{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/28/2017 8:39:41 AM
34
The existence of good or evil does not hinge upon the existence of a God. What we perceive as "good" or "evil" is passed down from generation to generation in human societies. For instance, we know that murder and rápe are wrong, and we consider it evil. We teach younger generations what is and is not socially acceptable. (Insert Nature vs. Nurture debate here).
I think it's ridiculous to assume that because we have good people and bad people in this world, that it somehow proves that God exists. I don't see how those two things are linked whatsoever. If God did exist, how would we know that He's inherently "good"? How can humans assume to know the nature of a God who we've never seen or talked to? Sadly, there's no proof whatsoever that He does exist. The Bible doesn't prove His existence through vague stories written 2,000+ years ago by some religious fanatics in the desert. Religion is mostly based off of personal feelings without any facts to back it up.
Tl;dr - Good and evil does exist in society based on our perceptions of what's right and wrong, but is NOT tied to the existence of any God or Devil. God's existence cannot be proven, or fully disproven.
English
-
I'll agree that the existence or no existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. However, if our standards of "good" and "evil" are simply societally acceptable norms, that's not objective in the least. It's simply our society's completely subjective perception of reality. If our concept of good and evil is merely subjective, we have no right to tell someone they're wrong, because they're subjective take on reality (and they're subjective understanding of good and evil) will most likely be different than ours. Therefore, of there is no objective good, everything must be subjective. If everything is subjective, our perceptions of good and evil will be subjective, as well. Therefore, everyone will simultaneously be right and wrong. (They'll be right in their own society and wrong in someone else's). But that's a contradiction. If truth and good are merely subject be perceptions, we lose all right to decry what we perceive as evil and attempt to change it. As to why it's tied to God: For something to be objective, it must exist outside of and separate from the thing that is to be judged. For example, if you wish to see if a pencil marking is straight, you'd probably find a straightedge. That straightedge, however, is completely separate from the paper that the like is written on and the line itself. This is much the same way an objective good would have to be in order to truly be objective. However, in order to have a completely objective good, you have to allow for the supernatural (things that exist outside of the natural). You must allow for the immaterial. Otherwise, the standard, the "straightedge," if you will, of morality, would not be objective at all. It would simply be another subjective manifestation of the material. If we're going to allow for the immaterial or the supernatural, then there really is no argument against God, because He exists without that realm.
-
You must then trust the straightedge to be perfectly straight. How do you check whether it is or not? Grab a different straightedge?
-
That's what I'm trying to say. Morality is subjective. The concept of good and evil is a societal boundry that we set to judge others as right or wrong based on their actions. We are the ones who carry out judgement because we're the masters of our own universe, and we make the rules that will benefit our society the most. We set the narrative for our own way of life while others set their own. There are plenty of differing opinions on what's right and wrong. The US and Saudi Arabia are good examples. One says, "If accused of a crime, you will receive a fair trial", and the other says, "Oh, you practice sorcery? You will be beheaded for your crimes against God!". As the dominant species on Earth, mankind gets to say what is good and bad because we have the power to do so. Saying that there must be a God to judge what's good or bad is (I believe) false because that's acting on the assumption that we know who God is, what He/She believes, and what God's role would be in our universe and personal lives. Since there is no real tangible evidence whatsoever that God even exists, it seems that religion and God Him/Herself, is purely subjective in its own right.
-
[quote]That's what I'm trying to say. Morality is subjective. The concept of good and evil is a societal boundry that we set to judge others as right or wrong based on their actions. We are the ones who carry out judgement because we're the masters of our own universe, and we make the rules that will benefit our society the most. We set the narrative for our own way of life while others set their own. There are plenty of differing opinions on what's right and wrong. The US and Saudi Arabia are good examples. One says, "If accused of a crime, you will receive a fair trial", and the other says, "Oh, you practice sorcery? You will be beheaded for your crimes against God!". As the dominant species on Earth, mankind gets to say what is good and bad because we have the power to do so. Saying that there must be a God to judge what's good or bad is (I believe) false because that's acting on the assumption that we know who God is, what He/She believes, and what God's role would be in our universe and personal lives. Since there is no real tangible evidence whatsoever that God even exists, it seems that religion and God Him/Herself, is purely subjective in its own right.[/quote] We definitely are not the masters of our own universe. We are tiny and insignificant compared to its scale.
-
I think the gist of what he's saying is that we are in control of our own universe, that being our thoughts, precepts, and views, all of which fundamentally are how we perceive reality.
-
Which of the two governments do you believe has a better judicial system? The US or Saudi Arabia?
-
I personally believe the US's justice system is better (which is not to say it's perfect because there are some major flaws). Saudi Arabia's way of dealing justice is seen as barbaric here in western culture because it's largely based off of religious fundamentalism and usually ends in death or imprisonment for things like infidelity (especially for women).
-
You're correct about their being flaws in the US judicial system. But according to subjectivism, both ideologies are correct, yet they're both simultaneously incorrect. How do you reconcile that?
-
I look at what benefits the world we live in the most. Secular, humanist values are most productive and beneficial to the world at large. The Saudi justice system is wrong in my eyes because bloodshed for religious reasons only leads to suffering and oppression. A truly free society should be the ideal model of life because it encourages creativity, peace, and the chance for equal opportunity, ect. Although I'm sure that Saudi Arabia and other nations just like it would disagree.
-
[quote]I look at what benefits the world we live in the most. Secular, humanist values are most productive and beneficial to the world at large. The Saudi justice system is wrong in my eyes because bloodshed for religious reasons only leads to suffering and oppression. A truly free society should be the ideal model of life because it encourages creativity, peace, and the chance for equal opportunity, ect. Although I'm sure that Saudi Arabia and other nations just like it would disagree.[/quote] How do you determine what is beneficial to the world?
-
I already outlined that above. I want the rest of the world to experience freedom like we do in the western world (even though it's not perfect, it's still awesome compared to most places out there). In an ideal world, everyone would have a chance to pursue his/her dreams whatever they might be, with equal opportunity, and without being restrained by archaic religious groups forcing their beliefs on anyone. Will this ever happen in certain places? Unfortunately, I don't think so. It's up to them to ultimately decide what kind of society they'd rather have. The US shouldn't see itself as the world police anymore, however. We have our own problems to deal with here at home.
-
Exactly, my point. You say they're wrong, and they say they're right. But according to subjectivism, you're both correct. Yet the law of noncontradiction demands that one of your statements be true. You cannot determine its truth, though, without a standard. That standard must Anne an objective, uncreated good. Otherwise the standard is rubbish.
-
[quote]Exactly, my point. You say they're wrong, and they say they're right. But according to subjectivism, you're both correct. Yet the law of noncontradiction demands that one of your statements be true. You cannot determine its truth, though, without a standard. That standard must Anne an objective, uncreated good. Otherwise the standard is rubbish.[/quote] This is just false. One of the statements does not in fact [i][b]have[/b][/i] to be correct. That's like playing music and asking two people if the music is loud. The answer to this question (as is also the case with questions of morality) is entirely based on the opinion of the person answering it. So why [i][b]can't[/b][/i] morality be based solely on opinion agian?
-
Because if morality is simply opinion, anything is permissible. Just because you think that murder or -blam!- or stealing aren't bad, someone else might happen to disagree. So I hope you don't mind when they -blam!- you, kill you, then loot your body. After all, morality is based solely on an opinion. -For the record, I do not support -blam!- or murder or theft. That statement was made solely for the sake of example. I do not wish to make light of the terrible realities of these actions and their victims.-
-
Yes, all of that is correct. And? Why is that apparently [b][i]impossible[/i][/b]? What is even hard to believe about that?
-
So why do I even bother trying to be a decent person? Honestly, if anything is permissible, let's get with it. Right? Just throw all sense of decency and morality out the window and love this meaningless span of a few decades doing whatever whenever. But we don't live that way. We have a natural obligation, an inherent tendency, to control ourselves. To live reasonably and try to uphold goodness, more or less. But that's incompatible with completely subjective morality.
-
No. You would still be stopped by your own subjective moral code? Kind of just like you are right now. Again, this is why there are still people who actually [b][i]do[/i][/b] ignore the general consensus of morality such as Hitler. Yet, even Hitler had his own morality and things he would not do because he saw them as wrong. It's not like he's just some evil monster sent to wreak havoc on humanity or something, he was [b][i]also[/i][/b] just trying to uphold good and decry evil. It's just that his concepts of good and evil were different than ours. How would this even be possible if our "strong desire to uphold good" was provided by some all encompassing being that bestowed a baseline moral code into all of us? Would not all of our morals be the same then? How [b][i]could[/i][/b] Hitler even contradict this if that were the case?
-
That's just the nature of mankind. We always will find the need to disagree with or hate others for whatever reason. Even if theocratic nations were no longer a thing, and there were no more religious conflicts, we'd inevitably find some way to make the shit hit the fan. As for a standard and an objective, there is no end goal. We will always keep climbing higher as a species (as far as our Intellect will allow at least). What benefits society most will succeed, and what drags them down and causes turmoil will fail and destroy itself. It's not about being 100% correct. Nobody can be. We live in an imperfect world, and perfection will never be attained. As for the law of noncontradiction, I can accurately say that my view is the correct one because it promotes growth as a species, while theirs stunts any progress to be made and is undeniably harmful in many ways. My viewpoint wins.
-
[quote]That's just the nature of mankind. We always will find the need to disagree with or hate others for whatever reason. Even if theocratic nations were no longer a thing, and there were no more religious conflicts, we'd inevitably find some way to make the shit hit the fan. As for a standard and an objective, there is no end goal. We will always keep climbing higher as a species (as far as our Intellect will allow at least). What benefits society most will succeed, and what drags them down and causes turmoil will fail and destroy itself. It's not about being 100% correct. Nobody can be. We live in an imperfect world, and perfection will never be attained. As for the law of noncontradiction, I can accurately say that my view is the correct one because it promotes growth as a species, while theirs stunts any progress to be made and is undeniably harmful in many ways. My viewpoint wins.[/quote] Why is human growth beneficial to the world?
-
Why wouldn't it be? Would it be better to never find the cure for cancer or AIDS? Should we not even try?
-
Who gets to judge the viewpoints, though? Who gets to decide which viewpoint is better, because I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the Saudi Arabians probably like their government more than ours. Who's to say they're wrong, unless there exists some universal, objective standard by which to judge their merits.
-
[quote]Who gets to judge the viewpoints, though? Who gets to decide which viewpoint is better, because I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the Saudi Arabians probably like their government more than ours. Who's to say they're wrong, unless there exists some universal, objective standard by which to judge their merits.[/quote] The standard for mankind is progression. The Middle East and Africa have both been torn apart by war for hundreds if not thousands of years now. We can look to the past to see that evidence. Terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid are evidence of their failure to contribute to that progression. And not all Saudis are happy with their oppressive government at all. Some women literally set themselves on fire because they do not want to participate in forced marriages or female genital mutilation. In Iran, the younger more progressive members of society have been angry with their leaders for restricting their freedom. And who gets to judge those views? You. Me. Anyone who lives on this earth has the right to judge those views so that we can improve the world we live in. If any nation wishes to resist progression as a species and reject prosperity and free thinking, they have every right to. But history has shown us time and time again that they will fail as long as they continue to do so.
-
You say progress is our standard, but who defines the goal? To have progress, you have to move toward a goal. Who defines the goal?
-
Like I said earlier, there is no end goal that can be so rigidly defined. Progress takes many forms in society, whether that be in cybernetics, medicine, education, consumer goods, space travel, ect. Humanity is always striving to move upwards and innovate. There does not need to be a defined goal because life does not follow a specific predetermined pattern. It's different for each individual. As the times change, so too do our needs. We always want to find ways of meeting and surpassing those needs. There is no defined goal because the goalpost is always being moved forward. [spoiler]This has been a really interesting discussion btw. ( ^-^)[/spoiler]
-
Edited by anomaly_rex: 2/28/2017 3:54:33 PMWell, you may have actually just thrown out a goal. What was that about needs? [spoiler]And I've enjoyed the discussion. I appreciate the respectful exchange of thoughts.[/spoiler]
