Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

My way of approaching to God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: My way of approaching to God

    Originally posted by Siamanto View Post
    Do you think that Categorical Imperatives - as understood by Kant - can be the foundation of a morality that is not based on God? Or are they, from a moral point of view. just a "modern" interpretation of what is called "God?"
    I do not think that Categorical Imperatives work as an atheistic paradigm (although it does work theologically speaking); following a "morality of duty and obligation" is again a subjective choice or wish no better or worse than choosing a Machiavellian/Nietzschean "might equals right" mentality. There is nothing that compels you to act in a certain way. Sure, you can follow a morality of self-sacrifice or hedonism or of the religion of neo-humanism and science-worship but without a God these moralities break down into absurdity: i.e. the Nietzshcean idea of eternal reccurrence, or the Sartrean "nausea" of existence. Thus, discussion of morality without God is almost laughable

    I'm currently reading a book called "Does God Exist?" by a German Catholic theologian named Hans Küng. It deals with this very subject and I highly reccomend it to anyone interested.
    Last edited by yerazhishda; 06-29-2008, 06:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: My way of approaching to God

      Originally posted by yerazhishda View Post
      .. but without a God these moralities break down into absurdity: i.e. the Nietzshcean idea of eternal reccurrence, or the Sartrean "nausea" of existence. Thus, discussion of morality without God is almost laughable
      This makes no sense. Even a basic utilitarian view is enough to establish that morality can exist without a God.
      this post = teh win.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: My way of approaching to God

        Originally posted by Sip View Post
        This makes no sense. Even a basic utilitarian view is enough to establish that morality can exist without a God.
        Utilitarianism is not enough to establish an atheistic paradigm because it cannot answer why "happiness" should be a proper standard of value in the first place.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: My way of approaching to God

          You don't need a belief in God to understand that we all want to be happy and don't want to suffer.

          There you go, utilitarianism is back in the game.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: My way of approaching to God

            Originally posted by jgk3 View Post
            You don't need a belief in God to understand that we all want to be happy and don't want to suffer.

            There you go, utilitarianism is back in the game.
            Even if you can prove that we all want to be happy (which is inherently impossible b/c of so many factors) this does not necessarily mean that happiness should be the standard of value for a code of ethics, as shown in Kant's Categorical Imperative. The question "do I want to be happy?" begs the question "do I want to live in the first place?".

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: My way of approaching to God

              Originally posted by yerazhishda View Post
              Utilitarianism is not enough to establish an atheistic paradigm because it cannot answer why "happiness" should be a proper standard of value in the first place.
              Similarly, theism does not explain compassion for one another as human beings. At the very least, care of the offspring (such as the mother's love for her child) does not stem from belief in God. How do you explain such compassion and the morality it inevitably entails?

              For example, in many species, especially in humans, the parents will even go as far as sacrificing themselves to ensure "happiness" (utility?) of their children. This is more of an instinctive behavior rather than anything that derives from any belief in Gods.
              Last edited by Sip; 06-29-2008, 08:17 PM.
              this post = teh win.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: My way of approaching to God

                Originally posted by yerazhishda View Post
                Even if you can prove that we all want to be happy (which is inherently impossible b/c of so many factors) this does not necessarily mean that happiness should be the standard of value for a code of ethics, as shown in Kant's Categorical Imperative. The question "do I want to be happy?" begs the question "do I want to live in the first place?".
                As sip brought up, the context of this happiness/utility involves compassion, our devotion and concern to the happiness and well being of others. It is this trait in us that leads us to feel happy in the end. What we are talking about here isn't about temporary pleasures as being a standard of value for a code of ethics.

                We still all want to be happy, but there are two approaches to understanding this. The first is to firstly think of ourselves attaining a level of happiness through a given pursuit, and the other is to firstly think of others attaining a level of happiness thanks to our efforts and collaboration.

                The first leads to hedonism, the second towards compassion. I bring this up because in my opinion, if your approach is the second one (compassion), it does not so easily lead you to ask "do I want to live in the first place" (if you do ask yourself this, you won't resort to cynicism to provide your answer because if you know you can help make others happy with your actions in daily life, you will always say yes), it doesn't lead us to nihilism, because we have an understanding, a feeling that our existence is inherently valuable because it could make others happy, it could improve the life of an organism much larger than our own individual self. And we feel the benefits of this, it makes us happy, and yet, we did not pursue our own individual happiness to begin with.

                I wholeheartedly agree that an understanding of utilitarianism that is devoid of concepts of compassion, concern for others, empathy, etc... has no reason to affirm that "happiness" (or whatever shallow scrapings of it that would be left as a result of such a view) should be a standard of value for a code of ethics.

                Do you see where I'm getting at?
                Last edited by jgk3; 06-29-2008, 09:13 PM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X