Why would somebody embrace the worst possible scenario?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IWantGod said:
It doesn’t matter to you whether something is truly good or evil.
Click to expand...
According to which interpretation of God? What is good or evil varies greatly amoung the 3 Abrahamic faiths and their denominations/sects. On the end feeding the poor is good and murder is evil. On another extreme killing those who don’t believe like you is good and drawing your faith’s most famous prophet is evil.
It doesn’t matter to you if the value, meaning and purpose you perceive in your activity and the beings around you is just a fantasy in your head.
Click to expand...
A lot of things are fantasy. Some in our own heads and others are shared fantasies. The value of money is a shared fantasy. The value of a cherished item a spouse gave us is a fantasy within our own head. That doesn’t make it any less important.
It doesn’t matter to you if you cease to exist. Existence is just something happening to you.

May i suggest that, unless you are living in a subjectively induced dreamworld
Click to expand...
I exist now (probably), but one day i won’t. It is beyond my power to prevent this, I can only delay it. Therefore, why expend a great deal of worry over something I’m powerless to change?

I won’t say it doesn’t matter at all. But I’ve come to accept my mortality a while ago.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
It seems strange to me that someone would rather cease to exist rather than face the possibility of heaven or hell. I don’t want to cease to exist and i don’t want to go to hell either.
Click to expand...
Strange? Don’t a number of Christian denominations claim that those not let into heaven will be destroyed?
 
IWantGod said:
An action can only be evil if there is a God.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you mean ‘if you believe in a God’.

But let’s et’s assume for the purpose of this argument that God doesn’t exist. Are you then saying that an act could never be described as evil? That raping a child could not be described as such?

You can only say that an act cannot be evil if there is no God if you define evil as something that would offend God. Which is, needless to say, not an argument but a point of view.

B: Is that an evil act?
I: Mmm. Not sure. I’ll have to check with someone first.

A nonsensical situation, so you can’t mean that.
 
Last edited:
To not believe in a higher power (thus to not expect an eternal punishment for one’s actions) allows for a very comfortable living. One can indulge in sin all they want and focus in on themselves for all of their life. Virtue is uncomfortable to pursue and maintain
 
ILoveYeshua said:
To not believe in a higher power (thus to not expect an eternal punishment for one’s actions) allows for a very comfortable living. One can indulge in sin all they want and focus in on themselves for all of their life. Virtue is uncomfortable to pursue and maintain
Click to expand...
So I guess we should all be thankfull that you believe. Otherwise you’d be out raping and pillaging. I’d say that if the threat of punishment is all that stops you, then I’m glad you don’t live near me.
 
I mean, there’s still the police and the chance for social ostracism.
 
Bradskii said:
Perhaps you mean ‘if you believe in a God’
Click to expand...
No i mean that without God, there is only physical activity, and thus applying words like good and evil to physical activity has no truth value. Its meaningless.

Surely, when you speak of right or wrong you are merely speaking about what is pleasurable to you or not pleasurable to you. What you like and dislike.

Clearly i don’t mean that…
 
Last edited:
So your sense of morality doesn’t rise above pragmatic concerns (i’m not saying being pragmatic is necessarily a bad thing, We all employ pragmatism in our lives to varying degrees). Your not so much concerned with what the metaphysical nature of things are but rather what just so happens to be or not be desirable
 
Last edited:
Quick side note, it’s been theorized by some that true altruism doesn’t exist. I don’t know if I believe that though. Anyway, if one believed in God, then the non-violent sins (such as the sexual ones) would be uncomfortable to commit. To take away belief in God takes away that cognitive dissonance/guilt. Hence, comfortable living

Virtue is generally difficult to form, which is why we admire virtuous people
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
So your sense of morality doesn’t rise above pragmatic concerns (i’m not saying being pragmatic is necessarily a bad thing, We all employ pragmatism in our lives to varying degrees). Your not so much concerned with what the metaphysical nature of things are but rather what just so happens to be or not be desirable
Click to expand...
You do exactly as I do. We make our own minds up about what is right or wrong. You have made your mind up that what the Catholic church teaches is morally correct. Otherwise, what are the options?

The first is that you are following those teachings blindly, with no thought going into their intrinsic moral value. The second is that you have made a conscious decision that the teachings are correct.

I have also made my own decisions on what the church teaches. And apart from the obvious matter of not agreeing on the existence of God, I fully endorse a lot of what it says. With exceptions almost entirely consiting of sexual matters.

God, and His representatives here, do not want mindless automatons. They want you to come to a personal decision about moral matters. Albeit with their guidance.

If you were honest, you would have to say that God might not exist. Just as I must say He might. An evil act is evil, and we would bothe agree that that was the case (unless you claim blasphemy or masturbation is evil), which ever one of us is right.
 
Bradskii said:
You do exactly as I do. We make our own minds up about what is right or wrong.
Click to expand...
No, actually i don’t. You make up your mind in regards to practical matters. You think to yourself this is undesirable, or you say, such and such is a desirable action, or you think if we ban this, such and such is beneficial to my own subjective needs., and you call that morality.

My discernment of right or wrong is based upon the nature of God the foundation of all creation. I discern the morality of human actions as being objectively true about human behavior. Its not just a practical matter, and a thing is wrong whether i find it desirable or not because it is a matter of truth and not what i just so happen to find pleasing or undesirable. In other words i think some actions are objectively truly evil and not just subjectively undesirable and i can discern rationally why a particular action is objectively wrong; it is not just a blind following of rules… Morality is not merely a function of my ego or pragmatism.

In any case, how i know something to be wrong in regards to God is irrelevant because it is certainly true that without God Moral truth is meaningless and all we have is pragmatism.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
If you were honest, you would have to say that God might not exist. Just as I must say He might. An evil act is evil, and we would bothe agree that that was the case (unless you claim blasphemy or masturbation is evil), which ever one of us is right.
Click to expand...
Metaphysically speaking i’m incapable of saying that God might not exist, because to me that’s like saying a square-triangle could possibly exist. However, Christianity as a religion might be false. If they found the body of Jesus, i could no-longer be a Christian. Christianity requires faith.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Bradskii:
You do exactly as I do. We make our own minds up about what is right or wrong.
Click to expand...
No, actually i don’t. You make up your mind in regards to practical matters. You think to yourself this is undesirable, or you say, such and such is a desirable action, or you think if we ban this, such and such is beneficial to my own subjective needs., and you call that morality.

My discernment of right or wrong is based upon the nature of God the foundation of all creation. I discern the morality of human actions as being objectively true about human behavior. Its not just a practical matter, and a thing is wrong whether i find it desirable or not because it is a matter of truth and not what i just so happen to find pleasing or undesirable. In other words i think some actions are objectively truly evil and not just subjectively undesirable and i can discern rationally why a particular action is objectively wrong; it is not just a blind following of rules… Morality is not merely a function of my ego or pragmatism.
Click to expand...
What you describe as moral truth is something you discern yourself. It matters not whether you would prefer one action over another. That is not the basis for making those decisions. And saying that your discernment is ‘based on the nature of God’ sounds deep and meaningful, but is just the opposite.

Is deciding whether hunting or factory farming or the deadly use of drones or burning fossil fuels or arms manufacturing or mining in sacred land or marriage at 14 or countless other moral questions ‘based on the nature of God’. And if they are, how do you find out the correct answer. And when you think you do, how do we know you are right?
 
Bradskii said:
That is not the basis for making those decisions.
Click to expand...
Your basis for making decisions are irrational because it is not based upon what is metaphysically true, but rather it is based upon how you feel, the synapses firing in your brain, nothing more…
Bradskii said:
And saying that your discernment is ‘based on the nature of God’ sounds deep and meaningful, but is just the opposite.
Click to expand...
As opposed to finding meaning and moral truth where there is none? I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
ILoveYeshua said:
Quick side note, it’s been theorized by some that true altruism doesn’t exist. I don’t know if I believe that though. Anyway, if one believed in God, then the non-violent sins (such as the sexual ones) would be uncomfortable to commit. To take away belief in God takes away that cognitive dissonance/guilt. Hence, comfortable living

Virtue is generally difficult to form, which is why we admire virtuous people
Click to expand...
I think that you mean that certain sexual acts would be uncomfortable if you believed that God would be displeased. His existence has no bearing on your sexual encounters. But you have been told that He would be displeased, therefore you believe that certain sexual acts are wrong.

That is an appeal to authority. ‘That’s what I have been told, therefore it is true’. I’m sure that you’d agree that the world would be a better place if a lot of people at various times had not thought that way. Why should younget a pass on that?

Unless you have gone through the exact same process as everyone else and decided on practical grounds that those acts are immoral.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Bradskii:
That is not the basis for making those decisions.
Click to expand...
Your basis for making decisions are irrational because it is not based upon what is metaphysically true, but rather it is based upon how you feel, the synapses firing in your brain, nothing more…
Bradskii said:
And saying that your discernment is ‘based on the nature of God’ sounds deep and meaningful, but is just the opposite.
Click to expand...
As opposed to finding meaning and moral truth where there is none? I rest my case.
Click to expand...
You haven’t made a case to rest. Could you please answer the questions I asked above? They weren’t rhetorical.
 
Last edited:
The situation I have in mind is the person who has analyzed a few religious traditions and has decided that a particular tradition merits faith. Because faith is put in a particular tradition, what that tradition teaches is taken to heart. That person’s life would be more comfortable in the realm of at least “victimless sins”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top