Morality

[dusken]

Do not extrapolate from your own experience and do not judge others according to your own baseness. Your not having faith for your not seeing any 'profit' in it doesn't imply that people, who have faith, do so out of 'interest'. There may be some occurrences of the latter but such people clearly don't have any understanding whatsoever of spiritual life in general and of christian (orthodox christian that is) spirituality in particular which is built upon morals of struggle and sacrifice, quite the opposite of self-satisfaction and self-centerdness.

I was not extrapolating from my experience. As a matter of fact, I have never met anybody like that. I was responding to, and in a sense paraphrasing, what Jung said. I know better than to say that is the case for everyone. Many say that they just feel it is right. Fine. However, there not being a tangible justification is what is the real assertion here.

Also, someone can be spiritual and not believe in the Judeo-Christian god.

[gevo]

I like to cuss because cussing is beautiful in moderation.

.......... Just stop posting and observe, oh innocent one.

OK.. i think i get it now.. you think cussing is beautiful in moderation.. and you want me to stop posting.. got it.. thx for the advice.. moron.

[Anonymouse]

OK.. i think i get it now.. you think cussing is beautiful in moderation.. and you want me to stop posting.. got it.. thx for the advice.. moron.

Don't take him seriously, he's just the local Satanist, he adds nothing but flavor to the forums, albeit a bitter one. He does run Dusken's Donuts, which are extremely good.

[dusken]

While we acknowledge God can in no way be "proven" since it is an immaterial concept, it is also acknowledged that it cannot be disproven. Apparently only arrogance would assume you can somehow disprove it. We can sit here and claim who refuted what, but that is the easy way out. Evolution is not a immaterial concept it is, simply put, a scientific dogma. Apparently you did not read Jung's statement deep enough for he explained science is to explain facts, not be a truth in and of itself, nor can you disprove God or religous beliefs, since the endpoint of all religion is a belief in God or Gods. Apparently you take this to the heart and it does bother you while below you will go on to claim "nothing is wrong"...

Pay attention! He said that it is pointless to try to prove or disprove an immaterial thing like God since we are using earthly material means and while he did say we have a choice, the evidence is in symbols of dreams and visions. In other words if we choose to interpret them as such and give them the numinosity, this from a guy who spent his whole career analyzing dreams and dream symbolism, but apparently the Satanic forces of the Dusken are so wise that they are able to debunk Carl Jung.

This is funny and it is where the problem is with this thread. You started a thread trying to prove God through morality and are now posting something that says you cannot do either. I know you cannot disprove the existence of God. If you were not so busy calling me an atheist, you would see that I accept that. But it still stands that "true until proven false" is an illogical approach. You are under the impression that the action of not believing is mutually inclusive with denying and that is wrong. You are, by this very idea, obliged to accept the validity of all possible faiths and make them equal in stature to your one, making yours infinitesimal in value.

Oh, and I am not bothered by anything. You and some others here are in the habit of pointing out when you feel someone is bothered by something if they respond to you and you have nothing to say. That is completely useless in a discussion.

It is not assuming anything. Your position now would be assuming something, since man's existence is plagued by duality, and even Manicheism and Zoroastrianism at one point answered this. There is no assumption in what is mans existential paradox. You are, once again, in the spirit of making all things elastic and pliable, as relativists like to do, trying to blur things, when as Jung expressed there are opposites in our world, such as good and evil, day and night, positive and negative, dark and light, big and small, tall and short, smart and stupid, life and death, etc. And this is mans paradox. Jung was on the money since we have a symbolic identity, since we are a creature yet possess a name and a life history. A creator with a mind that speculates about space and infinity and can go into any point in space imaginitively and look at our own planet from outside, yet simultaneously, we are a creature that shyts, and a food for worms. It is the paradox. We are out of nature yet hopelessly in it, the duality, tied to the stars, yet possessing a material flesh which smells, aches, shyts and bleeds.

My response was to the ideas of good an evil alone. His quote put the ideas of good and evil on the level of the dualities he mentioned prior. The difference is that the nature of good and evil are dependant on the person pointing the finger. Though I am not a relativist, I can tell you those ideas are in fact relative because they are assigned a meaning as they are used.

That reason is entirely your own. It is stupid to assume which you do that faith comes entirely from reasons of selfishness.

I did not assume anything of a sort. That is what Carl Jung was suggesting as an ultimate justification for believing if you did not have a more personal reason.

However, your reason that morality comes entirely from the fuzzy notion called "survival instinct" ( which ironically atheists use to describe Christianity and God, has problems. Ethical ideals are not made more compelling by the belief that those ideals lack a transcendent basis, that they come not from God but from the genome. And how did the genome get here to begin with? We eventually go back to the question of "how" and "who". The other problem is that this materialist worldview, which I encountered in loser in the soul thread, fails to convince us that every mental process can be explained in material terms. But when for example the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences is noticed one considers how existence might have a dimension beyond mere materialistic existence. For reasons that continues to dwarf humanity, scientists and philosophers, the correspondence of math and experimental data in physics are amazingly close. My guess is that the bulk of atheists have the aggressively secular outlook less as result of "survival instinct" or "genes" than they do to an emotional response to experiences as youth. But that is another case altogether. In Genesis 1:21-27, the Bible states that simple aquatic animals were created, then land animals, mammals, and finally humans. Ironically, this is the same sequence found in the fossil record. As for primitive cavemen, the Talmud's commentary on Genesis, written down 1500 years ago, is filledwith descriptions of hominids having the same shape and intelligence as human beings but lacking the essence of what it means to be human, a soul.

First of all, survival instinct draws an opinion on the origins of religion and the belief in God and there is nothing ironic about it.

I never said anything is more compelling. You are talking out of your ass. How the genome got there is not part of this discussion. That is the entire point. You speak about morality as if it is the ultimate deal breaker. That if anyone attacks what you said it is because they are in denial. But you cannot argue for what you said with out going back and repeating everything you said in the Evolution and Soul threads and ending up at differing premises which will never change. And you need to stop discrediting science because it does not have all of the answers to every question at any given time. An idea of science is that it will never have all questions answered because answering one question will create several others. You seem to ignore this and go right back to "Well you don't know the answer to this so the entire concept of science is incredible." That is stupid. "Talmud's commentary on Genesis, written down 1500 years ago, is filledwith descriptions of hominids having the same shape and intelligence as human beings but lacking the essence of what it means to be human, a soul." This is stupid as well. Who and where are these hominids? The people that wrote the Talumd were not only archaeologists that had as much, if not more, knowledge as archaeology and biology do today but were also psychologists and had the ability to define the soul and identify the lack thereof through telepathy? I think not. The intricate nature of an organisms psychology is directly proportional to its intelligence. Let us not confuse that for a soul.

Can you tell me what a soul really is? Is it possible to have a soul without a god? Is the soul responsible for morality? The probable answers: no, yes, no.

Logic presupposes reason, and as Jung said reason has been misleading and responsible for the spiritual breakdown of modern man. In other words are we mere material beings or spiritual beings? Albert Pike had the same to say, that faith begins where reason ends, for reason itself is misleading, and while we can sit here and make a logical breakdown of how God is logical since creation needs a creator at some point, I will not, for the case here is individual faith.

"Spiritual breakdown." Now that is quite vague. What does that mean? What is spirituality? And is a spiritual breakdown objectively bad? Can you answer any of that without being presumptuous? By being factual?

If only you knew how funny atheists appear to me and how dumbed they are by their beliefs...

If only you knew how little I cared how you get your kicks.

... they constantly try to come off as "nothing is wrong" but in reality they are spiritually deprived of something, even though they will never bring themselves to admit to that.

The psychologist/statistician/theologist/biologist has been a presumptuous prick yet again.

[dusken]

OK.. i think i get it now.. you think cussing is beautiful in moderation.. and you want me to stop posting.. got it.. thx for the advice.. moron.

But dont jump in prematurally and tell me not to fight... Maybe if you directed it only to dusken.. that would be ok.. i dont know why he feels he needs to cuss.. but he may just be bottered by my questions.. anyways... calm down.

How about now? Can he jump in now? Or is calling me a moron not hypocritical?

Fact: you did not understand my original response.
Fact: you did not understand my second response to you.
Fact: I have my opinion about the aesthetic value of something.
Fact: you cannot argue about an opinion.
Fact: if you do then you lack education.
Fact: you are less intelligent than me.
Fact: you have not contributed anything constructive to this thread.
Fact: it is ironic that you woiuld call me a moron.

[Anonymouse]

This is funny and it is where the problem is with this thread. You started a thread trying to prove God through morality and are now posting something that says you cannot do either. I know you cannot disprove the existence of God. If you were not so busy calling me an atheist, you would see that I accept that. But it still stands that "true until proven false" is an illogical approach. You are under the impression that the action of not believing is mutually inclusive with denying and that is wrong. You are, by this very idea, obliged to accept the validity of all possible faiths and make them equal in stature to your one, making yours infinitesimal in value.

It is not something I "proved", it is a belief that morality is what God has given to man. In other words we do not invent our morality as the subjectivists claim. Your contention of whether or not morality originates via survival instincts or otherwise has no bearing on the thread, the original point was that morality was divine in origin and it was objective, not subjective.

My response was to the ideas of good an evil alone. His quote put the ideas of good and evil on the level of the dualities he mentioned prior. The difference is that the nature of good and evil are dependant on the person pointing the finger. I can tell you, the I am not being a relativist, but those ideas are in fact relative because they are assigned a meaning as they are used.

Everything is "dependent" on the person, whether someone is happy or sad. This is in fact pointless. The point is in the ideas themselves, that of good and its opposite evil. Your point is a non-issue here. If something is the opposite of good it is evil. How can something come to mean something other than its content. It isn't relative. It is relative only in the situation such as person A is evil and person B is good, or for instance, person A is happy whereas person B is sad, or what person B did is evil or what person A did is good. Situations have no bearing on this. What we experience is relative, but the idea itself is unyielding.

First of all, survival instinct draws an opinion on the origins of religion and the belief in God and there is nothing ironic about it.

I never said anything is more compelling. You are talking out of your ass. How the genome got there is not part of this discussion. That is the entire point. You speak about morality as if it is the ultimate deal breaker. That if anyone attacks what you said it is because they are in denial. But you cannot argue for what you said with out going back and repeating everything you said in the Evolution and Soul threads and ending up at differing premises which will never change. And you need to stop discrediting science because it does not have all of the answers to every question at any given time. An idea of science is that it will never have all questions answered because answering one question will create several others. You seem to ignore this an go right back to "Well you don't know the answer to this so the entire concept of science is incredible." That is stupid. "Talmud's commentary on Genesis, written down 1500 years ago, is filledwith descriptions of hominids having the same shape and intelligence as human beings but lacking the essence of what it means to be human, a soul." This is stupid as well. Who and where are these hominids? The people that wrote the Talumd were not only archaeologists that had as much, if not more, knowledge as archaeology and biology do today but were also psychologists and had the ability to define and identify the lack of a soul through telepathy? I think not. The intricate nature of an organisms psychology is directly proportional to its intelligence. Let us not confuse that for a soul.

Couple of points: First of all, morality is the ultimate deal breaker for it defines who we are and who we ought to be. Those that have no morality guiding them are some of the worst elements on earth, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to associate yourself with them either. Second, the comment about the Talmud and who wrote it has no bearing. The point is science does not contradict religion and no one here is out to discredit science. All you say "it's ridicilous", as you usually do and that certainly doesn't discredit or disprove it, it only shows your intolerance towards anything that might crack your edifice of thought. What I have argued is against science as the eternal truth. Never have I marginalized it and the only place is the dogma of evolution as holy truth. That was it. Science itself is not to blame for mans constant need to believe whether in God or in evolution. Why do all atheists assume that somehow if someone is religious they automatically fear science and seek to denigrate it? Third point, the brunt of my thread you erroenously misunderstood. It shows how careful you read, for I wasn't so much stressing the divine nature of morality, but its objectivity versus its subjectivity. That was the point which you essentially missed and you are arguing the same thing loser did, albeit he admitted morality is objective while citing evolutionary reasons. It seems you couldn't argue the relativity of morality so you just went toward how morality came to be in your version, which is fine.

What is a soul? Is it possible to have a soul without a god? Is the soul responsible for morality? The probable answers: no, yes, no.

That is a silly question to be asking a Christian for you already know the answer to that.

"Spiritual breakdown." Now that is quite vague. What does that mean? What is spirituality? And is a spiritual break down objectively bad? Can you answer any of that without being presumtuous? By being factual?

What is vague about moral decadence, to put it another way? From the presupposition of moral objectivity it follows that relativism has contributed to spiritual decadence, where man is not viewed as being a spiritual being, as the Buddhist belief goes, but a material being. It is this mechanization and super rationalitism that has drained that spiritual world out of man. When man is reduced to mere materialistic existence, and animal wants and pleasures, morality too must accomodate for why should we care for a hereafter and upholding moral objectivity when all that matters is here and now, and so morality becomes nothing more than subjective whims.

The business of religion, according to the unbelievers mindset, is values, not facts something subjective and private, not objective and public. Religion, in short, equals ethics since the purpose of all religions is to teach an ethic, be it humility, love, or respect, etc. And since Christian ethics is very similar to the ethics of most other major religions, it doesn't matter whether you are a Christian or not, all that matters is whether you are a “good person”. ( Whatever that means to be a "good person" since I hear it all the time by the weirdest of the weird. The people who believe this also usually believe that just about everyone except Hitler, Bush, and Charles Manson is a “good person.”)

If only you knew how little I cared how you get your kicks.

The psychologist/statistician/theologist/biologist has been a presumptuous prick yet again.

All in a days work of entertaining the local satanist.

[loseyourname]

There is no assumption in what is mans existential paradox. You are, once again, in the spirit of making all things elastic and pliable, as relativists like to do, trying to blur things, when as Jung expressed there are opposites in our world, such as good and evil, day and night, positive and negative, dark and light, big and small, tall and short, smart and stupid, life and death, etc. And this is mans paradox.

Most of these concepts are relative. Can you define for me a certain height at which all things become tall and not short? A certain luminosity at which all things become light and not dark? A certain size at which all things become big and not small? A certain IQ at which all people become smart and not stupid? The only concepts here that are clearly dichotomous are life and death. Given your insistence on referring to dusken as an atheist when he has repeatedly argued against atheism makes me wonder if you honestly just don't realize that there are middle positions every now and then, sometimes an entire continuum of them.

It is not something I "proved", it is a belief that morality is what God has given to man. In other words we do not invent our morality as the subjectivists claim. Your contention of whether or not morality originates via survival instincts or otherwise has no bearing on the thread, the original point was that morality was divine in origin and it was objective, not subjective.

So because you laid out as the primary premise of this thread the objective existence of moral absolutes and their divine origin, they are not up for any debate? If you're going to complain about dusken presenting dissenting arguments because this is "just your belief," why do you jump on him when he presents his belief?

[gevo]

How about now? Can he jump in now? Or is calling me a moron not hypocritical?

Fact: you did not understand my original response.
Fact: you did not understand my second response to you.
Fact: I have my opinion about the aesthetic value of something.
Fact: you cannot argue about an opinion.
Fact: if you do then you lack education.
Fact: you are less intelligent than me.
Fact: you have not contributed anything constructive to this thread.
Fact: it is ironic that you woiuld call me a moron.

Dusken, i cant help but notice how many times you have allready said you have answered my question.. which you have not. And if you think you have, obviously it is not enough.. so... since you are such a factual person.. i will leave you and your atheistic views to add to your intelligence what it may... I just have no idea when i ever didnt agree with you.. or aree with you.. i asked you somethign you said youv allready answered.. which.. u havent. Anyways.. a thread with this much intelligence doesnt need me around.. u must be enough...

[Anonymouse]

Most of these concepts are relative. Can you define for me a certain height at which all things become tall and not short? A certain luminosity at which all things become light and not dark? A certain size at which all things become big and not small? A certain IQ at which all people become smart and not stupid? The only concepts here that are clearly dichotomous are life and death. Given your insistence on referring to dusken as an atheist when he has repeatedly argued against atheism makes me wonder if you honestly just don't realize that there are middle positions every now and then, sometimes an entire continuum of them.

We are talking about ideas not details. The basement is darker than my room. I am happier than Sam. You two apparently misconstrue everything. Situational relativity has no bearing on the idea itself. I already clarified this, but you, in the haze of things, apparently didn't read well enough.

So because you laid out as the primary premise of this thread the objective existence of moral absolutes and their divine origin, they are not up for any debate? If you're going to complain about dusken presenting dissenting arguments because this is "just your belief," why do you jump on him when he presents his belief?

While I know you love and won't give up any chance you get at trying to oppose me, this particular instance is pointless. No one said it was not up for debate, pay attention. What I did say was that he misunderstood the whole brunt of my thread on where I placed the emphasis.

[Crimson Glow]

Damn it, I hate coming into one of these threads late. So many issues to address, but one thing caught my attentionm, and I'll start with that. This talk of weather believers believe for selfish reasons. I'm not asking this next question to make a point, or as a piece of my argument, but just out of mere curiosity.

If the various gods didn't offer something to you in the afterlife (be it eternity in heaven, reincarnation into something better, etc) in return for following the morals they have respectively set fourth, do you really think as many people would be interested in following the moral obligations?