Theology Discussion?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

I get your thinking here. The herd instinct arguement. There's also the self preservation one. So the idea would be, for example, if you hear a man calling for help who's drowning in a river, you can either go help him (herd) or stay away to make sure you don't get hurt (self preserve). Do I have that right? I have a counter for this, but don't have teh time right now.

Kind of, but not exactly. Again, I'll preface my statement with "I really have no idea." That said, it's not exactly the herd mentality or self preserverance. More subtle than that, and with more societal forces. Say, there is a man calling for help in the river (again, we're talking prehistoric times with people living in small groups). Someone goes and saves him. His group is going to reward him, which could possibly be elevated his stature in the group, and thus possibly increases reproduction chances. Say he doesn't help the man in the river, and his group finds out. They could banish him, and he has no chance of passing on his genes. This is just a hypothesis I have no evidence for.

Originally Posted by randilover

On another note, did anyone watch the PBS special (it was on last night on one of my stations) about Freud and C.S. Lewis, called Questions on God? It is based on the class that a guy named Nicoli teaches at Harvard, and he compares and contrasts the two men, the atheist and the apologist. It's got 2 parts to each section, one is an acted narrative of the two mens view on various subjects (death, suffering, miracles, etc.), and after each one, they cut away to a round table discussion with a collection of smart people with Nicoli, themselves Christians, theists, atheists, skeptics. Really cool show. I love it, but then I'm a fan of C.S. Lewis, so I'm slightly biased. The table discussions are pretty interesting, although some of the people are sometimes squishy and vauge it's kind of hum-drum. Overall it's pretty cool. Any other thoughts?

I saw promos for that, but I never saw it. I'm not a huge Freud fan, so it didn't attract me as much as if the counter-Christian had been someone I would have been intrigued with. I didn't know they had the round table discussion, that might have interested me more.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Say, there is a man calling for help in the river (again, we're talking prehistoric times with people living in small groups). Someone goes and saves him. His group is going to reward him, which could possibly be elevated his stature in the group, and thus possibly increases reproduction chances. Say he doesn't help the man in the river, and his group finds out. They could banish him, and he has no chance of passing on his genes. This is just a hypothesis I have no evidence for.

Who says natural selection has to be at an individual-by-individual basis? Let's say said man saves the other man. Other man is inclined to do whatever it takes to protect the first man...you end up with a group of people who will defend each other from outside dangers at all costs, which increases their overall chances of reproduction.

Meanwhile, a groupd of people who don't look out for each other might find themselves having a hard time reproducing, as they keep losing people to drownings, mammoth charges, tootaches, etc.

Seems that a person with a desire to help those close to him stand a better chance of passing on his genes than one who has no such desire. Over thousands and thousands of years, this definately explains (to me, at least) why most of us have this deep-rooted desire.

[Doggler]

I truly believe that religions such as Christianity and Islam will be around as long as humans are around. I would wager that in the future there will be some new religion that takes the world by storm and turns the others into minor players, but would bet that this yet-to-happen religion will have the following traits:

1)Desire to have many children. This one is obvious. If certain religions advocate having many children/not using birth control/etc and others don't, over time guess which religion becomes dominant?

2)Desire to ostracize those unlike us. If it's in a religions belief system to kill those who don't believe likewise...or at leat to be hostile or to mistrust them (which sometimes leads to killing) then that religion will spread faster than others.

3)Strong conversion tactics. The greater the reward and the scarier the consequences, the more successful of a sell-job one can make with their religion.

4)Disdain for public education. Our only defense right now from some of the wackier religions happens to be our education. We know that there isn't that pink bunny hitting a drum powering anything, but we know that because we've been taught enough science and such at school to apply critical thought to the process and realize how silly it is. I mean, isn't it scary to think that none of us would have any clue that the world isn't flat if it weren't for such a long line of tiny discoveries made upon each other? The amazing thing about humans is how we collectively are able to gain knowledge and leave the next generation with a higher starting point than we had. Heck, it wasn't that long ago when we didn't know how to make fire, didn't know the world was round, didn't know how to heal certain types of wounds...it's not like we have instincts. This pool of collective knowledge has been formed by billions and billions of people. It will continue to evolve. A 'successful' religion will take matters into its own hands and push it's own religious education so as to ensure nothing challenges it's authority.

Sadly, I see some of these above traits in most of the worlds dominant religions. It's why I am so frightened of Evangelical Christianity...I'm sure I'd be as frightened of Islam if I was more exposed to it.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Doggler

Who says natural selection has to be at an individual-by-individual basis? Let's say said man saves the other man. Other man is inclined to do whatever it takes to protect the first man...you end up with a group of people who will defend each other from outside dangers at all costs, which increases their overall chances of reproduction.

Cool that someone else jumped in here.

I'm going to take a step back because you jumped right over something. Why would would man #2, the first rescued, feel inclined to save #1 rescuer when he was in trouble? What is it in that #2 that instigates him to reciprocate?

Originally Posted by Doggler

Meanwhile, a groupd of people who don't look out for each other might find themselves having a hard time reproducing, as they keep losing people to drownings, mammoth charges, tootaches, etc.
Seems that a person with a desire to help those close to him stand a better chance of passing on his genes than one who has no such desire. Over thousands and thousands of years, this definately explains (to me, at least) why most of us have this deep-rooted desire.

But it doesn't explain the desire, as that desire is something separate from instinct, which we all have. See, you have this above scenario as an example. When the first man is on his way and hears the second calling for help, he's confronted with 2 options. Run (save himself) or help the other (save someone else). Herd instinct might be what causes him to feel a desire to help, but that is quite different than the feeling you ought to help whether you want to or not (which we can all atest to feeling), and which our test subject would feel. Now, this third pressure, something that is separate from the other 2 options, this will tell him to suppress the first instinct and act on the second. We would call this good behavior if he submits to the impulse not to run and help his buddy.

Now, you may counter that this third impulse it just another instinct. But that is a problem, because instincts are neutral. They are neither good nor bad. We should be able to point to some impulse inside that is what we call good, and that never points to any one thing, it is separate. You can never call any of your instincts bad and others good. If we take something like patriotism or mother-love are good instincts, versus fighting or sexual instinct, which are bad, all you are saying is that the impulse to suppress the later two are more frequent. But you also have to suppress the other two as over mothering or being overly patriotic can also have bad effects.

So I would assert the thing that we call good and bad, fairness, the Law of Human Nature is not instinct. Evolution can not really explain it.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Doggler

I truly believe that religions such as Christianity and Islam will be around as long as humans are around. I would wager that in the future there will be some new religion that takes the world by storm and turns the others into minor players, but would bet that this yet-to-happen religion will have the following traits:

1)Desire to have many children. This one is obvious. If certain religions advocate having many children/not using birth control/etc and others don't, over time guess which religion becomes dominant?

2)Desire to ostracize those unlike us. If it's in a religions belief system to kill those who don't believe likewise...or at leat to be hostile or to mistrust them (which sometimes leads to killing) then that religion will spread faster than others.

3)Strong conversion tactics. The greater the reward and the scarier the consequences, the more successful of a sell-job one can make with their religion.

4)Disdain for public education. Our only defense right now from some of the wackier religions happens to be our education. We know that there isn't that pink bunny hitting a drum powering anything, but we know that because we've been taught enough science and such at school to apply critical thought to the process and realize how silly it is. I mean, isn't it scary to think that none of us would have any clue that the world isn't flat if it weren't for such a long line of tiny discoveries made upon each other? The amazing thing about humans is how we collectively are able to gain knowledge and leave the next generation with a higher starting point than we had. Heck, it wasn't that long ago when we didn't know how to make fire, didn't know the world was round, didn't know how to heal certain types of wounds...it's not like we have instincts. This pool of collective knowledge has been formed by billions and billions of people. It will continue to evolve. A 'successful' religion will take matters into its own hands and push it's own religious education so as to ensure nothing challenges it's authority.

Sadly, I see some of these above traits in most of the worlds dominant religions. It's why I am so frightened of Evangelical Christianity...I'm sure I'd be as frightened of Islam if I was more exposed to it.

I think you might want to expose yourself to more Islam, because to compare the two is ridiculous. You, in your life time, have never been subjected to anything in Christianity that comes close the above the way Islam does.

Christianity has no propigation teaching, it has no hostility teaching towards outsiders, it's conversion tactics are usually along the lines of watching Christians themselves get persecuted and seeing their reaction to their persecutors, and I'd argue the modern school system was born out of Christian teaching. The original school houses on this hemisphere were also Christian churches along with the universities and higher learner. It is a godless worldview that has taken the hostile position.

I'd also challenge you that we are not necessarily more knowledgable than our predecessors. We may be more technologically advanced, but not really smarter. There are some things that we can not explain of the ancients. (The Great Pyramids are a good example, the levels and lines on those structures are straighter than a laser, how'd they do that?) We may move faster and with more information, but we're not that much smarter.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Now, you may counter that this third impulse it just another instinct. But that is a problem, because instincts are neutral. They are neither good nor bad. We should be able to point to some impulse inside that is what we call good, and that never points to any one thing, it is separate. You can never call any of your instincts bad and others good. If we take something like patriotism or mother-love are good instincts, versus fighting or sexual instinct, which are bad, all you are saying is that the impulse to suppress the later two are more frequent. But you also have to suppress the other two as over mothering or being overly patriotic can also have bad effects.

Why are instincts neutral? Definitions of good and bad are dependant on society, and the norms that have developed over time. There are no natural given definitions of good or bad, unless you are arguing that Bibilcal defintions are absolute in which you are using religion to prove religion, which is obviously self serving. Correct me if I've totally missed your point.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

I think you might want to expose yourself to more Islam, because to compare the two is ridiculous. You, in your life time, have never been subjected to anything in Christianity that comes close the above the way Islam does.

Islam and Christianity have many more commonalities, than, say, Hinduism and Christianity. After all, they have both evolved from a common ancestor.

Originally Posted by randilover

Christianity has no propigation teaching, it has no hostility teaching towards outsiders,.

It's been mentioned before in this thread. Some folks are believers, others are non-believers. The very manner in which it is worded portrays a sense of hostility towards outsiders.

Originally Posted by randilover

it's conversion tactics are usually along the lines of watching Christians themselves get persecuted and seeing their reaction to their persecutors,.

or, in the case of the Protestant/Baptist churches I've been to, it involves making the experience as user-friendly and enjoyable as possible. The sermons are practically rock concerts with multimedia presentations. There are cafeterias, book clubs, gymnasiums, rock climbing walls, and basically every single amenity you can think of in order to encourage one to find everything they need at the church. These benefits are better than the ones you can find at the city rec center, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by randilover

It is a godless worldview that has taken the hostile position.

Hostile? What's hostile about a godless worldview?

Originally Posted by randilover

I'd also challenge you that we are not necessarily more knowledgable than our predecessors. We may be more technologically advanced, but not really smarter. There are some things that we can not explain of the ancients. (The Great Pyramids are a good example, the levels and lines on those structures are straighter than a laser, how'd they do that?) We may move faster and with more information, but we're not that much smarter.

Life expectancy has been rising almost exponentially(somewhere between linnearly and exponentially, to be fair) for thousands of years. There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of ideas that have contributed to this: Fire. The wheel. Crop rotation. Penecillin(sp). Meteorology.

To stress something, I agree we are not smarter. Each of us still has roughly the same capacity to do a certain amount with the information that is available to us as we did 10,000 years ago. This 'pool of knowledge' has grown, changed, 'evolved' if you will - this is truly a fascinating phenomona. The success that humankind has had, I would argue, is in our ability to pass along and build upon this pool of knowledge, leaving each successive generation with more and more to build upon.

But it is in this ability that I see an opportunity for disaster. Just as knowledge can be added to this pool, it can be modified as well.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

Cool that someone else jumped in here.

Sorry I missed it up to this point!

Originally Posted by randilover

I'm going to take a step back because you jumped right over something. Why would would man #2, the first rescued, feel inclined to save #1 rescuer when he was in trouble? What is it in that #2 that instigates him to reciprocate?

It may have started as an instinct, a genetic mutation, or simply an understanding that his well-being depends greatly on the other mans well-being. This is hardly unique to humans. Why to animals such as elephants, gazelles, wolves, travel in packs? They understand that their chances of survival are greater when they work together than if they don't. Call it an instinct or a desire, I don't know if it much matters as we exhibit the same behavior as these animals.

Originally Posted by randilover

But it doesn't explain the desire, as that desire is something separate from instinct, which we all have. See, you have this above scenario as an example. When the first man is on his way and hears the second calling for help, he's confronted with 2 options. Run (save himself) or help the other (save someone else). Herd instinct might be what causes him to feel a desire to help, but that is quite different than the feeling you ought to help whether you want to or not (which we can all atest to feeling), and which our test subject would feel. Now, this third pressure, something that is separate from the other 2 options, this will tell him to suppress the first instinct and act on the second. We would call this good behavior if he submits to the impulse not to run and help his buddy.

I'd like to think that a large part of that is simply empathy. Empathy is a feeling. Feelings have their roots in instincts...heck, the line between instincts and feelings is itself quite blurry.

Originally Posted by randilover

Now, you may counter that this third impulse it just another instinct. But that is a problem, because instincts are neutral. They are neither good nor bad. We should be able to point to some impulse inside that is what we call good, and that never points to any one thing, it is separate. You can never call any of your instincts bad and others good. If we take something like patriotism or mother-love are good instincts, versus fighting or sexual instinct, which are bad, all you are saying is that the impulse to suppress the later two are more frequent. But you also have to suppress the other two as over mothering or being overly patriotic can also have bad effects.

So I would assert the thing that we call good and bad, fairness, the Law of Human Nature is not instinct. Evolution can not really explain it.

Sorry, I'm not really sure if I'm following you here? Can you try again for the slow guy? ;)

I would venture to say that I'm not all that sold on 'good' and 'bad'. Sure, things are good/bad relative to other things (i.e. a Hurricane is bad for most residents of the affected area but good for the flashlight and plywood industry)...here we venture into moral relativism vs. moral absolutism. Is patriotism a 'good' trait?

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Doggler

[/size]
I would venture to say that I'm not all that sold on 'good' and 'bad'. Sure, things are good/bad relative to other things (i.e. a Hurricane is bad for most residents of the affected area but good for the flashlight and plywood industry)...here we venture into moral relativism vs. moral absolutism. Is patriotism a 'good' trait?

Let's try this:
The problem with Moral Relativism is that it's logically impossible, as the assertion that you are a relativists you cease to be a moral relativist because you are asserting something that is not relative. There's a philosophical catch-22 there where by asserting a statement, you are contradicting that statement.

I think a lot of people hit this point and don't realize what they are doing when they get there. They will tell you there is no absolute truth, but by making the statement, aren't you stating something that is abolute truth. No one is truely a moral relativist. I'd prove it by noting that neither you nor I would want to be in a FF league with a relativist, would we? On any given week, would it be a problem if my TD's counted for 7 points instead of 6? No, that would be unfair.

Again, I think this points to a foundation, something that is common to all men that is outside of space and time and chance (and therefore evolution, as all three are relative and wouldn't cause something that is absolute). There must be something else out there, where do we get the idea of right and wrong, fair and unfair, etc? And being right and fair is not always beneficial (sometimes it's quite painful), so it's not necessarily a response to benefit himself or his society.

See, the thing is, both you and I would have some not so kind words for the man who would try to say that Hurricane Katrina is a good thing because he has an east Texas lumber and contruction business and he'll be booming for years because of this. No, we'd call that man greedy and heartless, and that's not just because our society or instincts tell us that, it's because there's something inside of of that tells us that someone who can look on the suffering of another and see only how it benefits himself is dishonorable. Correct?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Let's try this:
The problem with Moral Relativism is that it's logically impossible, as the assertion that you are a relativists you cease to be a moral relativist because you are asserting something that is not relative. There's a philosophical catch-22 there where by asserting a statement, you are contradicting that statement.

I think a lot of people hit this point and don't realize what they are doing when they get there. They will tell you there is no absolute truth, but by making the statement, aren't you stating something that is abolute truth. No one is truely a moral relativist. I'd prove it by noting that neither you nor I would want to be in a FF league with a relativist, would we? On any given week, would it be a problem if my TD's counted for 7 points instead of 6? No, that would be unfair.

Moral relativism refers only to moral and ethical questions, is does not state that there are no absolute truths in the universe. Wether or not the sky is blue is not an ethical question, it is a physical question, therefor a moral relatavist recognizes that the sky is blue. Being a moral relativist is not an ethical question, it is a description of a personal philosophy.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Moral relativism refers only to moral and ethical questions, is does not state that there are no absolute truths in the universe. Wether or not the sky is blue is not an ethical question, it is a physical question, therefor a moral relatavist recognizes that the sky is blue. Being a moral relativist is not an ethical question, it is a description of a personal philosophy.

The point still stands. Once the assertion is made, it invalidates itself. Not to mention that we are talking about the universe (whether good and bad are absolute things or not) when relativism got brought up.

Also, you really can't segregate the two parts. You can't separate morals and ethics from everything else. Otherwise what happens in public life, the way we treat others, etc., is affected (which is why we got here from an example from physical life: a man drowning). You'd have a weird chaos, if not. It's no wonder that we have taught moral relativism for years in our higher learning institutions, and then become appalled at Wall Street when we find out they've been playing with numbers. Would you want the commissioner of your fantasy football league to be a relativist? How about your financial advisor, the one handling your IRA or retirement money? There's a whole line of questions that become troubling with this point of view.

See, C.S. Lewis (and he may have gotten it from Chesterton) said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." His point, in one sense, was that because of the foundational belief in an absolute (and he wasn't necessarily talking about the Christian god when he made this statement), everything else has meaning. Without it, life becomes unlivable... or a mish-mosh mess that doesn't make sense and needs leaps of reason just to function. ("It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is.")

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Sorry I've been out of the loop. Life has kept me kinda busy. Doggler, welcome to the conversation. Interesting twists. Needs to read up. hopefully can reply to some this weekend.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

ok, so I had to make one reply...

Originally Posted by Doggler

Islam and Christianity have many more commonalities, than, say, Hinduism and Christianity. After all, they have both evolved from a common ancestor.

Like to hear more about this...

Originally Posted by Doggler

It's been mentioned before in this thread. Some folks are believers, others are non-believers. The very manner in which it is worded portrays a sense of hostility towards outsiders..

Point taken. You're right. It should be described as believers and believers is something other thant he first believers believe in, but that's just too long to write. Because we all believe in something, just depends on what you put your faith in. As per being called a non-believer, I don't know if I see that as hostility towards outsiders or simply an accurate description. I believe, and I'd need to review the entire thread to verify, but those who have admitted to knowing Jesus Christ personally have been referred to as 'believers' by those who don't admit to knowing him. So, I'm confused on where you see the hostility. Especially, since those same 'believers' invite you to know Christ.

Originally Posted by Doggler

or, in the case of the Protestant/Baptist churches I've been to, it involves making the experience as user-friendly and enjoyable as possible. The sermons are practically rock concerts with multimedia presentations. There are cafeterias, book clubs, gymnasiums, rock climbing walls, and basically every single amenity you can think of in order to encourage one to find everything they need at the church. These benefits are better than the ones you can find at the city rec center, that's for sure.

Sounds like you go to a church I'd like to attend. My church doesn't have all that. But, I agree, there is a feel to some churches that they may be missing the point and trying to draw people in because of what it can offer physically instead of spiritually. I have seen it. I pray for them.

There are some nice churches out there. There are also some hell holes. Try being a Christian in a Muslin country (try Sudan, Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, etc). There's some situations I would not wish on anyone.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

It's no wonder that we have taught moral relativism for years in our higher learning institutions, and then become appalled at Wall Street when we find out they've been playing with numbers.

Hmmm, I feel that this statement is a bit of a reach. There is no proof of cause and effect here - I could argue with as much effectiveness that the Freshman 15 or dormitory food cause the Wall Street debacles.

However, we could dabble into other things. For instance, we could compare the different rates of crimes among different religious groups in this country. i.e. compare murder or adultry rates among Protestants vs. Catholics vs. Jews vs. atheists. I would think there is a strong correlation between non-belief and support of moral relavitism, no?

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are both admitted atheists/agnostics. Hence, they both subscribe to a moral relavatist view. Gates is possibly the greatest philanthropist of our time, literally giving billions of dollars to charitible causes. Buffett has gone on record to say that his multi-billion dollar empire will not be passed on to his children - each is slated to only receive a few million, with the remaining 99.whatever percent going to different charities.

As an aside, it seems that many of the worst atrocities are committed by people who have a bastardized view of moral absolutism...Unabomber, OK City bombers, Branch Davidians, 9/11 bombers come to mind. (keep in mind I stress the word 'bastardized')

Originally Posted by randilover

Would you want the commissioner of your fantasy football league to be a relativist?

You're welcome to join one of the leagues I run. ;) Each of the two leagues I commish contain fairly detailed rulebooks, leave little room for commissioner 'judgement' to be made, and provide clear guidance as to what one can and cannot do. However, over the years the rulebooks have evolved due to owner feedback, the changing FF climate (from TD-only to performance scoring as more information, i.e. internet scoring, became available)

A moral absolutist commisioner would in theory be stuck playing TD-only, no?

[smsmith40]

Oh Jeez! Do I really want to dip my toes into this particular shark pool again?

OK here goes!

Everybody is a moral relativist, anybody who says otherwise is kidding themsleves.

There is no way to go through life unless you are in some way morally relative, just operating day to day, earning a living, raising a family, paying a mortgage requires relativism, you need to accept that bad things happen, things you find morally repugnant are going on in the world and you are going to do nothing about it. What is that if its not being realtive?

Absolutism would require you to prevent these things with every fibre of your being. By not actively working to prevent these things you are saying that the prevention of these acts (lets take a for instance, the genocide being carried out in western Sudan) is relatively unimportant compared to you going to work in order to pay your mortgage.

To take another example, I think everybody can agree on the statement that killing another human being is wrong in most circumstances. The absolutists among us must decide that it is either always wrong or never wrong. If the 9/11 bombings are wrong then killing several thousand Iraqi civilians is also wrong. Any arguments about the safety of US citizens or the fact that these people were not deliberately targetted is moot, that would be relativism. Any Bush voters can immediately disqualify themselves as moral absolutists.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Stephen, glad you did put your feet back in the water. I really think you have a lot to add to this discussion.

I will comment on this later, my fam just came in...

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

As per being called a non-believer, I don't know if I see that as hostility towards outsiders or simply an accurate description. I believe, and I'd need to review the entire thread to verify, but those who have admitted to knowing Jesus Christ personally have been referred to as 'believers' by those who don't admit to knowing him. So, I'm confused on where you see the hostility. Especially, since those same 'believers' invite you to know Christ

Hey Rami...sorry, not trying to ignore you. Glad you jumped back in, sorry I'm late to the party.

I have a hard time with statements such as 'admit to knowing Jesus Christ personally'. To me, that's really no different than knowing Genghis Khan or Confucius personally. You can't know someone who is dead. (Obviously this is one of the key disagreements that Christians and atheists have)

I could invite you to learn the truth as I see it; that when you die, you're dead, that you must make the best of it while you're here, that doing good deeds needs no reward, it just feels good. Would that make me a believer and you a non-believer?

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Doggler

Hmmm, I feel that this statement is a bit of a reach. There is no proof of cause and effect here - I could argue with as much effectiveness that the Freshman 15 or dormitory food cause the Wall Street debacles.

Not really. It's quite obvious the way the big corporation scams worked was based on stretching of truth, modifying some numbers

Originally Posted by Doggler

However, we could dabble into other things. For instance, we could compare the different rates of crimes among different religious groups in this country. i.e. compare murder or adultry rates among Protestants vs. Catholics vs. Jews vs. atheists. I would think there is a strong correlation between non-belief and support of moral relavitism, no?

You lost me a little with how crime rates and religion part, but I would agree that there is a strong corrolation between MR and non-belief as usually religion points to an absolute, hence their morals are absolute.

Originally Posted by Doggler

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are both admitted atheists/agnostics. Hence, they both subscribe to a moral relavatist view. Gates is possibly the greatest philanthropist of our time, literally giving billions of dollars to charitible causes. Buffett has gone on record to say that his multi-billion dollar empire will not be passed on to his children - each is slated to only receive a few million, with the remaining 99.whatever percent going to different charities.

Not sure this really helps one way or the other. I'm not saying MRists are bad people and don't do good things. My original intent posts and posts ago was to get to the point that there is an absolute right (and therefore an absolute wrong). Without such, life becomes unlivable. (I'd also argue, moreso in the case of Gates, there may be other motivations, including tax breaks, etc.)

Originally Posted by Doggler

As an aside, it seems that many of the worst atrocities are committed by people who have a bastardized view of moral absolutism...Unabomber, OK City bombers, Branch Davidians, 9/11 bombers come to mind. (keep in mind I stress the word 'bastardized')

I'd then say you'd have to look at what they believe to be absolute, and then question it's validity. Not to mention, if you are a MRist, what's wrong with what any of these people did? How can you claim that they were wrong if morals are relative? You are kind of making my point by using the word atrocities. You tip your hand by the fact that on the surface, MR may sound like a legitimate position, but in reality, it is bankrupt. Nobody actually behaves like a relativist. Everyone has a soft-spot of morality of some kind.

Originally Posted by Doggler

You're welcome to join one of the leagues I run. ;) Each of the two leagues I commish contain fairly detailed rulebooks, leave little room for commissioner 'judgement' to be made, and provide clear guidance as to what one can and cannot do. However, over the years the rulebooks have evolved due to owner feedback, the changing FF climate (from TD-only to performance scoring as more information, i.e. internet scoring, became available)

What keeps you sticking to the rules? (I think you are proving my point here.)

Originally Posted by Doggler

A moral absolutist commisioner would in theory be stuck playing TD-only, no?

As long as there are rules defining any scoring criteria, then no, a MA could be in any league.

[Doggler]

Here's a snippet from an article on Gates that I found interesting. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20001123.html

Ballmer's rise came just as Bill Gates discovered the joys of fatherhood. Now he spends less time at the office, and more time with the kids. And as business life has become more stern and less fun, Gates has discovered the joy of giving his money away. Back in the 1980s, when local Seattle charities asked Gates for donations, the standard line they were given was, "Bill Gates is too young to be a pillar of his community." Well, that appears to have changed, since the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is endowed with $21 billion, making it the richest charity in the USA. And American tax laws require that at least five percent of the fund — more than $1 billion — be given away every year. And where his early philanthropic efforts seemed to be aimed at using Microsoft's money to encourage more computer use, recent grants are in areas that generally have nothing to do with PCs. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed $750 million to childhood vaccination programs, primarily in the Third World.

This change in focus doesn't mean that Bill Gates is any less competitive, just that he has once again redefined the game into one at which he knows he can win. When you are the richest man in the world, nobody can beat you at giving money away. Gates is competitive even at philanthropy. And if, in the process, you discover in yourself a real streak of humanitarianism, well that's a bonus. The New New Bill Gates spends more time thinking about world health and education than inventing Microsoft business strategy. That is now Ballmer's job, and the job of all the new executives Ballmer is hiring. At a recent conference in Seattle on the Digital Divide between rich and poor and First World and Third World, Gates argued strongly that putting PCs in African classrooms wasn't the answer to world poverty. It's much better, he said, to start with clean drinking water and good health care and forget about the PCs. Can this be the same Bill Gates?

[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Oh Jeez! Do I really want to dip my toes into this particular shark pool again?

OK here goes!

Everybody is a moral relativist, anybody who says otherwise is kidding themsleves.

There is no way to go through life unless you are in some way morally relative, just operating day to day, earning a living, raising a family, paying a mortgage requires relativism, you need to accept that bad things happen, things you find morally repugnant are going on in the world and you are going to do nothing about it. What is that if its not being realtive?

Absolutism would require you to prevent these things with every fibre of your being. By not actively working to prevent these things you are saying that the prevention of these acts (lets take a for instance, the genocide being carried out in western Sudan) is relatively unimportant compared to you going to work in order to pay your mortgage.

[/quote]I think you are a little off here, respectfully. That is not really relativism, as you are defining a right and wrong. I can quite easily, due to the volume of it, look at the evil in the world and call it evil. But MR/MA isn't really defined by action and inaction. (I think it would more be the reasoning behind actions.) Acceptance of bad things is not being morally relative, and standing up to wrong is not really absolutism. But I sort of understand what is being said.

I agree that absolutism demands reponse to evil and suffering, which is the Christian teaching on them. Who says we are not doing something about it?

Originally Posted by smsmith40

To take another example, I think everybody can agree on the statement that killing another human being is wrong in most circumstances. The absolutists among us must decide that it is either always wrong or never wrong. If the 9/11 bombings are wrong then killing several thousand Iraqi civilians is also wrong. Any arguments about the safety of US citizens or the fact that these people were not deliberately targetted is moot, that would be relativism. Any Bush voters can immediately disqualify themselves as moral absolutists.

I disagree (as an absolutist that voted for him). Kerry was the relativist (which is why he lost), Bush the absolutist. The relativist view in this country is that of being against the war, the absolutists view is usually in support of it. (I am generalizing when I say that.) I'd say it's because the clear line of right and wrong is been blurred and grayed for the relativist. Therefore the equation of 20 evil men taking innocences hostage, intentionally taking planes loaded with larger amounts of fuel to take out as many innocent people as possible and deliberately killing them and as many thousands of others as you can who in no way what so ever have anything to do with you, and a military action who's goal is self defense and accountability to that countries agreed upon word is a position only the relativist could support. One is savage, hellish, brutal, murder, the other one is the consequence of a righteous action. This is my point, the relativist's position is unlivable, otherwise he'd be forced into in action at every turn. It doesn't make sense.

We could argue the finer political points on a bigger thread than this one to get into the specifics, but it'd be quite an adventure. Plus the season has started, so one or two discussions here are more than enough.

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by randilover

Not really. It's quite obvious the way the big corporation scams worked was based on stretching of truth, modifying some numbers

Sure. But then you go on to claim that the reason this has happened is because these people became MRs at college. The fact that numbers are bent does not prove your point. Who knows why they do it? I'm sure there are hundreds of reasons, but don't think MR is one of them.

Originally Posted by randilover

You lost me a little with how crime rates and religion part, but I would agree that there is a strong corrolation between MR and non-belief as usually religion points to an absolute, hence their morals are absolute.

You alluded that MR might make it easier for the Wall Street cronies to commit their crimes. I was merely saying I'd be interested in seeing numbers to see if there is a correlation one way or another. The only one I think we'd see is one where people not in a country of their native religion would have higher crime rates due to having different MA. i.e. more Muslims in prison here or in Columbia that one would expect, more Christians in prison in Saudi than one would expect.

[quote=randilover](I'd also argue, moreso in the case of Gates, there may be other motivations, including tax breaks, etc.)[/randilover]
The tax breaks are there for him, as well as anyone one else. Heck, churches don't pay property tax. Makes me want to call my house the 'Church of Dogglerism' lol.

Originally Posted by randilover

I'd then say you'd have to look at what they believe to be absolute, and then question it's validity. Not to mention, if you are a MRist, what's wrong with what any of these people did? How can you claim that they were wrong if morals are relative? You are kind of making my point by using the word atrocities. You tip your hand by the fact that on the surface, MR may sound like a legitimate position, but in reality, it is bankrupt. Nobody actually behaves like a relativist. Everyone has a soft-spot of morality of some kind.

Back to what we've been talking about earlier. I believe the golden rule is intrinsic in all of us, and in many other animals to varying levels. And, to be clear, what these people did was wrong only in these contexts: 1)my personal set of morals and 2)the set of morals, or laws, that the government at the national, state, and local levels has set out for me to live by.

Originally Posted by randilover

What keeps you sticking to the rules? (I think you are proving my point here.)
As long as there are rules defining any scoring criteria, then no, a MA could be in any league.

As a moral MR, it doesn't mean I strive to bend or change rules. If there are rules, I adhere to them. However, unlike an MA, I believe that rules can change over time. Adherance to rules is still required, but flexibility in changing them is allowed. Otherwise, many MA's would have to stand up and say "Yes, it IS OK to beat my wife!" and other such nonsense. (this gets back to smithy's point in that there IS no true MA, even those who claim there is...are following a different set of morals than the set of morals that say the Christians in the year 300 A.D. followed.

[smsmith40]

RL

The point you make is completely relativist, the killing of a human being in one circumstance is less wrong than the killing of a human being in another circumstance.

I don't particularly want to get into a war in Iaq discussion here, I've a feeling that we'll disagree on that too. I was just using an example.

p.s Kerry is also a relativist. MY point is that there ARE NO absolutists

[Doggler]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

RL
I don't particularly want to get into a war in Iaq discussion here, I've a feeling that we'll disagree on that too. I was just using an example.

Maybe it's time to start a thread on that. Looks like this topic has been hammered on enough...

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Doggler

Hey Rami...sorry, not trying to ignore you. Glad you jumped back in, sorry I'm late to the party.

Good to see you here as well. Man, I feel sorry for you. There is a TON of reading on this thread. Better late than never. My job has changed and I'm out of the office a LOT more these days, so that takes me away from my FF time

Originally Posted by Doggler

I have a hard time with statements such as 'admit to knowing Jesus Christ personally'. To me, that's really no different than knowing Genghis Khan or Confucius personally. You can't know someone who is dead. (Obviously this is one of the key disagreements that Christians and atheists have)

I could invite you to learn the truth as I see it; that when you die, you're dead, that you must make the best of it while you're here, that doing good deeds needs no reward, it just feels good. Would that make me a believer and you a non-believer?

Fully understand what you're saying (you haven't read the past stuff). Until I met my wife less than a decade ago, I was actually very much like you. I did good things because it made me feel good (and sometimes it was nice to have a good guy image so when you DID do something you shouldn't, most people didn't ever think it was you - hee hee). Actually, I completely agree with your statement. You can't know someone who's dead. But, that's where we differ. I don't believe Jesus is dead right now. Three days after he was buried...you know the story. And from the changes in my own life, I can see that he is in me (man, did I need some serious changes). And, yes, this is ONE of the main disagreements (though there are many, I consider mostly about 4 main issues that cause problems).

I'll reply more below. As I read down, I reply, so you may have already discussed this since I've been away.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I don't particularly want to get into a war in Iaq discussion here, I've a feeling that we'll disagree on that too. I was just using an example.

Agreed. as if we don't have enough cans of worms open already.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

p.s Kerry is also a relativist. MY point is that there ARE NO absolutists

I can't argue with you here either. HOWEVER, there is a difference between being a relativist and attempting to be an absolutists. We are fallen (ie: Adam/Eve in the Garden), so we cannot be absolutists. There is only one man who did it. Yet, that doesn't stop me from attempting to be more like Him.

The problem with most Christians (and one reason a lot of people are pushed away from the church) is that because we are fallen, a lot of Christians tend to do what is 'good' (I hope), but not what is 'best.' Because 'best' is horribly difficult and we all don't like being pushed out of our comfort zone and changing our lives. A lot of "Christians" appear to only be playing a game of religion. The problem is the world looks for those examples, not as often the other examples of those truly seeking Christ and following His Word.

To strike this home a bit, did you know that Ghandi actually read the Bible through cover to cover 3-4 times? And he agreed with it. When someone asked him why he would not become a Christian, his reply was "because of Christians." Ouch. But, accurate.

Many, many posts ago, I copied the transcript from a radio show. Along those lines, I feel like the guest. I don't like to refer to myself as a 'Christian' in the world's view, but someone who has a relationship with Jesus Christ. Do I fail, you betcha. Do I work very hard at the relationship with Him, you betcha. See, I DO know Him. It's something I can't explain. It's something I can't quantify. It's something you can never understand, until you ask Him into your life as the sacrifice for your sins. Sorry. No other way. Though I would love to have you see from my point of view.

By the way, changing subjects, Doggler had mentioned not much difference between Islam and faith in Jesus. One big one (which also causes many people to disagree)...grace. Having a true relationship with Jesus Christ only comes through grace (His grace to us), while every other religion is based some way (if not entirely) off 'works' (what they do to 'earn' their way to heaven).

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Doggler

Maybe it's time to start a thread on that. Looks like this topic has been hammered on enough...

I don't see that thread staying civil.

And, I think there's still a lot of discussion left in this one. Let me ask you a question...which might lead to others, but let's start with this.

What are the two main issues that keep you from even considering Jesus Christ is who He says He is?

[smsmith40]

To strike this home a bit, did you know that Ghandi actually read the Bible through cover to cover 3-4 times? And he agreed with it. When someone asked him why he would not become a Christian, his reply was "because of Christians." Ouch. But, accurate.

Well at least you came up with someone who I believe could be considered an absolutist. I have to concede that there havae definitely been a few, Gandhi and Mandela on the good side, Stalin and Hitler on the other, Churchill somewhere in between.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Doggler

Sure. But then you go on to claim that the reason this has happened is because these people became MRs at college. The fact that numbers are bent does not prove your point. Who knows why they do it? I'm sure there are hundreds of reasons, but don't think MR is one of them.

Yeah, but why are we surprised that men become deceitful and self consumed with themselves so much that it perils teh future of others when we teach them that it's ok to be that way, what is right in your eyes is ok.

Originally Posted by Doggler

You alluded that MR might make it easier for the Wall Street cronies to commit their crimes. I was merely saying I'd be interested in seeing numbers to see if there is a correlation one way or another. The only one I think we'd see is one where people not in a country of their native religion would have higher crime rates due to having different MA. i.e. more Muslims in prison here or in Columbia that one would expect, more Christians in prison in Saudi than one would expect.

Back to what we've been talking about earlier. I believe the golden rule is intrinsic in all of us, and in many other animals to varying levels. And, to be clear, what these people did was wrong only in these contexts: 1)my personal set of morals and 2)the set of morals, or laws, that the government at the national, state, and local levels has set out for me to live by.

Ok, so you really believe that the only reason they were wrong to lie cheat and steal is because there is a law on the books about it? You say that it's against you personal morals, but so what as they are relative, you couldn't tell those scoundrals that. You are telling me that if it doesn't violate the law or a person's conscience, it's ok? You really don't believe that Doggler. In this context, Hitler and Germany were not evil and wrong, as they never violated their own Nazi morals or laws, is this correct? Was D-Day a terrible example of moral absolutism gone awry or people banding together to do what was RIGHT? Or in Muslim countries, they are not wrong when they think that beating and/or killing their wives is ok, as their religion and political law states that it is ok? I go back to the point I made earlier. This way of thinking is unliveble. You'll become a victim of your own logic.

Originally Posted by Doggler

As a moral MR, it doesn't mean I strive to bend or change rules. If there are rules, I adhere to them. However, unlike an MA, I believe that rules can change over time. Adherance to rules is still required, but flexibility in changing them is allowed. Otherwise, many MA's would have to stand up and say "Yes, it IS OK to beat my wife!" and other such nonsense. (this gets back to smithy's point in that there IS no true MA, even those who claim there is...are following a different set of morals than the set of morals that say the Christians in the year 300 A.D. followed.

Again, it's interesting that you think it's wrong to beat your wife, why would it be if it you think it's ok and society around complies? See, you are revealing the true nature of true truth. There is an absolute and it does not change over time. Rome and Christian culture of 300 AD are not much different than the morals you live by now. Again, men may have differed in regards to what people you ought to be unselfish towards, just your family, your countrymen, or everyone, but they ALWAYS agreed that you shouldn't put yourself first. We might disagree with them on whether one wife or many is ok, but we'd both agree that just having any woman you want is not right. To imagine a country or society where a totally different moralit existed (where people were admired for double crossing, or soldiers proud that they ran away in battle) would be like asking to imagine a country where 2+2=5.

And if you really think about it, you guys are arguing from a MA standpoint to say that there are no MA. The arguement collapes on itself as you are stating absolutes do not exist except in the case that absolutes do not exist. It would be like saying life is meaningless. If it's meaningless, than what have you just said has no meaning and therefore does not mean anything and you could never have reachd that conclusion. The logic is flawed and makes no sense. I'm not sure you guys can keep this up.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

RL

The point you make is completely relativist, the killing of a human being in one circumstance is less wrong than the killing of a human being in another circumstance.

I don't particularly want to get into a war in Iaq discussion here, I've a feeling that we'll disagree on that too. I was just using an example.

p.s Kerry is also a relativist. MY point is that there ARE NO absolutists

I agree with Rami on not getting this discussion going on a political scale, we'd bog down for years. But I will use it as an example as well. I'll keep it generic for sake of ease.

I don't think that killing of a human being in one circumstance is less wrong. But if a country were to stand by as it's own people are slaughtered, would you not fault them for never stopping the slaughter? In this case, the one country believed they were threatened and acted on this belief. (And I know it's speculative whether there were WMD's, etc., but the point remains they thought they were threatened or at least used that as there excuse, thereby conceeding the fact that attacking an innocent country is wrong and therefore, whether they wanted to or not, declared them selves absolutists.) Agaustine had the point of a just war. That was the applicable point being made. I hate killing, but if I am sleeping in bed one night and someone comes into my house to hurt my family, and I do nothing about it, you would fault me. Same thing applies. I think the more important point would be made of being guilty for "having blood on your own hands." Responsibility or death, so to speak.

So no, I am not a MR in this regard, neither do I think the president or the country he leads is either. I think murder is wrong. There is also usually a difference between murder and killing that is drawn.

Also, I agree Kerry is a relativist, I said above that is why he lost. It's how he got branded as the flip flopper. He had his "feet firmly planted in mid-air" and it cost him the election. Some of the stuff he said just didn't make sense.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Well at least you came up with someone who I believe could be considered an absolutist. I have to concede that there havae definitely been a few, Gandhi and Mandela on the good side, Stalin and Hitler on the other, Churchill somewhere in between.

But if moral relativism exists, then how could we consider a Ghandi or Mandela good and the others bad? Wouldn't you be more apt to say that you just "disagree" with Stalin and Hitler? (I don't think you would, by the way, just making a point.)