A World without Religion?

[tonyrey]

""Who on earth said it was ‘kind of OK’ to kill a daughter for getting a divorce? It is in no way OK at all. Perhaps you seem to think that if the father can come up with some reasons for killing her, then that grants it some validity. Is that what you are saying? That because it is wrong there can never be a reason he can give for doing it? Which is, if that is indeed what you are implying, bizarre. “”

Your implying that if God doesn’t give you a reason you can fully understand fir every one if his actions that this makes him evil or wrong ?
I’m trying to understand this statement ?
If God who can see all unfold past , present and future doesn’t explain every action of his in a way that you fully can’t understand then he is wrong or evil . You bradski who is a finite being like all of us who can’t see things on a scale that God sees them can presume to judge his goodness or or wrongness ?
It’s like a 2 year old kid going into a candy store and grabbing every piece if candy that is in there after being told not to by his parents 10 times. The kid gets spanked and ends up calling his parents evil and uncaring . Granted this isn’t the same as eternal punishment t but the analogy fits .
I know he is God . I know that he is love itself , that he is morality itself , that he is justice itself . Maybe one day he will reveal all of the answers to us , but I don’t see how we can fully comprehend him now.
Does not the bible say that Gods ways are way above mans ways ?
It’s irrational to believe we can know it all here. We simply aren’t God.
That’s not to say that he doesn’t explain himself on many things because he does .

Who are u bradski to say what is objectively good or objectively evil. In a worldview that views humans as just mindless robots that happened to come together through blind chance and chemical interaction why should evil and good even exist ?
.

If you just yell out Objective Morality! and leave it at that, you are saying that no reasons need be given. But surely, even if something is Objectively Wrong, it must be so for some reasons. So articulate them. Tell me why, without mentioning God, Natural Law, the church or anything at all to do with religion, why he should not kill his daughter. Give me your reasons.

If you can do it, there’s no need to mention objectivity at all (it will be wrong for the reasons given - no need to play any trump cards). If you can’t do it, if you can’t give good reasons, then you lose the argument."""

That’s just it objectively morality can’t be fully explained without a transcendent moral law giver who is morality itself . You can search your heart for the answers as it is said in the bible that God has written his laws into ur heart , but remember that there is another being that operates on this earth and his goal is to try to take you away from the objective moral law giver.

Bradski in your worldview you can’t even explain why helping an old lady across the street is anymore objectively good or evil then a tyrant who kills off a few billion people for population control .

:clapping: Absolutely irrefutable! It reminds me of a materialist on this forum who stated that the belief that torturing a child is wrong is just a question of sentiment.

 

[humble_catholic]

:clapping: Absolutely irrefutable! It reminds me of a materialist on this forum who stated that the belief that torturing a child is wrong is just a question of sentiment.

Yea Tony and that is where atheism leads and that is straight into blind pitiless indifference and nihilism.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with an atheist on another forum where I asked him if he believed that Rape was wrong .
His answer ? ""Isn’t it obvious “”
I said “it sure is”
He thought about his answer for a minute and quickly changed the subject because he knew what I was getting at .
He never brought up the subject of morality again.
He totally believed in objective morality but he couldn’t get himself to admit why and instead he never brought up the subject of morality again .

 

[Bradski]

I could go on, but I am very interested in hearing from you what you think makes such an act wrong. I sincerely am, not trolling or trying to mess with you.

Harm. If you cause no harm, then you have done no wrong. The harm doesn’t have to be physical. It can be mental. And it doesn’t have to be done to a person (or persons). Even that forum meister Humble understands it:

This reminds me of a discussion I had with an atheist on another forum where I asked him if he believed that Rape was wrong .
His answer ? ""Isn’t it obvious “”
I said “it sure is”

And indeed, obvious it sure is…

I’ll call in later to read what PR has to say about fidelity (like we haven’t done it to death already).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If one person says “My God says that we are prohibited from doing A”, another “My God has asked me to do A” how would that be resolved?

 

[PRmerger]

Harm. If you cause no harm, then you have done no wrong. The harm doesn’t have to be physical. It can be mental. And it doesn’t have to be done to a person (or persons).

We are agreed.

And don’t forget, we are agreed that a concept can be harmed–such as a relationship–and that would make an act immoral.

And since all sin causes harm…

we can conclude:

• Adultery is wrong, because it harms the relationship.
• Cheating is wrong, because it harms the individual and the system.
• Contraception is wrong because it harms the individual, society and the relationship.
• Premarital sex is wrong because it harms the individual, society and the relationship.
• Beating your wife is wrong because it harms your wife.
• Buying an expensive dress, wearing it once with the tags tucked in, and then returning it is wrong because justice is harmed (an actual discussion I had with my college roommate, who insisted on doing this because “no one got hurt”)

 

[PRmerger]

If one person says “My God says that we are prohibited from doing A”, another “My God has asked me to do A” how would that be resolved?

If anyone suggests that an act is immoral simply because “My God says so”, then you can dismiss the discussion and go enjoy your mashed turnips.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you cause no harm, then you have done no wrong. The harm doesn’t have to be physical. It can be mental. And it doesn’t have to be done to a person (or persons).

Very good. And the harm can be done to others or to nature. It can also be done to the self, as in the case of gluttony or other forms of physical abuse; along with prideful disobedience to the will of God as to how we should live our lives, as in the case of deceiving one’s self about the existence of God or the attributes (such as alleged cruelty) of God.

 

[PRmerger]

Harm. If you cause no harm, then you have done no wrong. The harm doesn’t have to be physical. It can be mental. And it doesn’t have to be done to a person (or persons).

Very good. And the harm can be done to others or to nature. It can also be done to the self, as in the case of gluttony or other forms of physical abuse; along with prideful disobedience to the will of God as to how we should live our lives, as in the case of deceiving one’s self about the existence of God or the attributes (such as alleged cruelty) of God.

And let’s not forget that Bradski also acknowledges that an act can be immoral if it has the potential to do harm. Even if no actual harm is done (to a concept, person, society, nor physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally).

 

[AnimalSpirits]

A celestial torture chamber exists only in your imagination and you would replace it by inflicting your ideas on everyone regardless of what they desire

Being eternally eaten by worms that do not die and fires that are not quenches… sounds like torture to me,

• and only a lunatic would want to sleep forever, live like a zombie forever or disappear forever.

Rather than eternal suffering?

In other words you would create an inferno instead of allowing others to shape their own destiny.

Errr no. I’d create a not so bad place to replace eternal torment.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

If you’re a parent, you’ve cooperated with inflicting suffering (at least, if you’re a good parent).

Yet I presume you’re loving? Yes?

(Please tell me you’re not one of those people who believe immunizing your children is an abomination. I simply don’t have the energy to engage with someone right now who’s that ridiculous).

Why does a parent inflict suffering? To discourage the child from future transgressions. This is productive and not deplorable, from my perspective. Unless the souls in hell get another shot after a temporary stint, this is not at all comparable.

 

[PRmerger]

Being eternally eaten by worms that do not die and fires that are not quenches… sounds like torture to me,

It’s a good thing this doesn’t happen since flesh is finite…and at a certain point the worms would have eaten every piece of meat possible.

Do you believe worms can eat immaterial souls?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

That’s why we have a Church, Animal.

Perhaps if you were on a Fundamentalist/Bible Alone Forum you could posit that question there?

So has the Church officially proclaimed what you stated earlier? That OT’s genocidal commands were purely symbolic?

 

[PRmerger]

Why does a parent inflict suffering? To discourage the child from future transgressions.

Really? You get your child immunized to prevent her from being naughty?

I take my children to get them immunized, and inflict suffering upon them, because I love them.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I’m still curious as to how you conclude that there is “no god at all” given this discussion.

I don’t conclude “no god” from this discussion or in general- just that the idea of god as the embodiment of good and as one who delivers eternal suffering are not compatible.

 

[PRmerger]

So has the Church officially proclaimed what you stated earlier? That OT’s genocidal commands were purely symbolic?

No, not purely symbolic.

But then again, no one here has posited that they were purely symbolic either.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Really? You get your child immunized to prevent her from being naughty?

I take my children to get them immunized, and inflict suffering upon them, because I love them.

So in general we can say that parents can inflict temporary suffering on their children to make them better people or save them future suffering. If the damned were going to emerge from timeout having learned their lesson, we’d have a pretty good comparison.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

No, not purely symbolic.

But then again, no one here has posited that they were purely symbolic either.

Okay, so let’s take the reverse- has the Church ever official proclaimed that those commands were anything other than 100% literal? If not, then what is the basis for claiming they are symbolic?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t conclude “no god” from this discussion or in general- just that the idea of god as the embodiment of good and as one who delivers eternal suffering are not compatible.

Fair enough. For it would indeed be a nonsequitur to conclude that God couldn’t exist because He condemns folks to hell.

So could you explain why you inserted this (in bold), in the context of this discussion?

And, for most, I hope the better choice is to find a nicer god that won’t torture those who don’t follow his rules- or possibly no god at all.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, so let’s take the reverse- has the Church ever official proclaimed that those commands were anything other than 100% literal? If not, then what is the basis for claiming they are symbolic?

Read this, and then we can chat:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Fair enough. For it would indeed be a nonsequitur to conclude that God couldn’t exist because He condemns folks to hell.

So could you explain why you inserted this (in bold), in the context of this discussion?

I just claim that two traits he is presented as having in this particular circumstance don’t add up- it could be, for the purposes of the argument here, that there’s some other god floating around with a different set of characteristics.

And in the boldtext, what I meant was that someone might go looking for a “nicer” god and have it dawn on them that they don’t really have a strong reason to believe in any of the gods presented.