Comments on: The Origin of Morality http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:53:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jakob http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-26848 Jakob Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:06:17 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-26848 This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title rigin of Morality at Way of the Mind. Thanks for informative article This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title rigin of Morality at Way of the Mind. Thanks for informative article

]]> By: 284ba45fb3e7665f77e5b385de3a64fb http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-7004 284ba45fb3e7665f77e5b385de3a64fb Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:22:43 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-7004 <strong>284ba45fb3e7665f77e5...</strong> 284ba45fb3e7665f77e5b385de3a64fb284ba45fb3e7... 284ba45fb3e7665f77e5…

284ba45fb3e7665f77e5b385de3a64fb284ba45fb3e7…

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3383 TXStorm Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:52:13 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3383 The Gerry Spence books explains, as I also did, that "winning" is not clubbing someone over the head, but rather achieving a goal. In my own case I don't care one whit about the who of an argument only the what. That is to say I care only about truth, not about personalities. As a matter of fact, I have not studied debate since debate IS about the who not the what. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you continue to focus exclusively on the who, rather than the substance of the arguments.. You have been shown the proof. The arguments offered are perfectly sound, necessitating true conclusions. The choice to understand basic logic is entirely up to you. Accept reality or accept illusion, but you cannot have both, and even if you accept illusion it will never be real. As for your ad hominem attacks, well they too are logical fallacies, just as with you frequent use of strawman tactics. I have not added anything to your arguments or claims, as you very well know. There was no reason. These arguments you offer are common and fallacious, providing more than sufficient logical basis for the defeats that they have suffered. BTW one of the things you might pick up from The Reasonable Woman, is that when you have backed yourself so far into a corner that you employ insults, such as calling others "morons" you have abandoned any hint of foundation for your position. The reason that it is a "hot" topic is that many people abhor reason, abhor reality, and prefer to emote rather than think. For reasonable individuals the topic is moot, though we may have some patience in trying to help others who seem to express some glimmer of hope in reality rather than illusion. So out of curiosity, do you also deny that there can possibly be proof of modus ponens and modus tolens? You of course realize that to be consistent in your claims about the impossibility of proving that the judeo-xn god does not exist, you must identically deny those proofs... :) The Gerry Spence books explains, as I also did, that “winning” is not clubbing someone over the head, but rather achieving a goal. In my own case I don’t care one whit about the who of an argument only the what. That is to say I care only about truth, not about personalities.

As a matter of fact, I have not studied debate since debate IS about the who not the what. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you continue to focus exclusively on the who, rather than the substance of the arguments..

You have been shown the proof. The arguments offered are perfectly sound, necessitating true conclusions. The choice to understand basic logic is entirely up to you. Accept reality or accept illusion, but you cannot have both, and even if you accept illusion it will never be real.

As for your ad hominem attacks, well they too are logical fallacies, just as with you frequent use of strawman tactics. I have not added anything to your arguments or claims, as you very well know. There was no reason. These arguments you offer are common and fallacious, providing more than sufficient logical basis for the defeats that they have suffered.

BTW one of the things you might pick up from The Reasonable Woman, is that when you have backed yourself so far into a corner that you employ insults, such as calling others “morons” you have abandoned any hint of foundation for your position. The reason that it is a “hot” topic is that many people abhor reason, abhor reality, and prefer to emote rather than think. For reasonable individuals the topic is moot, though we may have some patience in trying to help others who seem to express some glimmer of hope in reality rather than illusion.

So out of curiosity, do you also deny that there can possibly be proof of modus ponens and modus tolens? You of course realize that to be consistent in your claims about the impossibility of proving that the judeo-xn god does not exist, you must identically deny those proofs… :)

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3380 Kren Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:55:02 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3380 Jesus, fucking christ. TX. Open up the champaign, blow jobs all around, you won okay? You say it's not about winning or losing, yet one of the books you suggest "How to argue and win every time" Something by the way you argue I must say, you've probably put to use here. Which STILL doesn't prove a fucking thing. It only shows me that you've studied the art of debate (something I suspected). Just let me say TWO things. 1. Either you are missunderstanding me, or I can't explain it. Since I've been as simple as possible I'd suspect the first. Because you haven't actually countered any of my points without adding context, mixing them around, or you yourself ignoring the base behind them, and claiming that I did so (I'm going to read that book, and if I find out that you're just using tactics, that will say a lot about you) I still stand by the FACT that you can't prove something like God. If you can, explain it crystal clear to everyone, because other people who are as simple minded as me might be reading. And by crystal clear I mean SIMPLY, which is something you are obviousely incapable of. 2. NO, I don't mean that Nobody will ever convince me of blah blah blah. Someone CAN convince me. Just show me the proof. Either way. If there was proof it wouldn't be such a hot topic you moron. Jesus, fucking christ. TX.
Open up the champaign, blow jobs all around, you won okay? You say it’s not about winning or losing, yet one of the books you suggest “How to argue and win every time” Something by the way you argue I must say, you’ve probably put to use here. Which STILL doesn’t prove a fucking thing. It only shows me that you’ve studied the art of debate (something I suspected).

Just let me say TWO things.

1. Either you are missunderstanding me, or I can’t explain it. Since I’ve been as simple as possible I’d suspect the first. Because you haven’t actually countered any of my points without adding context, mixing them around, or you yourself ignoring the base behind them, and claiming that I did so (I’m going to read that book, and if I find out that you’re just using tactics, that will say a lot about you) I still stand by the FACT that you can’t prove something like God. If you can, explain it crystal clear to everyone, because other people who are as simple minded as me might be reading. And by crystal clear I mean SIMPLY, which is something you are obviousely incapable of.

2. NO, I don’t mean that Nobody will ever convince me of blah blah blah. Someone CAN convince me. Just show me the proof. Either way. If there was proof it wouldn’t be such a hot topic you moron.

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3374 TXStorm Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:42:42 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3374 "Second, you say that you didn’t point out a mere contradiction in the way people look at their god. But that’s exactly what you did. (I THINK… pretty sure) You sighted specific, contradictory beliefs. Infact that’s all you (or anybody) can do." This is a fine example of begging the question, a logical fallacy. You stipulate that no one can disprove your believe because you have the axiom that your god must exist so that any discussion of your god must be merely the ignorant opinion of any who dare oppose it. Of course it is verboten to examine the axiom that your god exists... Then you attack the notion that anything can be proved or disproved (even STIPULATING in your last post that both are impossible.. ) However contrary to your assumption that to know anything I must know everything, it is certainly possible to know that there are no square circles for one fine example. The word "god" is merely a placeholder for a set of characteristics. I have taken those charateristics and shown (though none of this is original to me) that they are absolutely incompatible, necessarily contradictary, in some cases self-contradictary. Yet you persist in asserting that I cannot know this... I can, and you can too with even a rudimentary understanding of the language, reason, and the characteristics in question. As for your side note: [quote post="149"]When it comes to religion being Evil. Evil is as evil does. Religion cannot do evil, nor can it do good. It’s someones belief in a something that’s not physical, in a guidance to thier physical actions to sway them (Or control them perhaps) towards bettere choices in life. Maybe they believe that if they kill someone they go to hell, or that they will be born again after they die. Still, when it comes to actions, it’s not the religion that does them, it’s the humans. If they do it on behalf of the religion, (Like judging people, which is against most religions) then usually they are just using parts of that religion to justify thier own sociopathic views. Sometimes maybe they read something that says Gay people are against God, and think that they have the right to judge them. (Which is contradictory to the religion of Christians)[/quote] Leaving aside for the moment that the paragraph has to be read quite generously to make any sense of it, your point is either trivially true, else absurd. No religion is not a sentient entity, but neither is National Socialism, but with any luck we can agree that Nazism is in fact evil... Slavery is not sentient either but we can hopefully agree that institution is also evil. I have offered more than sufficient arguemnt and evidence for the evil nature of religion, none of which has been honestly addressed. Despite what you say, people do take a great many actions because of religion. You are making the argument that if there exists an individual who does not take his actions solely because of religion, then necessarily religion cannot be evil. Logically speaking this simply does not fly. The person who does not act upon the commands of the religion cannot be said to be truly of that religion. So you are looking outside of the religion to claim that the religion does not have the traits that in fact are central to that religion. As for the English lecture, I would remind you that setting context is indeed a function of parenthetical statements. You chose to change the meaning which was clarified (so you could not make such a gross error) in the parenthetical statement and thus attack a strawman. So, (for future reference) you might not want to assume that logical fallacies are sound reasoning. :) As for our disagreement, we also disagree about your false assertion that nothing can be proved, or that this inherently impossible notion cannot be disproved. I understand that this is simply grasping at straws, trying in vain to salvage a failed notion of a god, but it is intellectually dishonest and certainly simply false. Reality does not allow for the existence of impossible entities, for inherent contradictions of this sort. As I noted, we can indeed know that there exist no square circles, just as we know that there exists no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of all. [quote post="149"] because you’ll never prove religion is evil, or that God doesn’t exist.[/quote] Allow me to correct your claims yet again, what you mean to say is that no one will ever convince you of these objective facts. They have been proved (proof being a very specific term of logic) and that they have been proved can itself be proved. That you remain unconvinced or unmoved by reason and reality is indeed something else entirely, but then emotion and faith are not determined by reason for many folks. As for winning and losing, none of this is about who is the better person or who "wins" etc. Winning in an honest intellectual discussion simply means understanding, gaining knowledge, etc. This is not a battle of personalities, which is why instead of relying upon emotion we rely uon facts and reason. The world is how it is regardless of your opinion or my own. So instead of referring to mere opinion, or claiming things like "well it cannot be disproved" we instead turn to reason and reality and see how it actually is. TWo texts you might want to peruse at some point: The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival by Wendy McElroy How to Argue and Win Every Time- Gerry Spence The first is a wonderful text written for the layperson explaining some of the basics of sound reasoning, as well as some of the approaches taken so that you can understand what is actually being said rather than jumping to false conclusions. The second goes into more detail as to the mistaken impression that overpowering another in a discussion is "winning" and reminds us to think again as to what our true goals are in any such discussion. “Second, you say that you didn’t point out a mere contradiction in the way people look at their god. But that’s exactly what you did. (I THINK… pretty sure) You sighted specific, contradictory beliefs.

Infact that’s all you (or anybody) can do.”

This is a fine example of begging the question, a logical fallacy. You stipulate that no one can disprove your believe because you have the axiom that your god must exist so that any discussion of your god must be merely the ignorant opinion of any who dare oppose it. Of course it is verboten to examine the axiom that your god exists…

Then you attack the notion that anything can be proved or disproved (even STIPULATING in your last post that both are impossible.. ) However contrary to your assumption that to know anything I must know everything, it is certainly possible to know that there are no square circles for one fine example. The word “god” is merely a placeholder for a set of characteristics. I have taken those charateristics and shown (though none of this is original to me) that they are absolutely incompatible, necessarily contradictary, in some cases self-contradictary. Yet you persist in asserting that I cannot know this… I can, and you can too with even a rudimentary understanding of the language, reason, and the characteristics in question.

As for your side note: [quote post="149"]When it comes to religion being Evil. Evil is as evil does. Religion cannot do evil, nor can it do good. It’s someones belief in a something that’s not physical, in a guidance to thier physical actions to sway them (Or control them perhaps) towards bettere choices in life. Maybe they believe that if they kill someone they go to hell, or that they will be born again after they die. Still, when it comes to actions, it’s not the religion that does them, it’s the humans. If they do it on behalf of the religion, (Like judging people, which is against most religions) then usually they are just using parts of that religion to justify thier own sociopathic views. Sometimes maybe they read something that says Gay people are against God, and think that they have the right to judge them. (Which is contradictory to the religion of Christians)[/quote]

Leaving aside for the moment that the paragraph has to be read quite generously to make any sense of it, your point is either trivially true, else absurd. No religion is not a sentient entity, but neither is National Socialism, but with any luck we can agree that Nazism is in fact evil… Slavery is not sentient either but we can hopefully agree that institution is also evil.

I have offered more than sufficient arguemnt and evidence for the evil nature of religion, none of which has been honestly addressed.

Despite what you say, people do take a great many actions because of religion. You are making the argument that if there exists an individual who does not take his actions solely because of religion, then necessarily religion cannot be evil. Logically speaking this simply does not fly. The person who does not act upon the commands of the religion cannot be said to be truly of that religion. So you are looking outside of the religion to claim that the religion does not have the traits that in fact are central to that religion.

As for the English lecture, I would remind you that setting context is indeed a function of parenthetical statements. You chose to change the meaning which was clarified (so you could not make such a gross error) in the parenthetical statement and thus attack a strawman. So, (for future reference) you might not want to assume that logical fallacies are sound reasoning. :)

As for our disagreement, we also disagree about your false assertion that nothing can be proved, or that this inherently impossible notion cannot be disproved. I understand that this is simply grasping at straws, trying in vain to salvage a failed notion of a god, but it is intellectually dishonest and certainly simply false. Reality does not allow for the existence of impossible entities, for inherent contradictions of this sort. As I noted, we can indeed know that there exist no square circles, just as we know that there exists no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of all.

[quote post="149"] because you’ll never prove religion is evil, or that God doesn’t exist.[/quote]

Allow me to correct your claims yet again, what you mean to say is that no one will ever convince you of these objective facts. They have been proved (proof being a very specific term of logic) and that they have been proved can itself be proved. That you remain unconvinced or unmoved by reason and reality is indeed something else entirely, but then emotion and faith are not determined by reason for many folks.

As for winning and losing, none of this is about who is the better person or who “wins” etc. Winning in an honest intellectual discussion simply means understanding, gaining knowledge, etc. This is not a battle of personalities, which is why instead of relying upon emotion we rely uon facts and reason. The world is how it is regardless of your opinion or my own. So instead of referring to mere opinion, or claiming things like “well it cannot be disproved” we instead turn to reason and reality and see how it actually is.

TWo texts you might want to peruse at some point:

The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival by Wendy McElroy
How to Argue and Win Every Time- Gerry Spence

The first is a wonderful text written for the layperson explaining some of the basics of sound reasoning, as well as some of the approaches taken so that you can understand what is actually being said rather than jumping to false conclusions.

The second goes into more detail as to the mistaken impression that overpowering another in a discussion is “winning” and reminds us to think again as to what our true goals are in any such discussion.

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3366 Kren Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:44:59 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3366 TX storm... and anybody else for that matter. I've come to the conclusion that I MAY be wrong... and that proving or disproving such a thing is absolutely stupid, because it can't be done. Therefore I withdrawal. In all honesty I have to say, that you have won, because if I have assumed the existance of such a being, it's a false assumtion. I love the conversations we have had, and I for one, have learned about many things even if you've confused me so many times. To quote an athiest that I am very close with, "Religion is a way for people to balance their bodies, and minds. If a person is sick, they can take pills, or believe thier psychologist, or psychotherapist, and be okay. They can balance thier minds and bodies. If they take too many pills, they can hurt themselves, much like if they take religion too seriousely, they can end up hurting others." I'll take this into my own thinking... and say that I can't continue this conversation. If you want me to say that you've won... I won't.. because you'll never prove religion is evil, or that God doesn't exist. Thanks TX, for all of your spare time you have spent on this. I unfortunately, don't have much at all... and have spent too much on the subject... I'm sure we could both be doing something more productive. TX storm… and anybody else for that matter.

I’ve come to the conclusion that I MAY be wrong… and that proving or disproving such a thing is absolutely stupid, because it can’t be done.

Therefore I withdrawal. In all honesty I have to say, that you have won, because if I have assumed the existance of such a being, it’s a false assumtion. I love the conversations we have had, and I for one, have learned about many things even if you’ve confused me so many times.
To quote an athiest that I am very close with, “Religion is a way for people to balance their bodies, and minds. If a person is sick, they can take pills, or believe thier psychologist, or psychotherapist, and be okay. They can balance thier minds and bodies. If they take too many pills, they can hurt themselves, much like if they take religion too seriousely, they can end up hurting others.”

I’ll take this into my own thinking… and say that I can’t continue this conversation. If you want me to say that you’ve won… I won’t.. because you’ll never prove religion is evil, or that God doesn’t exist.

Thanks TX, for all of your spare time you have spent on this. I unfortunately, don’t have much at all… and have spent too much on the subject… I’m sure we could both be doing something more productive.

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3363 Kren Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:19:58 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3363 First of all, I didn't mean to define anything. Especially some superpowerful being that I can't understand. Second, you say that you didn't point out a mere contradiction in the way people look at their god. But that's exactly what you did. (I THINK... pretty sure) You sighted specific, contradictory beliefs. Infact that's all you (or anybody) can do. That's all I can do when I try to think on that side of the coin. Just like you, I can pick out peoples contradictions to the way they define some god. But how far can I get with that, when I know that if such a being exists, human beings [quote post="149"]What of the distinction between causing harm (which is an inherently part of religion) and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?[/quote] can't define it? You say that you pointed out inherent contradictions in the very nature of the beast. How did you learn of this nature? Did God tell you? Can you quote it on that? I don't think so. You can only quote what people speculated, or reported in writings a few thousand years ago. If this beast is something that we can't understand (Which, even the staunchest CHATHOLICS will admit, even though they have chapters and chapters of humans tries to do so, and even some atheists I know personally will say) as humans, than all of our speculations of course would be flawed. So pointing out a flaw in a humans perspective of such a thing doesn't disprove it. The very nature itself is another thing nobody knows (IF it exists). Notice how I say "IF it exist" and sometimes IMO. Yet you seem to imply that I am being stubborn. Like I am claiming something to be true which is not something I did, but something YOU did in claiming staunchly that there is not any God. What I am doing is asking you if you are so sure of everything? On a side note: When it comes to religion being Evil. Evil is as evil does. Religion cannot do evil, nor can it do good. It's someones beleif in a something that's not physical, in a guidance to thier physical actions to sway them (Or control them perhaps) towards bettere choices in life. Maybe they believe that if they kill someone they go to hell, or that they will be born again after they die. Still, when it comes to actions, it's not the religion that does them, it's the humans. If they do it on behalf of the religion, (Like judging people, which is against most religions) then usually they are just using parts of that religion to justify thier own sociopathic views. Sometimes maybe they read something that says Gay people are against God, and think that they have the right to judge them. (Which is contradictory to the religion of Christians) Further... if religion is what someone BASES thier life on, and it's evil... then the core of what that person BASES thier life on is evil... wouldn't that make that person evil? After all, they BASE their LIVES on it. I would say no. Because I've watched as reporters said that this group of Muslims did this, or this group of Christians did this. And history can show you about the crusades, and many, many wars that were based on religion. But I don't think things change THAT much... and as far as I can SPECULATE... there were religious people at home wondering why the fuck they were so different from the people thier country was going to war with. After all, they both believed in something. In Lamens terms, if you will, we don't do things because of religion, we do them because we choose to, and using religion as a guide, would throw most of us away from such horrid choices as murder. Fourth, and this is beside the point but, when you wrote... [quote post="149"]What of the distinction between causing harm (which is an inherently part of religion) and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?[/quote] And I took out the parentheses, to understand the question without them... In English writing, or, if you have English conversations on a daily basis, when you put parenthesis around something, it is just an addition, and not part of the statement, or question provided. This is something I actually know, because not only did I grow up in America, where we speak the language, but I had to go through English studies until mid college, and that was explained... WAY earlier. Then you said: [quote post="149"]Keep the parenthetical comments in as they put the question in context.[/quote] Parenthesis aren't meant to be part of the context. They are on the side. Unlike Algebra, where what's in parenthesis is part of the actual problem provided. So,(For future reference) when you write something, and put something in parenthesis, expect that person to think it's a side note. Last, let me thank you, TX. I'm admitedly, not the smartest person. The fact that I could even have a debate with you means that at the least, I can get you to try to explain things to me, which says that you are willing to help those you think are misguided, and I am willing to help myself if I am. I believe in something you think is absolutely false. You believe something that I think you can't take as fact. All in all, I think we disagree on weather there is or is not a God, something neither of us can prove, and is not a reason to have harsh feelings towards one another... the "sigh..." implied such feelings. First of all, I didn’t mean to define anything. Especially some superpowerful being that I can’t understand.

Second, you say that you didn’t point out a mere contradiction in the way people look at their god. But that’s exactly what you did. (I THINK… pretty sure) You sighted specific, contradictory beliefs.

Infact that’s all you (or anybody) can do. That’s all I can do when I try to think on that side of the coin. Just like you, I can pick out peoples contradictions to the way they define some god. But how far can I get with that, when I know that if such a being exists, human beings [quote post="149"]What of the distinction between causing harm (which is an inherently part of religion) and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?[/quote]
can’t define it?

You say that you pointed out inherent contradictions in the very nature of the beast. How did you learn of this nature? Did God tell you? Can you quote it on that? I don’t think so. You can only quote what people speculated, or reported in writings a few thousand years ago. If this beast is something that we can’t understand (Which, even the staunchest CHATHOLICS will admit, even though they have chapters and chapters of humans tries to do so, and even some atheists I know personally will say) as humans, than all of our speculations of course would be flawed. So pointing out a flaw in a humans perspective of such a thing doesn’t disprove it. The very nature itself is another thing nobody knows (IF it exists).

Notice how I say “IF it exist” and sometimes IMO. Yet you seem to imply that I am being stubborn. Like I am claiming something to be true which is not something I did, but something YOU did in claiming staunchly that there is not any God. What I am doing is asking you if you are so sure of everything?

On a side note:

When it comes to religion being Evil. Evil is as evil does. Religion cannot do evil, nor can it do good. It’s someones beleif in a something that’s not physical, in a guidance to thier physical actions to sway them (Or control them perhaps) towards bettere choices in life. Maybe they believe that if they kill someone they go to hell, or that they will be born again after they die. Still, when it comes to actions, it’s not the religion that does them, it’s the humans. If they do it on behalf of the religion, (Like judging people, which is against most religions) then usually they are just using parts of that religion to justify thier own sociopathic views. Sometimes maybe they read something that says Gay people are against God, and think that they have the right to judge them. (Which is contradictory to the religion of Christians)

Further… if religion is what someone BASES thier life on, and it’s evil… then the core of what that person BASES thier life on is evil… wouldn’t that make that person evil? After all, they BASE their LIVES on it. I would say no. Because I’ve watched as reporters said that this group of Muslims did this, or this group of Christians did this. And history can show you about the crusades, and many, many wars that were based on religion. But I don’t think things change THAT much… and as far as I can SPECULATE… there were religious people at home wondering why the fuck they were so different from the people thier country was going to war with. After all, they both believed in something.
In Lamens terms, if you will, we don’t do things because of religion, we do them because we choose to, and using religion as a guide, would throw most of us away from such horrid choices as murder.

Fourth, and this is beside the point but, when you wrote…

[quote post="149"]What of the distinction between causing harm (which is an inherently part of religion) and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?[/quote]

And I took out the parentheses, to understand the question without them…

In English writing, or, if you have English conversations on a daily basis, when you put parenthesis around something, it is just an addition, and not part of the statement, or question provided.
This is something I actually know, because not only did I grow up in America, where we speak the language, but I had to go through English studies until mid college, and that was explained… WAY earlier.

Then you said:

[quote post="149"]Keep the parenthetical comments in as they put the question in context.[/quote]

Parenthesis aren’t meant to be part of the context. They are on the side. Unlike Algebra, where what’s in parenthesis is part of the actual problem provided. So,(For future reference) when you write something, and put something in parenthesis, expect that person to think it’s a side note.

Last, let me thank you, TX. I’m admitedly, not the smartest person. The fact that I could even have a debate with you means that at the least, I can get you to try to explain things to me, which says that you are willing to help those you think are misguided, and I am willing to help myself if I am.
I believe in something you think is absolutely false. You believe something that I think you can’t take as fact. All in all, I think we disagree on weather there is or is not a God, something neither of us can prove, and is not a reason to have harsh feelings towards one another… the “sigh…” implied such feelings.

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3339 TXStorm Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:12:02 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3339 sigh.. You define X in explicit terms. Those terms are shown to never be possible to occur. Therefore necessarily X cannt exist. It is really that simple. The judeo-xn god CANNOT possibly exist as described. If you abandon that description, then necessarioly you abandon that "god." BTW to YET AGAIN correct you blatantly false mischaracterizations, I did not point out a mere contradiction in the way that people look at their god (notice you assume the existence a priori??) but rather I pointed out that there exist countless contradictions inherent in the VERY NATURE of the supposed entity. Face that fact and you might take a step forward. I did not ever refer to contradictory beliefs, though you try in vain to introduce that strawman, instead I pointed out inherent contradictions in the very nature of the beast. Quite a different thing indeed... Ask yourself why it is that you work so very hard to avoid the straight forward simple and clear refutations offered. If you can do this you will find great illumination. sigh..

You define X in explicit terms. Those terms are shown to never be possible to occur. Therefore necessarily X cannt exist. It is really that simple.

The judeo-xn god CANNOT possibly exist as described. If you abandon that description, then necessarioly you abandon that “god.”

BTW to YET AGAIN correct you blatantly false mischaracterizations, I did not point out a mere contradiction in the way that people look at their god (notice you assume the existence a priori??) but rather I pointed out that there exist countless contradictions inherent in the VERY NATURE of the supposed entity. Face that fact and you might take a step forward.

I did not ever refer to contradictory beliefs, though you try in vain to introduce that strawman, instead I pointed out inherent contradictions in the very nature of the beast. Quite a different thing indeed…

Ask yourself why it is that you work so very hard to avoid the straight forward simple and clear refutations offered. If you can do this you will find great illumination.

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3335 Kren Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:17:56 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3335 TX- Sorry if I missunderstood you. IMO, pointing out a contradiction in one way people look at their God doesn't prove it to be evil. It proves that that way of thinking is contradictory. I never assumed that nobody could know your origin because I didn't. What I did assume is that nobody could know the origin of religion, because I don't think we have any writings from that time laying around, and even if we did, it would still be viable reasoning to believe that religion (in a rudementary form at least) existed even before a formal written language did. But I have to admit, that doesn't prove anything either. It simply casts shadow. To stop myself from assuming things, I have to ask you what you mean by this: [quote post="149"]While I have been referring to the judeo-xn notion of a “god” virtually all of this can be applied to any notion of a god with the same result: the entity in question cannot possibly exist. The only method for saving the god-concept denies the very nature of a “god.” So what does that leave?[/quote] Does it mean that by pointing out contradictory beliefs, you can disprove God? TX- Sorry if I missunderstood you.

IMO, pointing out a contradiction in one way people look at their God doesn’t prove it to be evil. It proves that that way of thinking is contradictory.

I never assumed that nobody could know your origin because I didn’t. What I did assume is that nobody could know the origin of religion, because I don’t think we have any writings from that time laying around, and even if we did, it would still be viable reasoning to believe that religion (in a rudementary form at least) existed even before a formal written language did.

But I have to admit, that doesn’t prove anything either. It simply casts shadow.

To stop myself from assuming things, I have to ask you what you mean by this:

[quote post="149"]While I have been referring to the judeo-xn notion of a “god” virtually all of this can be applied to any notion of a god with the same result: the entity in question cannot possibly exist. The only method for saving the god-concept denies the very nature of a “god.” So what does that leave?[/quote]

Does it mean that by pointing out contradictory beliefs, you can disprove God?

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3313 TXStorm Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:51:58 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3313 Kren, I really wish you would stop attributing positions to me that I have never even so much as hinted at. I have offered no statement nor any argument that could be reasonably interpreted as "The whole “God can’t exist because we live in an imperfect world” arguement" My inclination is to suggest a rudimentary study of logic accompanied by some lessons in the meaning of language. I suggest this because the arguments offered were showing necessary contradictions, not at all relying upon any "imperfection" in the world. You trivialize these inherently contradictory aspects of the judeo-xn god notion by pretending that the argument is directed at "imperfections" in the world rather than at the very core of the notion of such a god. This tactic is intellectually dishonest, as you well know. As for the origin of religion, you are again making the logical error of assuming that since you personally are ignorant (by your own admission) of the history of religion, then necessarily no one could possibly know it. To prove conclusively that this argument form is invalid let's look at other things of which you are not aware: my own life serves as a fine example. You do not know my history, or my origin, yet obviously I do. Since I do know my origin, and your argument necessitates that no one could possibly know my origin since you do not know it, clearly your argument must be invalid. From true premises and your argument, we can reach false or absurd conclusions. This is the very meaning of invalid argument forms. While I have been referring to the judeo-xn notion of a "god" virtually all of this can be applied to any notion of a god with the same result: the entity in question cannot possibly exist. The only method for saving the god-concept denies the very nature of a "god." So what does that leave? Joshua, Pick it up if you like. The arguments I have offered, and those found in the links I offered are perfectly sound, which leaves the golden rule and its derivatives without a leg to stand on.. Kren,

I really wish you would stop attributing positions to me that I have never even so much as hinted at. I have offered no statement nor any argument that could be reasonably interpreted as “The whole “God can’t exist because we live in an imperfect world” arguement”

My inclination is to suggest a rudimentary study of logic accompanied by some lessons in the meaning of language. I suggest this because the arguments offered were showing necessary contradictions, not at all relying upon any “imperfection” in the world. You trivialize these inherently contradictory aspects of the judeo-xn god notion by pretending that the argument is directed at “imperfections” in the world rather than at the very core of the notion of such a god. This tactic is intellectually dishonest, as you well know.

As for the origin of religion, you are again making the logical error of assuming that since you personally are ignorant (by your own admission) of the history of religion, then necessarily no one could possibly know it. To prove conclusively that this argument form is invalid let’s look at other things of which you are not aware: my own life serves as a fine example. You do not know my history, or my origin, yet obviously I do. Since I do know my origin, and your argument necessitates that no one could possibly know my origin since you do not know it, clearly your argument must be invalid. From true premises and your argument, we can reach false or absurd conclusions. This is the very meaning of invalid argument forms.

While I have been referring to the judeo-xn notion of a “god” virtually all of this can be applied to any notion of a god with the same result: the entity in question cannot possibly exist. The only method for saving the god-concept denies the very nature of a “god.” So what does that leave?

Joshua,

Pick it up if you like. The arguments I have offered, and those found in the links I offered are perfectly sound, which leaves the golden rule and its derivatives without a leg to stand on..

]]> By: Joshua http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3274 Joshua Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:02:51 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3274 TXstorm: For some reason this sites spam filter banned me. . . . just now coming back to this site to reply. I was glancing over this long debate between yourself and Kren. At one point you accused her of not reading your reply. Concerning our discussion I would have to say you displayed the same fault with your last response to mine. If you would like to continue the conversation I will gladly pick it up. If so, let me know.. Otherwise Ill catch you on another post ;) TXstorm: For some reason this sites spam filter banned me. . . . just now coming back to this site to reply.

I was glancing over this long debate between yourself and Kren. At one point you accused her of not reading your reply. Concerning our discussion I would have to say you displayed the same fault with your last response to mine. If you would like to continue the conversation I will gladly pick it up. If so, let me know.. Otherwise Ill catch you on another post ;)

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3252 Kren Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:10:39 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3252 [quote post="149"]For instance here you pretend to address the sound argument given that the judeo-xn notion of god is necessarily contradictory by attributing to me an argument which merely says that since we live in an imperfect world, no god can exist. Yet you cannot find any evidence to support this strawman argument, since I never once offered it[/quote] A few posts earlier.. [quote post="149"]Furthermore since this “god” is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then it could easily could have chosen to create a world where we have free will, but where we just so happen to posess the knowledge of the wrongs such that we never choose to commit evil acts. That world is not the world in which we live, therefore the judeo-xn god CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. [/quote] Forgive me if that ISN'T the same arguement. If the judeo-xn God, and the God you were stating in the first quote are different, and you meant to say one thing and not the other. I'm not trying pick fights here, it just seemed like you might have said that you didn't say something, that, you said. (Whew) My favorite quote from you so far is this. [quote post="149"]Knowbody knows what religion was created for??? Come on. We know that in fact it was created to contrl the actions of others (see the historical texts from xnty for a prime example of this)It was created to give illusion of explanation where no explanation was readily available, or where the truth was distasteful to those in power. It was created to justify any action that those in power wished to take. [/quote] Explanation where no explanation was readily available, being an origin of religion is GREAT reasoning. I think this is close to Pedro's distaste for the "God of the gaps" arguement, in which once something that used to be explained as an act of God, is proven to be science, believers back off, and take another view. Many things that used to be explained by "God did it" are now obviousely science at work. Christianity was by far not the first religion... so the writings of Christianity aren't going to explain the origin of religion, or why it was created. That's not good reasoning. The world is a sphere, has been proven. 2+2=4... proven. The origin of religion, hasn't. Therefore it's opinnion. There's nothing wrong with reason at all, and I must say, I've been outdone here by you TX. Your ability to pick apart christianity is great. The whole "God can't exist because we live in an imperfect world" arguement, I thought was wrong. The reason why is that according to xnity THAT god can create whatever he wants, perfect or imperfect, and has. Where do I stand now? To disprove (OR PROVE) such a being, which (IMO) humans can't define, with other human definitions, is impossible. (Pedro's probably screaming "GOD OF THE GAPS!") Like understanding infinity. I still think there is a God, of some sort. But you TX, have helped me by showing me the downfalls of some religions. [quote post="149"]For instance here you pretend to address the sound argument given that the judeo-xn notion of god is necessarily contradictory by attributing to me an argument which merely says that since we live in an imperfect world, no god can exist. Yet you cannot find any evidence to support this strawman argument, since I never once offered it[/quote]

A few posts earlier..

[quote post="149"]Furthermore since this “god” is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then it could easily could have chosen to create a world where we have free will, but where we just so happen to posess the knowledge of the wrongs such that we never choose to commit evil acts. That world is not the world in which we live, therefore the judeo-xn god CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. [/quote]

Forgive me if that ISN’T the same arguement. If the judeo-xn God, and the God you were stating in the first quote are different, and you meant to say one thing and not the other. I’m not trying pick fights here, it just seemed like you might have said that you didn’t say something, that, you said. (Whew)

My favorite quote from you so far is this.

[quote post="149"]Knowbody knows what religion was created for??? Come on. We know that in fact it was created to contrl the actions of others (see the historical texts from xnty for a prime example of this)It was created to give illusion of explanation where no explanation was readily available, or where the truth was distasteful to those in power. It was created to justify any action that those in power wished to take. [/quote]

Explanation where no explanation was readily available, being an origin of religion is GREAT reasoning. I think this is close to Pedro’s distaste for the “God of the gaps” arguement, in which once something that used to be explained as an act of God, is proven to be science, believers back off, and take another view. Many things that used to be explained by “God did it” are now obviousely science at work.

Christianity was by far not the first religion… so the writings of Christianity aren’t going to explain the origin of religion, or why it was created. That’s not good reasoning.

The world is a sphere, has been proven. 2+2=4… proven. The origin of religion, hasn’t. Therefore it’s opinnion. There’s nothing wrong with reason at all, and I must say, I’ve been outdone here by you TX. Your ability to pick apart christianity is great. The whole “God can’t exist because we live in an imperfect world” arguement, I thought was wrong. The reason why is that according to xnity THAT god can create whatever he wants, perfect or imperfect, and has.

Where do I stand now?

To disprove (OR PROVE) such a being, which (IMO) humans can’t define, with other human definitions, is impossible. (Pedro’s probably screaming “GOD OF THE GAPS!”) Like understanding infinity. I still think there is a God, of some sort. But you TX, have helped me by showing me the downfalls of some religions.

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3246 TXStorm Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:14:57 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3246 You are right in that I do not claim reason to be mere opinion, I do not pretend that modus tolens is merely my opinion, but then neither do I claim that the world is a sphere is merely my opinion or that 2+2=4 is merely my opinion. I have seen this tactic taken often by those of faith. They try to pretend that all of treality is merely opinion, therefore their baseless and false beliefs are of equal value to reason and evidence. Reason is not the same as faith. Reality is not identical to illusion. Truth is not identical to falsehoods. And fact is not mere opinion. You keep making the mistake that when you fail to grasp an argument, or when you fail to address an argument at all, that argument must be mere opinion. Obviously this is fallacious reasoning. You are right in that I do not claim reason to be mere opinion, I do not pretend that modus tolens is merely my opinion, but then neither do I claim that the world is a sphere is merely my opinion or that 2+2=4 is merely my opinion.

I have seen this tactic taken often by those of faith. They try to pretend that all of treality is merely opinion, therefore their baseless and false beliefs are of equal value to reason and evidence. Reason is not the same as faith. Reality is not identical to illusion. Truth is not identical to falsehoods. And fact is not mere opinion.

You keep making the mistake that when you fail to grasp an argument, or when you fail to address an argument at all, that argument must be mere opinion. Obviously this is fallacious reasoning.

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3245 TXStorm Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:11:14 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3245 Knowbody knows what religion was created for??? Come on. We know that in fact it was created to contrl the actions of others (see the historical texts from xnty for a prime example of this)It was created to give illusion of explanation where no explanation was readily available, or where the truth was distasteful to those in power. It was created to justify any action that those in power wished to take. BTW universalizing from a single example is a fallacy. Just because you might not be familiar with the creation of religions, it does not follow that everyone else must also be ignorant of the subject. "IF God does exist than he obviousely created humans with the ability to do evil. Once again, free will. YOU think that somehow God can’t exist if we live in a world of imperfections. (BTW some people think that such a world would be called heaven) But that doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Being a God he could create any and all worlds, the fact that we live in one and instead of another doesn’t disprove a God." This is simply dishonest of you on many levels. First I have not taken the position you attribute to me. I understand that if you were to actually face the facts, the actual arguments given that your world view would necessarily crumble, but that unwillingness on your poart does not constitute a failure on my part. I have taken the premises given by religion, that there is an all powerful, all good, all knowing, creator of all, and shown that these characteristics CANNOT coexist in any entity. This IS fact, and no amount of denying that fact will change reality. This is why you avoid the actual argument given. Religion and evil are not identical, and no where have I said otherwise. Religion is but a subset of evil, not the whole of it. As for judging people, you are yet again being dishonest. I am employing reason and objective fact to reach necessarily true conclusions about the world. That you personally do not like the world, do not like reality is of no consequence to me, to the facts, or to the arguments given. You claim that you address the arguments given and the facts offered, but the fact is that you have not once done so. For instance here you pretend to address the sound argument given that the judeo-xn notion of god is necessarily contradictory by attributing to me an argument which merely says that since we live in an imperfect world, no god can exist. Yet you cannot find any evidence to support this strawman argument, since I never once offered it. You fail to address the actual arguments every time you make up your own and claim that they are the arguments of others. Knowbody knows what religion was created for??? Come on. We know that in fact it was created to contrl the actions of others (see the historical texts from xnty for a prime example of this)It was created to give illusion of explanation where no explanation was readily available, or where the truth was distasteful to those in power. It was created to justify any action that those in power wished to take.

BTW universalizing from a single example is a fallacy. Just because you might not be familiar with the creation of religions, it does not follow that everyone else must also be ignorant of the subject.

“IF God does exist than he obviousely created humans with the ability to do evil. Once again, free will.
YOU think that somehow God can’t exist if we live in a world of imperfections. (BTW some people think that such a world would be called heaven) But that doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Being a God he could create any and all worlds, the fact that we live in one and instead of another doesn’t disprove a God.”

This is simply dishonest of you on many levels. First I have not taken the position you attribute to me. I understand that if you were to actually face the facts, the actual arguments given that your world view would necessarily crumble, but that unwillingness on your poart does not constitute a failure on my part. I have taken the premises given by religion, that there is an all powerful, all good, all knowing, creator of all, and shown that these characteristics CANNOT coexist in any entity. This IS fact, and no amount of denying that fact will change reality. This is why you avoid the actual argument given.

Religion and evil are not identical, and no where have I said otherwise. Religion is but a subset of evil, not the whole of it.

As for judging people, you are yet again being dishonest. I am employing reason and objective fact to reach necessarily true conclusions about the world. That you personally do not like the world, do not like reality is of no consequence to me, to the facts, or to the arguments given.

You claim that you address the arguments given and the facts offered, but the fact is that you have not once done so. For instance here you pretend to address the sound argument given that the judeo-xn notion of god is necessarily contradictory by attributing to me an argument which merely says that since we live in an imperfect world, no god can exist. Yet you cannot find any evidence to support this strawman argument, since I never once offered it. You fail to address the actual arguments every time you make up your own and claim that they are the arguments of others.

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3235 Kren Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:14:01 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3235 Facing a point doesn't mean taking it as fact. Like when you claimed this, [quote post="149"]Yes people committed those actions, but you seem to overlook the fact that they created religion in order to control others (some religions more than others of course) which is itself evil, and then took the very actions you mention in the name of that religion and at the behest of that religion.[/quote] and I stated that nobody knows what religion was created for, so you can't claim that as a fact. I faced your point, and didn't agree with it. And then claiming that God CAN'T and DOES NOT exist, simply because we have the freedom to sin. Your point was that since we don't live in a world free of evil God doesn't exist. But that's not fact. IF God does exist than he obviousely created humans with the ability to do evil. Once again, free will. YOU think that somehow God can't exist if we live in a world of imperfections. (BTW some people think that such a world would be called heaven) But that doesn't prove or disprove anything. Being a God he could create any and all worlds, the fact that we live in one and instead of another doesn't disprove a God. Basically you've claimed things as fact that obviousely aren't so. And when I object with a simple retort, you just say that I ignored it, which I didn't. Not once mentioning that anything you say is in your opinnion, or speculation, but instead... fact. I didn't mean to mix your words with that quote, and I apologize if it seemed that I was trying to distort them. I was just trying to understand the question. Why? Because you never seem to mention evil once without having religion tied directly to it. It seems you think that they are one in the same. I DID address the arguements and things you CLAIM as facts. You can call any religion wishfull thinking. The simple FACT is, that you can't disprove it, and you are judging MANY other people who have never judged you. Facing a point doesn’t mean taking it as fact.

Like when you claimed this,

[quote post="149"]Yes people committed those actions, but you seem to overlook the fact that they created religion in order to control others (some religions more than others of course) which is itself evil, and then took the very actions you mention in the name of that religion and at the behest of that religion.[/quote]

and I stated that nobody knows what religion was created for, so you can’t claim that as a fact.

I faced your point, and didn’t agree with it.

And then claiming that God CAN’T and DOES NOT exist, simply because we have the freedom to sin.
Your point was that since we don’t live in a world free of evil God doesn’t exist.

But that’s not fact.
IF God does exist than he obviousely created humans with the ability to do evil. Once again, free will.
YOU think that somehow God can’t exist if we live in a world of imperfections. (BTW some people think that such a world would be called heaven) But that doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Being a God he could create any and all worlds, the fact that we live in one and instead of another doesn’t disprove a God.

Basically you’ve claimed things as fact that obviousely aren’t so. And when I object with a simple retort, you just say that I ignored it, which I didn’t. Not once mentioning that anything you say is in your opinnion, or speculation, but instead… fact.

I didn’t mean to mix your words with that quote, and I apologize if it seemed that I was trying to distort them. I was just trying to understand the question. Why? Because you never seem to mention evil once without having religion tied directly to it. It seems you think that they are one in the same.

I DID address the arguements and things you CLAIM as facts.

You can call any religion wishfull thinking. The simple FACT is, that you can’t disprove it, and you are judging MANY other people who have never judged you.

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3231 TXStorm Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:57:15 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3231 sigh.. Of coruse you have not addressed the points, for to do so would mean facing the impossibility of the judeo-xn god, which you are demonstrating you are not willing to consider. Notice how you never address the actual statement but instead try to mischaracterize them as strawmen which you then sort of point a dull stick at and claim that it is defeated... This is not reason it is wishful feeling (not even wishful THINKING) Responsibility is a red herring. Nothing I have said deals with or relies upon responsibility, therefore your introduction of it must necessarily be a distraction tactic. Keep the parenthetical comments in as they put the question in context. I agree that it is obvious, but what you seem to have missed by this is that you are arguing AGAINST that obvious fact. But then too it is simply true that you have not address that distinction preferring instead to ramble on about how evil is good if it come s from religion and that religion cannot be evil despite or because of its many evil aspects. Morality is NOT an expression of any ideal. Morality is the informal public system by which actions are judged. It exists NOW, and has always existed. It is not mere subjective nonsense (aka religion) but rather can be studied, observed, and acurately described. As for the quote, it is not a mere matter of belief, but one of objective fact that NOTHING you said in that post bore any relevance to the quote. I fyou believe otherwise, perhaps you should read it again. :) Then if you still hold that false belief, perhaps you should read it without the subtitles in your head which never made it to the page. On the impossibility of the judeo-xn god, rather than employ these intellectually dishonest tactics, why not address the arguments and facts offered? Follow the reasoning, for it is perfectly sound and not once addressed by the repititions you have made that religion is good, either because of its inherent evil nature or despite all of the inherent evils which are being ignored. Rose colored glassess and wishful feeling never served anyone well... Truth requires a willingness to look critically at the world and accept that where reality and your beliefs collide, reality is never mistaken. sigh.. Of coruse you have not addressed the points, for to do so would mean facing the impossibility of the judeo-xn god, which you are demonstrating you are not willing to consider. Notice how you never address the actual statement but instead try to mischaracterize them as strawmen which you then sort of point a dull stick at and claim that it is defeated… This is not reason it is wishful feeling (not even wishful THINKING)

Responsibility is a red herring. Nothing I have said deals with or relies upon responsibility, therefore your introduction of it must necessarily be a distraction tactic.

Keep the parenthetical comments in as they put the question in context. I agree that it is obvious, but what you seem to have missed by this is that you are arguing AGAINST that obvious fact. But then too it is simply true that you have not address that distinction preferring instead to ramble on about how evil is good if it come s from religion and that religion cannot be evil despite or because of its many evil aspects.

Morality is NOT an expression of any ideal. Morality is the informal public system by which actions are judged. It exists NOW, and has always existed. It is not mere subjective nonsense (aka religion) but rather can be studied, observed, and acurately described.

As for the quote, it is not a mere matter of belief, but one of objective fact that NOTHING you said in that post bore any relevance to the quote. I fyou believe otherwise, perhaps you should read it again. :) Then if you still hold that false belief, perhaps you should read it without the subtitles in your head which never made it to the page.

On the impossibility of the judeo-xn god, rather than employ these intellectually dishonest tactics, why not address the arguments and facts offered? Follow the reasoning, for it is perfectly sound and not once addressed by the repititions you have made that religion is good, either because of its inherent evil nature or despite all of the inherent evils which are being ignored.

Rose colored glassess and wishful feeling never served anyone well… Truth requires a willingness to look critically at the world and accept that where reality and your beliefs collide, reality is never mistaken.

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3229 Kren Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:18:21 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3229 So God is evil, or does not exist because we don't live in a perfect world. We have responsibility. Responsibility is a good thing. I'm glad I have it. We can't have responsibility unless we have choices. The fact that we don't live in any of the infinite worlds where sin doesn't exist doesn't disprove God. If you think I didn't adress that quote, read it again. You may think I'm stupid. Maybe I am compared to you, but the fact that I explained how (I think) you were wrong isn't something it takes a smart person to see. Religion or no religion, causing harm is an inherent part of being human. Maybe you think people are only evil if they are religious, but religion didn't cause evil. The last question I don't understand. To take out the parentheses, you asked: "What of the distinction between causing harm and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?" That question answers itself. If you wanted to ask what the difference between morality and religion are, that's not hard to see either. Religion is a belief of something beyond life. Morality is as Will put it: [quote post="149"]morality is an expression of our ideal world. [/quote] That's with or without religion. Some religious values act as good moral values. Such as don't kill, and don't judge. Which by the way, aren't evil thoughts. (I think.) So God is evil, or does not exist because we don’t live in a perfect world. We have responsibility. Responsibility is a good thing. I’m glad I have it. We can’t have responsibility unless we have choices. The fact that we don’t live in any of the infinite worlds where sin doesn’t exist doesn’t disprove God.

If you think I didn’t adress that quote, read it again. You may think I’m stupid. Maybe I am compared to you, but the fact that I explained how (I think) you were wrong isn’t something it takes a smart person to see.

Religion or no religion, causing harm is an inherent part of being human. Maybe you think people are only evil if they are religious, but religion didn’t cause evil.

The last question I don’t understand.
To take out the parentheses, you asked:

“What of the distinction between causing harm and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?”

That question answers itself.

If you wanted to ask what the difference between morality and religion are, that’s not hard to see either. Religion is a belief of something beyond life. Morality is as Will put it:

[quote post="149"]morality is an expression of our ideal world. [/quote]

That’s with or without religion. Some religious values act as good moral values. Such as don’t kill, and don’t judge. Which by the way, aren’t evil thoughts. (I think.)

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3215 TXStorm Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:22:56 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3215 Kren, As I noted the confusion itself is quite clear, and the observations noted already still stand unchallenged. No where did I say anything at all about this god controlling your actions. I observed that an all powerful, omniscient creator could choose to create any world at all. This includes worlds with and without free will, but let's limit our examination to only those with free will. Now amongst those infinite worlds with free will from which this all knowing god can choose, there are an infinite number in which no one ever chooses an evil act. They are free to choose an evil act, but just so happen to never choose one. This god can choose to create this world (since he knows what form all worlds could possibly take). That is not the world in which we live. Therefore either 1. That god does not exist 2. That god is not good.(see #1) 3. That god is not all powerful (see #1) or 4. That god is not all knowing (see #1). Denying the self, as is necessary with the assumption of a "higher being" (see even THAT language is insulting and demeaning to the individual) is inherently harmful. Now I do wholeheartedly agree that those of one religion look upon others of another religion as evil, and they look at those individuals who choose reason and reality instead of illusion and evil (AKA religion) as doubly so. But that is natural as that is inherent in the teachings of religion. I agree with you that your comments in that last post have no connection to anything at all, most especially to this topic. Certainly they do not address the quote you included in the post. We are doomed to be sinners BY religion because we are doomed to be sinners (so goes the reasoning, or more accurately the complete absence of reasoning) We are worthless and trivial (as noted in the "mote in god's eye" reference) in the eyes of religion. All that is of value is devotion (read: subservience) to the religion. But then in addressing these points of confusion, I am contributing to the off topic elements.. What of the distinction between causing harm (which is an inherently part of religion) and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm? Kren,

As I noted the confusion itself is quite clear, and the observations noted already still stand unchallenged.

No where did I say anything at all about this god controlling your actions. I observed that an all powerful, omniscient creator could choose to create any world at all. This includes worlds with and without free will, but let’s limit our examination to only those with free will. Now amongst those infinite worlds with free will from which this all knowing god can choose, there are an infinite number in which no one ever chooses an evil act. They are free to choose an evil act, but just so happen to never choose one. This god can choose to create this world (since he knows what form all worlds could possibly take). That is not the world in which we live.

Therefore either 1. That god does not exist 2. That god is not good.(see #1) 3. That god is not all powerful (see #1) or 4. That god is not all knowing (see #1).

Denying the self, as is necessary with the assumption of a “higher being” (see even THAT language is insulting and demeaning to the individual) is inherently harmful. Now I do wholeheartedly agree that those of one religion look upon others of another religion as evil, and they look at those individuals who choose reason and reality instead of illusion and evil (AKA religion) as doubly so. But that is natural as that is inherent in the teachings of religion.

I agree with you that your comments in that last post have no connection to anything at all, most especially to this topic. Certainly they do not address the quote you included in the post. We are doomed to be sinners BY religion because we are doomed to be sinners (so goes the reasoning, or more accurately the complete absence of reasoning) We are worthless and trivial (as noted in the “mote in god’s eye” reference) in the eyes of religion. All that is of value is devotion (read: subservience) to the religion.

But then in addressing these points of confusion, I am contributing to the off topic elements..

What of the distinction between causing harm (which is an inherently part of religion) and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3214 Kren Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:01:51 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3214 I'm sorry to double post, but I think I missed something. The evidence that you (TX) were speaking of. [quote post="149"]The point is that religion is all about denying your own value. You are merely a mote in “god’s” eye.. We are doomed to be sinners because we cannot help our evil nature (so religion tells us) etc. etc. ad infinitum.[/quote] I think that's one. The thing is, it's not correct. Especially if you know what you are, which is a human being. You don't have to be religious at all to look at a large picture of humanity and see that one individual is a small part of humanity itself. Sure we're all individuals, and each one of us is unique, but that doesn't change the fact that we're all the same species. Plus, by calling something a God, you are also not diminishing your self worth. After all we are not Gods, we are humans, wether there is a God or not. And yes, we are "doomed", to make mistakes. Religous or not. Everybody has thier downfalls, some people cheat, some are alcoholics, some are pompous, and some are just plain mean. Nobody is perfect, religous or not. So I see no connection that specifically links all of these things with religion, and nothing else. I’m sorry to double post, but I think I missed something.
The evidence that you (TX) were speaking of.

[quote post="149"]The point is that religion is all about denying your own value. You are merely a mote in “god’s” eye.. We are doomed to be sinners because we cannot help our evil nature (so religion tells us) etc. etc. ad infinitum.[/quote]

I think that’s one. The thing is, it’s not correct. Especially if you know what you are, which is a human being. You don’t have to be religious at all to look at a large picture of humanity and see that one individual is a small part of humanity itself. Sure we’re all individuals, and each one of us is unique, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re all the same species. Plus, by calling something a God, you are also not diminishing your self worth. After all we are not Gods, we are humans, wether there is a God or not.
And yes, we are “doomed”, to make mistakes. Religous or not. Everybody has thier downfalls, some people cheat, some are alcoholics, some are pompous, and some are just plain mean. Nobody is perfect, religous or not. So I see no connection that specifically links all of these things with religion, and nothing else.

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3201 Kren Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:33:24 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3201 [quote post="149"]If this “god” were all powerful then it could create a world in which we have free will but in which we actually never choose evil, as I have already pointed out. [/quote] How does this make sense? Having free will makes it OUR choice. Controling our choices so we would never choose evil... hmmm... that's not free will is it? Evidence like what? What evidence shows that it's evil. You say religion focuses upon negativess and harm to ourselves and others... how? Which rules are designed to do harm to people? Morality and religion being at odds... you are right. Because people think they are the same and as I noted they are obviously not. People thinking that their religion is morally correct are in danger of acting like someone of another religion, or no religion is lesser than them. [quote post="149"]If this “god” were all powerful then it could create a world in which we have free will but in which we actually never choose evil, as I have already pointed out. [/quote]

How does this make sense?
Having free will makes it OUR choice. Controling our choices so we would never choose evil… hmmm… that’s not free will is it?

Evidence like what? What evidence shows that it’s evil. You say religion focuses upon negativess and harm to ourselves and others… how? Which rules are designed to do harm to people?

Morality and religion being at odds… you are right. Because people think they are the same and as I noted they are obviously not. People thinking that their religion is morally correct are in danger of acting like someone of another religion, or no religion is lesser than them.

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3200 TXStorm Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:59:43 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3200 Actually Kren the failing is on your side since your comments do not take into account the points already made. If this "god" were all powerful then it could create a world in which we have free will but in which we actually never choose evil, as I have already pointed out. Yes you can stipulate all day that religion is not evil, but until you account for all of the evidence that in fact it is evil, the claims ring hollow. So far you've not accounted for ANY of the evil nature of religion as denying it without any consideration or examination simply does not count as accounting for the evidence. Regardless, morality and religion are necessarily at odds with one another given the focus of religion, as well as the separation from responsibility and accountability which have already been noted. Where religion gives you religious rules designed to cause harm to the individual while at the same time promoting the religion and the power of those controlling the religion, morality tells us what is ACTUALLY right and wrong, and is the result of being rational vulnerable beings. The objectives of each are very different, with one focused upon negatives and harm to ourselves and the other, and morality focused upon NOT causing harm to others... Actually Kren the failing is on your side since your comments do not take into account the points already made.

If this “god” were all powerful then it could create a world in which we have free will but in which we actually never choose evil, as I have already pointed out.

Yes you can stipulate all day that religion is not evil, but until you account for all of the evidence that in fact it is evil, the claims ring hollow. So far you’ve not accounted for ANY of the evil nature of religion as denying it without any consideration or examination simply does not count as accounting for the evidence.

Regardless, morality and religion are necessarily at odds with one another given the focus of religion, as well as the separation from responsibility and accountability which have already been noted. Where religion gives you religious rules designed to cause harm to the individual while at the same time promoting the religion and the power of those controlling the religion, morality tells us what is ACTUALLY right and wrong, and is the result of being rational vulnerable beings. The objectives of each are very different, with one focused upon negatives and harm to ourselves and the other, and morality focused upon NOT causing harm to others…

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3195 Kren Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:49:11 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3195 Yes we've gotten off topic. No, Religion, the belief in a diety, or life after death is not evil. Yes I read what you wrote, and you make a wonderful point. [quote post="149"]Furthermore since this “god” is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then it could easily could have chosen to create a world where we have free will, but where we just so happen to posess the knowledge of the wrongs such that we never choose to commit evil acts. That world is not the world in which we live, therefore the judeo-xn god CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. [/quote] Free will can't be free if we don't have the power to do things we know are wrong. Usually when we do commit evil acts, we know full well that they are evil, and do them anyways. Weather or not that God does or does not exist, I can't argue... but you're failing at proving it doesn't. Yes we’ve gotten off topic.
No, Religion, the belief in a diety, or life after death is not evil.
Yes I read what you wrote, and you make a wonderful point.

[quote post="149"]Furthermore since this “god” is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then it could easily could have chosen to create a world where we have free will, but where we just so happen to posess the knowledge of the wrongs such that we never choose to commit evil acts. That world is not the world in which we live, therefore the judeo-xn god CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. [/quote]

Free will can’t be free if we don’t have the power to do things we know are wrong.
Usually when we do commit evil acts, we know full well that they are evil, and do them anyways. Weather or not that God does or does not exist, I can’t argue… but you’re failing at proving it doesn’t.

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3191 TXStorm Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:47:46 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3191 Kren, We are getting far astray from the topic, and I fear that you are not reading what I have written. I absolutely believe in free will, but have pointed out that necessarily religion (in particular the judeo-xn notions) deny it as a possibility, even if it does claim somewhere in its writing that free will exists. The god that knows all, and creates all necessarily DETERMINED all by that choice of world to create. You are putting the cart before the horse in attributing the OBSERVATIONS about the nature of religion as the CAUSE of the nature of religion. Noticing the enherent evil nature of religion does not give religion a bad name, the evil nature of religion gives religion the bad name it so justly deserves. As for this "god" "letting us learn" from our own wrongs instead of making us do them, there are a great many problems with this question, not the least of which is that it could easily do both. Furthermore since this "god" is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then it could easily could have chosen to create a world where we have free will, but where we just so happen to posess the knowledge of the wrongs such that we never choose to commit evil acts. That world is not the world in which we live, therefore the judeo-xn god CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. Furthermore, returning to the topic at hand, if we hold to the judeo-xn notion that such a god would necessarily be all good as well, and we know that in fact it did not create a world without evil, we know that it cannot be all good, therefore if in fact it existed, it would necessarily be an evil being (which lends even more weight to the fact that religion itself is evil). Kren,

We are getting far astray from the topic, and I fear that you are not reading what I have written. I absolutely believe in free will, but have pointed out that necessarily religion (in particular the judeo-xn notions) deny it as a possibility, even if it does claim somewhere in its writing that free will exists. The god that knows all, and creates all necessarily DETERMINED all by that choice of world to create.

You are putting the cart before the horse in attributing the OBSERVATIONS about the nature of religion as the CAUSE of the nature of religion. Noticing the enherent evil nature of religion does not give religion a bad name, the evil nature of religion gives religion the bad name it so justly deserves.

As for this “god” “letting us learn” from our own wrongs instead of making us do them, there are a great many problems with this question, not the least of which is that it could easily do both. Furthermore since this “god” is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then it could easily could have chosen to create a world where we have free will, but where we just so happen to posess the knowledge of the wrongs such that we never choose to commit evil acts. That world is not the world in which we live, therefore the judeo-xn god CANNOT and DOES NOT exist.

Furthermore, returning to the topic at hand, if we hold to the judeo-xn notion that such a god would necessarily be all good as well, and we know that in fact it did not create a world without evil, we know that it cannot be all good, therefore if in fact it existed, it would necessarily be an evil being (which lends even more weight to the fact that religion itself is evil).

]]> By: Will http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3188 Will Wed, 27 Sep 2006 06:42:26 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3188 Morality must be a choice. Going from the existential stance that humans must live as an example of how we'd have all others live, morality is an expression of our ideal world. Acting immoral is thus acting against our own understandings of what we see as being good... it doesn't really matter how we come to that understanding for it to be moral or not, though I'm quite assured that moral thinking is a derivative of something human. Morality must be a choice. Going from the existential stance that humans must live as an example of how we’d have all others live, morality is an expression of our ideal world. Acting immoral is thus acting against our own understandings of what we see as being good… it doesn’t really matter how we come to that understanding for it to be moral or not, though I’m quite assured that moral thinking is a derivative of something human.

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3185 Kren Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:09:07 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/09/21/the-origin-of-morality/#comment-3185 That's exactly the kind of thinking that gives religion a bad name. The thinking that God made you do it. That god made your decisions for you. I'm not sure if any holy writings actually have this contradiction: (They probably do, but I can't site them) the one that says that God decides all (judeo-XN), and the other one that says everybody has free will, and therefore has to pay the consequences of thier actions. It's dangerous to think that, and prejudice to think that all religioius people think that. People make their own decisions. Don't you? OBVIOUSELY yes, and that goes for everyone. Therefore it wasn't any religion who made this guy, or that nation, do an evil deed. It was them, the people. AGAIN, religion doesn't promote evil, people just use it justify thier own evil deeds. It's the #1 excuse for tyrany. Humanities scapegoat. "God did said it's okay." It's SADLY obvious if you just watch GW on PBS. If it's true that people created religion, as a tool, then how can a tool be held responsible for peoples doing? You don't say hammers are bad because someone used it to kill. If it's not true, and there is a God. Wouldn't it make sense to let us learn from our own wrongs instead of making us do them? That’s exactly the kind of thinking that gives religion a bad name. The thinking that God made you do it. That god made your decisions for you. I’m not sure if any holy writings actually have this contradiction: (They probably do, but I can’t site them) the one that says that God decides all (judeo-XN), and the other one that says everybody has free will, and therefore has to pay the consequences of thier actions.

It’s dangerous to think that, and prejudice to think that all religioius people think that.

People make their own decisions. Don’t you?
OBVIOUSELY yes, and that goes for everyone. Therefore it wasn’t any religion who made this guy, or that nation, do an evil deed. It was them, the people.

AGAIN, religion doesn’t promote evil, people just use it justify thier own evil deeds.

It’s the #1 excuse for tyrany. Humanities scapegoat. “God did said it’s okay.” It’s SADLY obvious if you just watch GW on PBS.

If it’s true that people created religion, as a tool, then how can a tool be held responsible for peoples doing? You don’t say hammers are bad because someone used it to kill.

If it’s not true, and there is a God. Wouldn’t it make sense to let us learn from our own wrongs instead of making us do them?

]]>