Should We Remove Our Moral Foundation? (Christianity)

[Serpent]

[Strive for utopia]

That's what Christians do. The idea of heaven on earth seems unrealistic because of our earthly desires.

If we had nothing to do, but eat cake and busy our selves with the pleasure of reproducing, we would smash it all to pieces.

Then the Christian idea of heaven is fatally flawed. Try, instead, for the Epicurian version. https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/epicurus/

[Serpent]

[world economy and civilization]is an imminent train-wreck anyhow.]
True, but because of completely different causes.

I didn't cite any causes. Merely submitted the opinion that, as civilization is about to end itself anyway, ending it on purpose wouldn't be such a bad idea. I'll add here: a controlled implosion is a safer way to take down a condemned building than bombing it from an airplane.

if someone refuses to share the bread? There will be no police in your Utopian society to enforce behaviour.

Who said no police? It doesn't have to look like an army to be effective.
In fact, when it looks and functions like an army is when police forces are least effective.

I don't wonder. Everyone wants appreciation and respect. But nobody gets it, only a very few.

Do you think that is a necessary condition of society? It hasn't been my experience in interpersonal relations and communities, though it seems to hold true in corporate environments.

If you make statements, I will answer them. Reason: questions have no truth value.

They're only meant to stimulate thought, which might have some kind of value.

If you want responses to the issues, please make a statement and I shall respond.

No, thanks. Of course, you're welcome to pursue it, but for me, the money thing was a minor digression.
The central issue is Edy420's contention that the OT commandments, presumably as modified by the Council of Nicea, are the basis of "our" moral matrix and are currently in danger of being replaced by reason. I hold a different view.

[-1-]

The central issue is Edy420's contention that the OT commandments, presumably as modified by the Council of Nicea, are the basis of "our" moral matrix and are currently in danger of being replaced by reason. I hold a different view.

I am responding to the above.

I don't think the code of Commandments are god-given, but that is just my opinion. I think that in an agrarian society, and in later ones, the 10C made sense for social co-existing, which increased the survival rates of the members of the community and in turn, helped the community as a whole live on.

The commandments are in use today partly because Western Civilization is based on it, but in a larger part because they, the 10C, do support and ensure the smooth running of society. By 10C I meant to mean only those that are not exclusively about god-worship.

Hence, it is not very appropriate to fear that reason can supplant a system of law that is already reasonable. Reasonable in the sense that it is a major support of societal functioning.

[edy420]

[Strive for utopia]

That's what Christians do. The idea of heaven on earth seems unrealistic because of our earthly desires.

If we had nothing to do, but eat cake and busy our selves with the pleasure of reproducing, we would smash it all to pieces.

Then the Christian idea of heaven is fatally flawed. Try, instead, for the Epicurian version. https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/epicurus/

His theory on atomism is wrong. He assumes we are subject to physical elements, but the truth is we are subject to non-physical laws of physics(God's will). The universe can exist without atoms, it's just one ingredient. And if God made the universe with btoms instead, we'd exist accordingly.

On topic. First you need to prove that pleasure is the meaning of life. Epicuris doesn't do that. His ability to push through pain using happy thought is equivalent to David Goggins ability to push through pain by having the opposite belief. David says the meaning of life is about pain and suffering in order to grow. If you stop suffering, then your dead. He was able to push through a navy seals hell week training with a fractured leg that he duct taped.

The Bible shows nothing but suffering. It's obvious what the meaning of life is, people just don't want to hear it. It's also evident throughout our entire history. Suffering makes us grow, mentally physically and spiritually. Your presumption is that we must eliminate suffering from mankind's way of life. Why?

Suffering adds more polarity to the meaning of pleasure. Therefore, to achieve the highest pleasure, you must endure the highest suffering.

The problem is, we need a set of rules to stop the suffering going too far. Ergo the Ten Commandments.

Utopia has never been achieved nor would a society want that. Why do you believe we should eliminate suffering altogether from life on earth?

[-1-]

Edy420, is there any happening, real or imagined, that could convince you that there is no god, no creation, and the physical world is where the buck stops?


For me, an atheist, there is a proof to know that god exists. But that proof never has presented, and I daresay (a belief of mine) that it never will.

I assume that your faith in creation, god, etc., can't be shaken.

This is the difference between us, and I find the argumenting to be two separate pairs of mill stones, grinding out arguments without any effect on the argumenting opposition partner.

Is it worth to continue? Not for me. If I know from the start that my arguments are going to fall on deaf ears, then I deem that argumenting futile, and a waste of time and effort, so to speak.

[edy420]

Recreate the Big bang and abiogenisis without the need for Devine Intervention. Simple.

For the Big bang, a simple virtual recreation will do, and one already exists in the game No Mans Sky. Game developers had to design the laws of physics. They had to create digital angels to probe the 18 quintillion planets for glitches. They had to create procedural generation algorithms to create unique life forms on each planet.

If science knows so much, then show me a virtual universe where the laws of physics create themselves. And life, forms on its own without the implementation of a procedurally generated code.

For the theory of life, show me a fish tank where cells magically make themselves without pre-existing DNA or proteins. We know the temperatures and the conditions, so recreate them.

Science can be measured and recreated, or else it's not science. Theory is a field of philosophy, I'm not sure how the two are confused.

I've only had faith for the last 7 months or so. Before that I was agnostic for 34 years of my life. When agnostic, I noticed that both sides of the God question, are religious. It takes 100% faith to say there is no God.

I believe that real scientists build their beliefs more on fact than faith. But anyone who isn't a scientist, builds their belief on faith in scientists. The problem there is that scientific fact is not unanimous. Different scientists will look at various facts in different ways, sometimes enough to believe the complete opposite of each other. (Nichola Tesla - Albert Einstein for example)

If we know the conditions and the effects of these theories, then a virtual recreation isn't asking too much. If however we don't know as much as we pretend to know, then a virtual recreation is impossible.

[davidm]

So much stupid here I can't even.

I guess this place has really gone to hell, eh?

[davidm]

His theory on atomism is wrong. He assumes we are subject to physical elements, but the truth is we are subject to non-physical laws of physics(God's will).

Evidence? Argument? No, of course not. You got nothin'.

First you need to prove that pleasure is the meaning of life.

First you need to prove that God exists.

Utopia has never been achieved nor would a society want that. Why do you believe we should eliminate suffering altogether from life on earth?

Any rational person would want to eradicate suffering entirely. Suffering exists because the world is a wholly natural place. Too many organisms compete for too few resources. Your idiot (non-existent) God could fix this problem with a snap of his non-existent fingers.

Your Christianity is codswallop.

[Serpent]

On topic. First you need to prove that pleasure is the meaning of life.

I don't have to prove anything. That's my preference, according to my nature. I'm not trying to deprive you of your suffering; I just don't want to share it or inflict it on others.

Utopia has never been achieved nor would a society want that. Why do you believe we should eliminate suffering altogether from life on earth?

You missed a word. The reason I would want to eliminate unnecessary suffering is that that is the one desire common to all life; a condition of not-hunger, not-pain, not-cold, not-fear is what all healthy living things strive for, every waking minute. It seems to me that a living thing that seeks out and celebrates misery is unsound and unnatural. I don't support any system that enables them to spread it.

[TheVat]

The idea of emotional distress leading to personal growth is not quite equivalent to asserting that any suffering, per se, is useful. But I see this false equivalence a lot. And making others suffer, whatever it might do for them in terms of growth, doesn't always do you a lot of good. I think most can supply examples of needless and destructive suffering.

This is a philosophy thread, so making careful distinctions is important. In this case, between varieties of suffering.

I see Serpent made a similar point while I was typing and playing with a cat.

[edy420]

His theory on atomism is wrong. He assumes we are subject to physical elements, but the truth is we are subject to non-physical laws of physics(God's will).

Evidence? Argument? No, of course not. You got nothin'.

My evidence equates to the evidence you have proving God does not exist. Why then, does your position hold more value?

I don't claim that my position has more value. My claim is that we can not understand an omnipotent creator, nor observe it, which correlates to the physical evidence present. Our existence.

With regards to the atomism principle. Look to space where there are no atoms. There the laws of physics still exist! I am still bound by the laws of physics even when there are no atoms, meaning the atomism theory is missing the true governing principles.

First you need to prove that God exists.

Einstein says the laws of physics are like eternal books in an infinite library. He has no proof, but begs the question, is there an author for these books?

The laws of physics are omnipotent. Omnipresent. Constant and eternal. If you can understand that the theory of evolution is also a law of physics then you can understand the combination of the laws of physics as God's Will. If you disagree, then explain why the laws of physics. And make an accurate enough unified law to include the law of gravity.

The "law" of life is quite simply.. when we have the right conditions for life, life will emerge.

The "law" of evolution from the perspective that it is in fact God's Will, dictates that evolution will generate the same species in accordance with the other laws. For example, take ten planets with similar conditions for life as Earth. They will all develop creatures with legs because of the laws of gravity. They will all develop creatures with eyes because of the laws of light. They will all develop creatures with wings because of the laws of aerodynamics. Our creation is less random than Darwinism would like us to believe. Our creation was by intelligent design, as even Richard Dawkins agrees based on biology.(He says it's more likely that aliens are responsible for this evidence of intelligent design, but conveniently left that out if his books)

It's not my goal to convince all atheists that I am right. I understand atheism and religion as simply different perspectives. When talking about the creation of the universe, many questions can be answered easily from the religious perspective. This is a luxurious position as it is not filled with the frustration of the unknown.

If you wish to challenge my faith further, please do so in a pm, as it's derailing the topic.

This luxury of eliminating the unknown, flows over to the concept of this topic, morals and ethics. Atheists don't have the luxury of knowing what are the confines of their moral obligations. The only governing factor is the law, but no one knows all the laws.

When comparing the two perspectives on morals and ethics, one is set in stone literally. The other differs from person to person, is ununified and has chaos and destruction built into it's design, due to conflict of interests. Take for example marriage. Christians know what the boundaries are. Atheism however is open to polygamy, safe insestual sex, and shared marriage. Faithfulness is not a necessary foundation. Im not saying it camt work, but it's a volatile situation that can be avoided with faith in Christ teachings.

[edy420]

Hi Vat, (Brainvat?)

The idea of emotional distress leading to personal growth is not quite equivalent to asserting that any suffering, per se, is useful.

Most people in high places, talk about all the suffering they had to endure to get to where they are. Whether it's physical suffering to be elite in sports, or failing in order to reach success.

My point is simply, eliminating all suffering, also eliminates greatness. Not just on the social platform but also as an individual. I can think of myself as normal, or great.

Perhaps there is an argument that we don't need greatness, but I've missed it.

*edit
Davidm

Any rational person would want to eradicate suffering entirely. Suffering exists because the world is a wholly natural place. Too many organisms compete for too few resources. Your idiot (non-existent) God could fix this problem with a snap of his non-existent fingers.

Your Christianity is codswallop.

If the meaning of life, is to live a full life of pleasure, then I agree. God would snap his fingers and remove all suffering. I don't think that would work out well for us. As humans, we need challenges in life.

Conjecture; no one wants to live in an utopia. It's easy to prove.

Create a 3d virtual world where there is no harm, no violence, no destruction. Just love and bunnies. You won't sell one copy.

How do people theories that we as a society, want and need a state if utopia on earth?

[Serpent]

Conjecture; no one wants to live in an utopia. It's easy to prove.

Create a 3d virtual world where there is no harm, no violence, no destruction. Just love and bunnies. You won't sell one copy.

How do people theories that we as a society, want and need a state if utopia on earth?

Misrepresenting other people's positions is not helpful. Striving for a utopia is not the same as having it given to us: the striving itself might be fulfilling. The effort to help one another attain happiness might make us happier than the immense effort that we now invest in mutual destruction.

Maybe you don't want anyone to be happy; maybe you want happiness to be unevenly distributed according to a merit system or god's whim; maybe you want all happiness to be deferred till after death.
I don't know, and I'm not trying to convince you that it's wrong to deprive other creatures of happiness.
It still is, though. That's my moral foundation.

[edy420]

I don’t mean to misrepresent. Only to dissect and understand. It seems we’ve found a good place to start.

Do we both agree that an atheist moral code should bear in mind what’s best for everyone?
How do we define what’s “ best”, though.

Perhaps we should prioritise what is best for the individual. People in better living situations, find it easier to live a moral lifestyle.

Only when we determine what is the goal, can we derive a moral code aimed at acheiving such goals.

If your striving for utopia, then your goal is unrealistic, and therefore impossible.

Maybe you don't want anyone to be happy; maybe you want happiness to be unevenly distributed according to a merit system or god's whim; maybe you want all happiness to be deferred till after death.

A fine example of misrepresentation :p
I only wish to make it to heaven, and take as many people with me as I can. That means living life according to Christ’s teachings. Simple. (Well at least it is when I type it out. It’s harder than it sounds)

When it comes to understanding levels of happiness and suffering, I want to be realistic.

[Serpent]

I don’t mean to misrepresent. Only to dissect and understand. It seems we’ve found a good place to start.

Do we both agree that an atheist moral code should bear in mind what’s best for everyone?

I think that should be everyone's.

How do we define what’s “ best”, though.

I already have: Do no avoidable harm; help if you can; share your toys; don't judge what you don't understand; put up with imperfection in others as you hope they'll put up with your shortcomings.
How you define it is up to you.

Perhaps we should prioritise what is best for the individual.

Not new and not hard. https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

People in better living situations, find it easier to live a moral lifestyle.

"Better" is relative and situational. But, yes, of course it's easier to be kind when you're not under threat or in pain - and yet, people in low (not lowest) income brackets donate to charities and do volunteer work proportionately more per capita than people than people in high income brackets - and that doesn't include the favours and family services they provide that nobody keeps track of.

Only when we determine what is the goal, can we derive a moral code aimed at acheiving such goals.

Okay. My goal is that every sensate creature in the world is allowed to be happy. Obviously, that's unachievable, but it wouldn't be a nicer world if more of us tried to approximate it?

If your striving for utopia, then your goal is unrealistic, and therefore impossible.

So what? Any improvement you make, however small, counts.
Anyway, how do you know till you've tried?

[Maybe... ]
A fine example of misrepresentation.

No: I simply don't understand what it is you do want. You rejected anything I want.

I only wish to make it to heaven, and take as many people with me as I can. That means living life according to Christ’s teachings. Simple.

It pretty much is simple. And you're okay if you go by Christ's instructions. If you disregard controlling Paul and crazy John and all the political, corrupt popes. Stick to the basics. Consider the lilies; render onto Caesar; shun the money-changers; chuck a piece of bread at him. (and don't try the water-walking trick at home)

When it comes to understanding levels of happiness and suffering, I want to be realistic.

Realistic in expectations; unlimited in ambition.
Didn't you approve of greatness a little farther up? It starts with vision. That little ant is never gonna move a rubber-tree plant, but if tugging at it makes him happy, why the hell shouldn't he?

[edy420]

1. Do no avoidable harm;
2. help if you can;
3. share your toys;
4. don't judge what you don't understand;
5. put up with imperfection in others as you hope they'll put up with your shortcomings.

At a glance, very admirable. But what are the thresholds of omission , if any. Given your previous stance on war, does moral 1 make war an impossibility? What constitutes avoidable. Can I kill shoot a psycho, if hes charging my children with a knife drawn?

In 2, what if I don't want to help, for various reasons. Feeling lazy, or not too fond of the person etc

Does 3 mean that I should let random people joy ride in my car? Growing up on the farm, it did for me. We'd paddock bash in each other's cars for fun. Should this version of sharing not extend into the higher price bracket of toys? (If that us your position)

4. I don't understand anything fully. I look at everything with the ideological presumption that I may be wrong. A subtle version of Descartes doubt. Does this mean i can not judge anything? As a Christian, I may discern, but don't judge because there is only one who knows all. Is your position similar or do you still judge in certain situations.

5 could be interpreted as, put up with bullying, accept that your at the bottom of the food chain. Hope that theyl stop because you are a good example.

How you define it is up to you.

Here is the biggest problem when interpreting as an individual. We all have our own bias and set of desires which filter the way we look at the world, and the way we conduct ourselves. I personally, can understand what you mean in your statement(besides the judging), but many people would skew this code to suit their personal lifestyles.

The difference with Christianity is Jesus, his life is an example. It's more than just a set of rules, and it's difficult to interpret his way of life in the wrong way. As sinners, Christians can accept that they may make mistakes, as we are not perfect. But must repent, and make right the things we have done wrong.

This example aspect, is hard to assimilate, but very necessary. We don't strive to be perfect, like Christ was, but we try to live as he intended humans to live.

But who is willing to be the living example of an atheist moral code.

[Serpent]

But what are the thresholds of omission , if any.

What do you mean? It's just an informal statement of operating principles for my own interactions with the world. A code of laws to govern groups of unrelated people would have to be far more organized and detailed.

Given your previous stance on war, does moral 1 make war an impossibility?

For me, yes. I couldn't initiate a war, and would certainly try to prevent one, if I were in a position to.

What constitutes avoidable.

Avoidable harm? There is all kinds of harm being done all the time - deliberately or carelessly.
Don't hurt people or animals or the environment for fun or profit. Don't contaminate the river with effluent from a gold-mine; don't take irresponsible chances like driving drunk; don't hunt rhinos for heir horn; don't burn anthills with a magnifying glass; don't cheap out on safety equipment for your employees; don't vote for a government that employs racist police and gives tax cuts to the rich while people go hungry.

Can I kill shoot a psycho, if hes charging my children with a knife drawn?

Of course you can shoot him. I would - hope not fatally. But I wouldn't shoot a trespasser on my land or approve capital punishment. Self-defence and the protection of potential victims is unavoidable. Some accidents are unavoidable, simply because we're fallible.

what if I don't want to help, for various reasons. Feeling lazy, or not too fond of the person etc

I will not respect you.

Does 3 mean that I should let random people joy ride in my car?

I didn't suggest you abandon reason or common sense.
"Share your toys" is simply a habit we try to teach small children. By age 4, we expect them to exercise discretion in applying this principle. Isit too much to ask of adults?

4. I don't understand anything fully. I look at everything with the ideological presumption that I may be wrong. A subtle version of Descartes doubt. Does this mean i can not judge anything?

I would advise you to withhold judgment as long as possible, while learning as much as possible about the situation, especially when your decision might result in unfair damage to another sentient being. Of course, we can't help forming opinions and having suspicions. But don't lynch the guy who kinda looks like the one that probably kidnapped the baby!

As a Christian, I may discern, but don't judge because there is only one who knows all. Is your position similar or do you still judge in certain situations.

Close enough in principle. Of course, we have to make decisions about all kinds of things in life, including things that involve other people. Use discretion; try to make allowances.

5 could be interpreted as, put up with bullying, accept that your at the bottom of the food chain. Hope that theyl stop because you are a good example.

That's the turn-the-other-cheek principle.
No, I didn't mean that. Just the common tolerance necessary for human coexistence: be aware that you're not everybody's ideal of a companion, either, and try not to criticize too much.

[How you define it is up to you.]
Here is the biggest problem when interpreting as an individual. We all have our own bias and set of desires which filter the way we look at the world, and the way we conduct ourselves. I personally, can understand what you mean in your statement(besides the judging), but many people would skew this code to suit their personal lifestyles.

Of course. They each have their own principles and convictions; what they think is right and wrong to do. That's what a personal moral code is.

The difference with Christianity is Jesus, his life is an example. It's more than just a set of rules, and it's difficult to interpret his way of life in the wrong way.

You couldn't tell that by the way a lot of preachers behave!

As sinners, Christians can accept that they may make mistakes, as we are not perfect. But must repent, and make right the things we have done wrong.

Except for the sin part, that's not so different from the general principles by which every family and tribe operates, and on which whole big national and international legal codes are based.

This example aspect, is hard to assimilate, but very necessary. We don't strive to be perfect, like Christ was, but we try to live as he intended humans to live.

Fine.

But who is willing to be the living example of an atheist moral code.

There is no "atheist moral code". There are atheists with morals, just as there are theists with morals. There are good people, whom we admire and they become our role models. This was so before people had organized law or religion; before they had clothes or houses. It's never been any different, fundamentally.

[-1-]

Recreate the Big bang and abiogenisis without the need for Devine Intervention. Simple. Thanks, Edy420. I'll get right on it. But seriously, your answer is not that of a fool. Your answer is useful, practical, and provides for a real test. Thanks. The things you asked for are only partially completed so far.

For the Big bang, a simple virtual recreation will do, and one already exists in the game No Mans Sky. Game developers had to design the laws of physics. They had to create digital angels to probe the 18 quintillion planets for glitches. They had to create procedural generation algorithms to create unique life forms on each planet. Angels? Why not directly digital gods? It is not a simulation you need, but the math to understand, and the proper way of interpreting observations. In fact, your faith is supported by a huge knowledge gap, filled by your God.

If science knows so much, then show me a virtual universe where the laws of physics create themselves. And life, forms on its own without the implementation of a procedurally generated code. This has been accomplished a long time ago. In fact, we have done this (except me) in our LISP class, which is an AI language. The code can re-write itself, because it's a computer language based on interpreted code, not on compiled code.

For the theory of life, show me a fish tank where cells magically make themselves without pre-existing DNA or proteins. We know the temperatures and the conditions, so recreate them.

Science can be measured and recreated, or else it's not science. Theory is a field of philosophy, I'm not sure how the two are confused.

I've only had faith for the last 7 months or so. Before that I was agnostic for 34 years of my life. When agnostic, I noticed that both sides of the God question, are religious. It takes 100% faith to say there is no God.

Almost true. Except faith does not equal religion. Faith is a belief system; but that's where the buck stops. To make faith into a religion, you need to introduce supernatural elements with supernatural capabilities. Atheism and scientism lack that addition. Therefore it's a misnomer to say that 100% faith in no god is a religion.

I believe that real scientists build their beliefs more on fact than faith. But anyone who isn't a scientist, builds their belief on faith in scientists. The problem there is that scientific fact is not unanimous. There is no problem, Edy420. Scientific fact (as you called it) is unanimous. The interpretation of facts may be different. Different scientists will look at various facts in different ways, sometimes enough to believe the complete opposite of each other. (Nichola Tesla - Albert Einstein for example) Precisely. It's interpretation that's different, not the facts.

If we know the conditions and the effects of these theories, then a virtual recreation isn't asking too much. If however we don't know as much as we pretend to know, then a virtual recreation is impossible. We don't pretend to know more than we do, and we accept that we don't know everything as scientists.

[BadgerJelly]

Ed -

It does seem this whole thread lies on a false premise (even though I sympathise with some of your points).

“Morality” is innate; as in a biological foundation of our being. We cannot “remove” this other than by dying. It is also incorrect to refer to western society as founded on Christian ideology. This is merely a label to express a continual flow of cultural evolution and social refinement of ideas and practices. A swathe of so called “Christian” belief has little to do with the foundations of the mythos of Christ. Every religious institution has adopted, or absorbed, numerous satellite “cults” into its fold. It has been quite strongly argued by some that Christianity is nothign more than a continuation of ancient Greek philosophy.

I’d recommend reading a book called “The Cave and The Light” which tracks the possible effects of the ideas of Aristotle and Plato from ancient times through to today - it’s not a heavy read, but it gives a nice perspective of how political ideas have interacted with more existential questions including ethics.

Pain and suffering certainly help us align our compass. Without them we’d be nought. Likewise trying to actively dip ourselves into pain and suffering is partly insane. Life is a matter of exploration and I don’t see hedonism or masochism as being wholesale solutions to any but a few unique individuals who teeter between “sanity” and “insanity”.

Pleasure and pain are neither “good” or “bad”. To view them through such a myopic lens is ignorant/arrogant. But hey! We’re all prone to a little/lot ignorance/arrogance from time to time :)