. ” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Apparently Nietzsche failed to read the book of Job among others.

he read it all right .
like myself he was not impressed...

 

[theword]

“It was Christianity which first painted the devil on the worlds wall; It was Christianity which first brought sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken to it's deepest roots; but belief in the sickness which it taught and propagated continues to exist'. ” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Apparently Nietzsche failed to read the book of Job among others.

And Christians have failed to read and understand the prophecies in Daniel or Revelation that shows us saints about the false religion of Christianity that was used to change the laws of God and promote their own rules in this world.

 

[Ropey]

“It was Christianity which first painted the devil on the worlds wall; It was Christianity which first brought sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken to it's deepest roots; but belief in the sickness which it taught and propagated continues to exist'. ” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Apparently Nietzsche failed to read the book of Job among others.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Nietzsche was peachy
but Sartre was smartre.

 

[freedombecki]

“It was Christianity which first painted the devil on the worlds wall; It was Christianity which first brought sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken to it's deepest roots; but belief in the sickness which it taught and propagated continues to exist'. ” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Apparently Nietzsche failed to read the book of Job among others.

he read it all right .
like myself he was not impressed...

Job lived long before Christ. The story starts out, and one of God's fallen angels, notices God lavishes all his attention on a man named Job, his follower and challenged him to take away the man's possessions and health, he would then leave God's presence and wouldn't like God any more. the rest is history. Job didn't denounce his maker, and God won over the dervish fallen one. There were not any "Christians" at the time.

Therefore, Friedrich Nietzsche was just looking for an excuse to whack Christianity if he knew about Job and even back to Genesis and the story of the temptation. Nietzsche was fulla prunes.

 

[daws101]

Apparently Nietzsche failed to read the book of Job among others.

he read it all right .
like myself he was not impressed...

Job lived long before Christ. The story starts out, and one of God's fallen angels, notices God lavishes all his attention on a man named Job, his follower and challenged him to take away the man's possessions and health, he would then leave God's presence and wouldn't like God any more. the rest is history. Job didn't denounce his maker, and God won over the dervish fallen one. There were not any "Christians" at the time.

Therefore, Friedrich Nietzsche was just looking for an excuse to whack Christianity if he knew about Job and even back to Genesis and the story of the temptation. Nietzsche was fulla prunes.

maybe he realized that the bible is fiction..
After graduation in 1864, Nietzsche commenced studies in theology and classical philology at the University of Bonn. For a short time he and Deussen became members of the Burschenschaft Frankonia. After one semester (and to the anger of his mother) he stopped his theological studies and lost his faith.[53] As early as his 1862 essay "Fate and History", Nietzsche had argued that historical research had discredited the central teachings of Christianity,[54] but David Strauss's Life of Jesus also seems to have had a profound effect on the young man.[53] although Nietzsche had already argued that historical research had discredited the central teachings of Christianity in his 1862 essay "Fate and History". In 1865, at the age of 20, Nietzsche wrote to his sister Elisabeth, who was deeply religious, a letter regarding his loss of faith. This letter ended with a following sentence:
"Hence the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..."
Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

guess he did know the fable of job...