Morals

[Phi for All]

Well of course the cause and effect must be observed, before we can use language to state a moral, but is a moral a moral before we create it with language? I listened to a philosophy program last night that I am using to improve my explanations.

 

We are social animals and that means we are programmed like other social animals, and in last night's debate they were splitting hairs to argue is there a difference between our morality and animals morality? The difference is, because we have language we add a whole lot to nature. We add thoughts about rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities. We use language to construct our reality in away other animals have not done. This is not to say other animals do not communicate. Test have demonstrated chimps might even be capable of a degree of conceptualizing, but they do not organize themselves around concepts as humans do. So yes, the cause and effect is observed, before we use language to state a moral, but is it a moral before language? Are animals that are programmed to be social, just like us, being moral, or is it only when we apply language to what can be observed that we are moral and animals are not, because without language that represents our observations and thought, there can not be morals, nor the laws of physics. However, what talk about, does exist before we speak it.

 

Animals mate but they do not have marriage and divorce, property rights and taxes. Like the gods, we create our reality. Now what is a god? What is a moral? Both are concepts. When we realize a concept, our rationality sets restraints on us. We judge those who are not restrained as insane, and in troop of chimps these unrestrained individuals are driven away, just as humans drive away or kill unrestrained individuals. God=concepts and Moral=law. This is not different from science. Physics=concept and then we get the laws of physics. Because we can conceptualize we can create our own reality, however, the reality we create is limited to what we can conceptualize. So we want to teach our children morals, in moral stories, before they learn the hard way, what will hurt them and others. We want to take advantage of the benefits of language, right?

 

What we call western civilization, begins in Athens, and is the result of humans naming concepts, just like those who study quantum physics do, and then explaining these concepts. Such as the Greeks worked with a concept of justice, and Socrates questioned what did they mean by justice? What are the rules, the pattern of cause and effect? That is, each god and goddess is a concept, and mythology is stories built around these concepts, and from there a culture is manifest. Only Socrates pushed this envelop, breaking superstition and pushing us in the direction of science.

 

Democracy is a result of this conceptualizing, name a god and telling a story. Democracy begins with the idea that we are made in the image of the gods, because like them we can think in concepts and we can create. And as our scientist look for a unified theory so did these early philosophers, and the many gods became one. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. This is how Cicero and Jefferson understood God, and there is nothing supernatural about this concept of God. God is manifestation. To know of God we study nature. It is possible because we have language and use words as representations of our thoughts.

Language isn't required for a moral action to be observed and emulated by individuals in a population. It might be the vehicle for spreading moral behavior more quickly, but I think it all started with one person observing moral actions by another person and deciding that behavior was something to be adopted. Leading by example would seem to be a precursor to creating stories about such leadership.

 

I think you're making too many generalized this=that statements that can easily be proven false by just one countering example. Especially when you drag God into it, your attempts to categorically define these concepts for everyone else are futile. It's not your arguments, which are getting clearer as this discussion continues; it's the way you present them as facts instead of the conjecture and opinion that they are that's causing so much contention and disagreement.

[Athena]

Athena, I don't know of any evidence that religion causes morality or even well-being.

Also, as I realized while making posts prior to this, religion isn't all that easy to define. When religion starts to include otherwise secular concepts, such as helping others as valuable behavior, where is the boundary between religion and general culture?

 

EDIT: Furthermore, there is the issue of cause-and-effect because people who join religion-based community service groups might do it out of a desire to be helpful, not out of religiosity.

EDIT: However, that same idea can be applied to the evils committed in the name of religion. Do people who murder homosexuals truly do it out of religiosity?

 

For sure religion causes morality. It works like this, human populations are much larger than animal populations because we create our social world with language and representations. Civilizations are held together with ideas of rights, duties, obligations and responsibility.

 

It is religion that makes our huge populations possible. The alternative to religion is democracy when all the concepts of democracy are known. Being one nation under God is very, very important, however, we need a believable God, and religion is always based on myth, not science and logic. Democracy, however, can give us God and morals without religion, when all the concepts are understood, and if we don't get over our hangups about God, and bridge this gap between the secular and religion, what do you think will hold civilizations together? Anything without morals is self destructive. Capitalism without morals is self destructing. Government without morals self destructs and humans without morals self destruct.

 

I am witnessing all the self destruction happening right now, and doing my best to put back into our consciousness, awareness of why education for good moral judgment is essential. The US had education for good moral judgment without religion, from the beginning, until 1958. We called this liberal education and the foundation of it was Greek and Roman classics, and religion, especially Christianity, and seasoned with mythology and history from around the world. Amoral education for a technological society focused almost exclusively on technology, is manifesting a society with unknown values. This is breaking down all systems that manifest civilization. It is now not just individuals who are broken, but our institutions and then our civilization.

 

Edit, I like the way you did that.

 

EDIT: Furthermore, there is the issue of cause-and-effect because people who join religion-based community service groups might do it out of a desire to be helpful, not out of religiosity.

 

There are benefits to morality set by religion, and disadvantages. A benefit is, being good simply because one learned a rule about being good. But then a problem comes up when this is associated with superstition instead of reason. When it is associated with superstition, people can wrongly believe they can get away with doing the wrong thing, if they sacrifice to a God, or burn candles and pray. When morality is a matter of reason, we know there is no supernatural power that is going to step in and save our ass. What happens is the consequence of what we think and do, because that is how things work. I am highly motivated to be moral, because I don't believe there is a supernatural force that can alter the consequences of what I do. By the way, this also means I am highly motivated to do all I can so everyone understands morals, because I don't think there is a supernatural force that is going to safe us, and I want my grandchildren and their children to have good lives. This won't happen if we don't start talking morals real fast.

 

Another problem with being reliant on religion instead of reason, is morality based in the passed, includes assuming slaves and kings, and doesn't work so well for modern moral questions. Google explains complete violation of our privacy as a means of giving us better individualized service. I don't think you will open a holy book and find the moral rule for this.

 

EDIT: However, that same idea can be applied to the evils committed in the name of religion. Do people who murder homosexuals truly do it out of religiosity?

 

How about taking your moral questions to the philosophy thread about "morals". It would make the thread much more interesting on on subject. Not all people who murder homosexuals do so because of religion, however, religion does lead to much killing, including killing one's own daughter, or selling her into slavery.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Athena

[Xittenn]

Athena, I'm still having a hard time with the premise of this thread. Could you please confirm if I have this straight? Before 1958 we followed God or how you are saying The Law. But, then something happened to change our process and we renounced The Law in favour of our own laws, and this has caused some disruption in society. You feel that this disruption is a consequence of our straying from The Law, God, or morals have you, and you feel it is time that things be set straight. Having done some reading you feel that the Greeks had things right, and through your metaphysical inspirations you have taken it upon yourself to teach the world, as this is your matriarchal duty and what you are best at as defined by The Law. You are walking in the foot steps of Athena, and plan to rectify the wrongs of society as you see fit, or better yet as The Law requires of you.

 

IMO there are much better ways to argue your case. Laws tend to require some maturity and grace, and relying on metaphysics and 'Gods' of a long dead civilization tends to detract from the credibility of anything you are saying--which at least to me, is still unclear. Laws can be well defined, whether they are of natural consequence or of our own toiling with language has very little effect on the outcome. If natural consequence is your means of proving a greater sentience, and thereby proving a greater need to follow these inherent laws as opposed to the ones with which we see fit, it's a position many take. But what exactly are these 'Laws', and by this I don't mean what is the literal definition of what The Law is. Can you actually list what The Laws are, or are we expected to take them as you see fit to make them?

 

I am an animal, I am a human, I am a person in a modern civilization, and I act accordingly. My efforts are put forth such that my needs as a person are met, and if society is working against me in these ends I make an effort to try and make changes to this society so that it better meets my needs. Society affords me this position at this time. But if what you are saying is true then I should not be afforded this luxury as it conflicts with The Law. I don't know too many people who won't have a problem with this 'Mother'.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Xittenn

[Athena]

Language isn't required for a moral action to be observed and emulated by individuals in a population. It might be the vehicle for spreading moral behavior more quickly, but I think it all started with one person observing moral actions by another person and deciding that behavior was something to be adopted. Leading by example would seem to be a precursor to creating stories about such leadership.

 

I think you're making too many generalized this=that statements that can easily be proven false by just one countering example. Especially when you drag God into it, your attempts to categorically define these concepts for everyone else are futile. It's not your arguments, which are getting clearer as this discussion continues; it's the way you present them as facts instead of the conjecture and opinion that they are that's causing so much contention and disagreement.

 

I will argue a moral is a matter of language, because animals also learn by imitation, and they do have moral judgment. We go a step beyond imitation. It is that step beyond imitation that is important to this discussion. It is our ability to use words to represent things like "justice", that allows us to hold such concepts, and reason through morals in a way animals can not. This is what makes us capable of being self governing, instead of like animals. I know this distinction can be difficult, because it was argued in last night's problem. It is also a topic of discussion in the book "Science of Good and Evil," where the author uses the term pre-moral to distinctuion between the natural behaviors of animals, and the human difference made possible by language. It is not exactly a moral, until give it words. Like the laws of physics do not exist until we give them words. But cause and effect do exist if have words for them or not. Animals can know the reasoning of cause and effect, but a human can. Morals and laws exist in our heads, because we have language.

 

I do not think you should say "you're making too many generalized this=that statements", instead of saying exactly what that statement is, and giving your argument. If you think I said something false, please quote me and then explain you think what I said is not true.

 

Your problem with the word "God" is your problem. Granted you share that problem with most people here, but I do not have a problem with the word, and I will continue to us it, because it holds everything together. Now if you think I am making a false statement about God, certainly address what is not true. In the meantime, if you are just going to complain about the word, that seems a pretty empty complaint. I am sure, like my arguments are making more sense, so will my use of the word "God" make more sense, and this is the best cure for the problems of religion. The last thing you want to do with a religious person is say there is no such thing as God. It is much more effective to agree there is a God, and then argue what is true or not true of God. Now you will be arguing truths instead of beliefs.

[Phi for All]

I will argue a moral is a matter of language, because animals also learn by imitation, and they do have moral judgment.

If a moral is a matter of language, and animals have moral judgement, does that mean animals have language?

 

We go a step beyond imitation. It is that step beyond imitation that is important to this discussion. It is our ability to use words to represent things like "justice", that allows us to hold such concepts, and reason through morals in a way animals can not. This is what makes us capable of being self governing, instead of like animals. I know this distinction can be difficult, because it was argued in last night's problem. It is also a topic of discussion in the book "Science of Good and Evil," where the author uses the term pre-moral to distinctuion between the natural behaviors of animals, and the human difference made possible by language. It is not exactly a moral, until give it words. Like the laws of physics do not exist until we give them words. But cause and effect do exist if have words for them or not. Animals can know the reasoning of cause and effect, but a human can. Morals and laws exist in our heads, because we have language.

Let's say I observe someone displaying ethical behavior, like a warrior sparing the life of an opponent who has yielded in combat. The whole thing can take place with no words at all, and equally I can learn a moral lesson from the encounter without using language.

 

I do not think you should say "you're making too many generalized this=that statements", instead of saying exactly what that statement is, and giving your argument. If you think I said something false, please quote me and then explain you think what I said is not true.

You were asked twice before to provide evidence for your assertion that Law = God, which you chose to ignore both times. Let's just start with that one. I think you're wrong because most laws we have today have absolutely NOTHING to do with God.

 

Your problem with the word "God" is your problem. Granted you share that problem with most people here, but I do not have a problem with the word, and I will continue to us it, because it holds everything together. Now if you think I am making a false statement about God, certainly address what is not true. In the meantime, if you are just going to complain about the word, that seems a pretty empty complaint. I am sure, like my arguments are making more sense, so will my use of the word "God" make more sense, and this is the best cure for the problems of religion. The last thing you want to do with a religious person is say there is no such thing as God. It is much more effective to agree there is a God, and then argue what is true or not true of God. Now you will be arguing truths instead of beliefs.

My problem with the word "God" is your decision to define it for everybody using assertive language which implies you're stating a fact. Particularly with the word "God", there ARE no assertions that can be applied to everyone.

[Athena]

Athena, I'm still having a hard time with the premise of this thread. Could you please confirm if I have this straight? Before 1958 we followed God or how you are saying The Law. But, then something happened to change our process and we renounced The Law in favour of our own laws, and this has caused some disruption in society. You feel that this disruption is a consequence of our straying from The Law, God, or morals have you, and you feel it is time that things be set straight. Having done some reading you feel that the Greeks had things right, and through your metaphysical inspirations you have taken it upon yourself to teach the world, as this is your matriarchal duty and what you are best at as defined by The Law. You are walking in the foot steps of Athena, and plan to rectify the wrongs of society as you see fit, or better yet as The Law requires of you.

 

IMO there are much better ways to argue your case. Laws tend to require some maturity and grace, and relying on metaphysics and 'Gods' of a long dead civilization tends to detract from the credibility of anything you are saying--which at least to me, is still unclear. Laws can be well defined, whether they are of natural consequence or of our own toiling with language has very little effect on the outcome. If natural consequence is your means of proving a greater sentience, and thereby proving a greater need to follow these inherent laws as opposed to the ones with which we see fit, it's a position many take. But what exactly are these 'Laws', and by this I don't mean what is the literal definition of what The Law is. Can you actually list what The Laws are, or are we expected to take them as you see fit to make them?

 

I am an animal, I am a human, I am a person in a modern civilization, and I act accordingly. My efforts are put forth such that my needs as a person are met, and if society is working against me in these ends I make an effort to try and make changes to this society so that it better meets my needs. Society affords me this position at this time. But if what you are saying is true then I should not be afforded this luxury as it conflicts with The Law. I don't know too many people who won't have a problem with this 'Mother'.

 

 

Oh my, I hope everyone can appreciate how difficult communication is. Often I am totally stunned by how someone understands what I said, and it is really helpful to these discussions when someone paraphrases as well as you have, Xittenn.

 

Not only do we need a working understanding of The Law and moral, but also liberal education. If I "have not" answered your question, please rephrase it, because I am having to not only explain my meanings, but I am also having to deal with everything others do not know, not knowing what they know and don't know, and also their distortions of what I am saying. This is a huge challenge.

 

We have never had religious agreement, and that is a main reason for having separation of church and state. In some school districts Christians were able to control education more than in other districts, because we left these education decisions to the community and the parents who had children in school. Our federal government did not interfere with local education decisions. However, text book makers tended to be few and schools didn't have a whole of lot choice. Often the God is used in old text books, but this God is not defined.

 

We might ask, what does it mean to have God and morals without religion? One of the characteristics of democracy is the search of truth. To know The Law is to know truth, but the search for truth is an on going process, so we taught our youth how to think for themselves. That is, teaching them how to think, not what to think. We prepared each child to be her/his own authority on truth. Education for technology does the opposite. Education for technology prepares everyone to be dependent on authority, because this is the fastest way to advance technology. It assumes we are born with blank brains and anything can be written on them, providing the right technique is used. This assumes the state has the right to write on those blank brains. And what the state has decided to write on them is restricted to subjects that serve that military industrial complex. Leaving everyone unprepared for the discussions I keep throwing out here. Moving along...

 

You say "But, then something happened to change our process and we renounced The Law in favour of our own laws, and this has caused some disruption in society."

 

The change began in 1917 with the demands of modern warfare and the first world war. That is when vocational training was added to education, and we began focusing on science, rather than literature that was previously the foundation of education. Education can serve many purposes, and each one manifest a different culture. I think our biggest communication problem is not realizing how many different purposes education can serve, and how a culture is manifested. I like to say, education is like a genie in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish, and the students are the genie. In 1917 we added vocational training and increased the focus on science for military reasons, but we did not change the wish for good citizens who understand democracy and why it must be defended, and who understand that we defend our liberty by being highly moral people. The addition of vocational training and the sciences was a huge benefit to all of us, and I would love to explain all the wonderful benefits, but I want to keep this as short as possible.

 

It was not until 1958 that we declared an emergency and replaced our liberal education with education for technology, and left moral training to the church. This is when we actually changed the wish, and I am sure when you all understand the ramifications of this change you will be pissed, but not at me. Anyway, at this time WE LEFT MORAL TRAINING TO THE CHURCH. Man, I hope you all begin to get what I am saying soon. We are now behaving as though the church is the only authority on God and morals, and that really pisses me off, and atheist are making matters worse, with their arguments that support the idea that the church is in fact the only authority on God and morals.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Athena

[Phi for All]

We are now behaving as though the church is the only authority on God and morals, and that really pisses me off, and atheist are making matters worse, with their arguments that support the idea that the church is in fact the only authority on God and morals.

*choke* Where on EARTH did you EVER get the idea that atheists argue "that the church is in fact the only authority on God and morals"?!

[doG]

My problem with the word "God" is your decision to define it for everybody using assertive language which implies you're stating a fact. Particularly with the word "God", there ARE no assertions that can be applied to everyone.

Thank you. That was my problem with this whole thread to begin with. Opening topics weren't phrased as speculation at all but stated as fact when they're not.

[Moontanman]

Athena, I am truly trying to understand what you are saying. Your use of the word god is confusing, there are almost as many definitions of the word god as there are people. Please define what you mean by god, you once defined god as reason, I took it to mean our ability to reason, you said i was not correct, that I had missed your point. I have struggled for quite awhile with that assertion to no avail.

[Xittenn]

Better yet, Athena can you reference literature that best represents your overall position. Preferably something written in the last two centuries, that doesn't require argument about literal translations. It often helps your argument when you share sources that support the fact that there is one.

 

As a follower of the thread I would even accept references to media such as film, maybe drawing comparisons against a movie like Jim Henson's - The Dark Crystal which has much to say about God, spiritual sojourns, and moral law. Just a thought though, I never know how seriously anyone takes anything I say (a very important point when considering any of my posts.)

[Athena]

I've requested these posts be put into the existing thread on Morals that you have open, Athena. If the staff acts on it, you can throw a tantrum toward me instead of throwing a tantrum toward them. Cheers.

 

http://www.sciencefo..._20#entry680095

 

Can we talk about our rights? Especially property rights seems to apply here. I know we do not have property rights as other authors do, but why have humans even agreed there is such a thing as property rights? I feel something when my post are arbitrarily changed by someone else, and that is not a good feeling. It feels like some kind of violation. Is this true only of me? Or might that have something to do with threads coming to an end, when they are split?

 

I looked at the post you think should be moved to the morals thread and that makes sense to me, but it includes post of others as well, and perhaps post should not be moved without people's permission? We are talking broken people here, and how do people get broken? I can think of nothing more destructive than denying them power over their own being and their expressions of themselves. When we have good morals, we do not cause harm, and we have pleasure in being together. A problem we have today is we do not have an institution like the church, to civilize us. In the past public education served that purpose, but it stopped doing that when we replaced it with education for technology. Now we are fighting each other like animals. I think arguing against the argument of this thread is important, and that removing those arguments would violate the search for truth about being broken, so while it seems rational to move discussion of morals to the moral thread, perhaps that discussion also belongs here, because the premise of this thread is wrong. Believing in god protects people from being broken.

 

Personally, I would like to try making each person the moderator of his,her own thread. I have often wanted the power to remove post that take my threads off topic or attack someone. None of us want our threads ruined. If a thread owner ever objected to what I am saying in a thread in a pm, I would certainly take that into consider and probably remove the offending post. Respecting one another in this way is very important.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

part two

 

It appears you all are arguing the truth of religious myth, and this is a different subject from broken people. Religions have been a huge benefit to mankind, but they no longer serve us well, because they are unbelievable to so many people. However, before we destroy religious institutions, we need to consider what will take their place.

 

Holding a concept of God that is not humanized, and does not violate the laws of nature, is a problem why?

Edited May 26, 2012 by Athena

[Athena]

*choke* Where on EARTH did you EVER get the idea that atheists argue "that the church is in fact the only authority on God and morals"?!

 

Right here. Time and again I have tried to argue an understanding of God that is not based in religion, and this understanding of God is important to understanding morals and the both understandings are important to democracy, and you all operate with the God of Abraham and can't get beyond that. Call in Moontanman, he will most surely prove what I am saying. He is so completely intolerant of the word "God", that discussions of God can never get past his insistence that there is no God.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Athena

[iNow]

Define god then, in a clear, unambiguous, falsifiable, agreed upon way. The problem, Athena, is there are countless "definitions" of god, and most research shows how every individuals concept of god is based on their own wishes and desires.

 

It's obvious that you're a talking about a deistic version of god... or some blather where "god equals the cosmos" or some similar. That doesn't exactly help your cause. Even when we move past the abrahamic conceptions of deity, it still remains little more than an ambiguously defined three letter word.

 

If you want people to understand you better, Athena, you need to express your points more precisely and with fewer assumptions or baseless premises.

[Phi for All]

Right here. Time and again I have tried to argue an understanding of God that is not based in religion, and this understanding of God is important to understanding morals and the both understandings are important to democracy, and you all operate with the God of Abraham and can't get beyond that. Call in Moontanman, he will most surely prove what I am saying. He is so completely intolerant of the word "God", that discussions of God can never get past his insistence that there is no God.

You're using a definition of "god" and "church" that no one else does, and then insisting that the atheists here are arguing that this "church" is the only authority on morals?! Every single atheist here has always claimed that religion/god/church is N-O-T necessary AT ALL to have an ethical, moral foundation in life. You have COMPLETELY misunderstood this point.

[Polednice]

Right here. Time and again I have tried to argue an understanding of God that is not based in religion, and this understanding of God is important to understanding morals and the both understandings are important to democracy, and you all operate with the God of Abraham and can't get beyond that. Call in Moontanman, he will most surely prove what I am saying. He is so completely intolerant of the word "God", that discussions of God can never get past his insistence that there is no God.

 

If I were to try to have a discussion with someone about a chair, but insisted upon using the word "table" to denote the chair, it would not be permissible for me to accuse others of a lack of willingness to understand because they don't accept my redefinition of "table". A chair is a chair, a god is a god, and you appear to be talking about neither.

[Athena]

Athena, I am truly trying to understand what you are saying. Your use of the word god is confusing, there are almost as many definitions of the word god as there are people. Please define what you mean by god, you once defined god as reason, I took it to mean our ability to reason, you said i was not correct, that I had missed your point. I have struggled for quite awhile with that assertion to no avail.

 

Well Moontanman, you are making a liar of me. that is a good thing in this case. I started two other threads to address the God issue, "The Law" and "Logos". Both are about how things work and we think of this as God. It is not exactly man's reason, but the reason things are as they are. The Law includes the laws of physics as well as morals, and even the gods are controlled by logos, reason, the controlling force of universe. That is neither the gods nor ourselves can do anything we please, because if we do wrong the thing, things will go bad. This line of thinking brought the philosophers to one God, and then they argued with Christians over who has the right to define God.

 

We can not define God, beyond logos, the controlling force of the universe, but we can study nature and learn something about how things work. We can use language to write laws, from the laws of physics to moral stories, and even the laws that govern us as an united civilization under God. Consider this please, if it is not a God, reason, the controlling force of the universe, that unites us, what will, and if we are not united by reason, democracy, then what is our reality?

 

I had a terrible argument with my grandson yesterday, and it breaks my heart that he is totally ignorant of The Law which includes morals, and at his age there is no way he is going to listen to me. This argument made me so aware of the importance of religion. I would rather he believe in a false God and understand morals, than have no concept of God or understanding of morals. He can't hold a job and screwed up his college opportunity, and he is so damn sure he knows it all and doesn't need to listen to anyone. I have no idea how he will pay rent, and stay off the streets. I know I sure can't live with him, nor can I afford his rent. The Greeks explained this problem as youthful folly, and we built our culture on Greek and Roman classics. But today, the concept of youthful folly is not a working part of our culture. When it was, the young respected their elders and we had compassion and tolerance of making mistakes. Education for technology did an end to that. Not even legally do our children have childhood, but they are to preform like college students as early as age 3, and are tried as adults in our courts. Education for technology, made most parents old fashioned and out dated, and left our young thinking they are so superior, they don't need to listen to anyone. We declared a national youth crisis, but instead of realizing this was the result of the change in public education, we blamed the parents for this. I think we are really screwed up, and expect things to get worse. When my generation dies, there will be no one left who remembers when we had a democracy built in the classics, instead of a technological society with unknown values. If I am wrong, please convince me of that, because I am dealing with a lot of pain, as I try to make a difference on the Internet.

 

Back to God and morals. Things are as they are, and we can not change them. However, we can dramatically change our lives, by gaining knowledge of the "reason, that controls the universe." God is not defined, as the X in math is not defined, until we work through the problem, but we use this unknown God so we can work the problem. Make sense? We can ask all kinds of questions of this God, and in so doing expand our consciousness, and the more we expand our consciousness, the more moral we can be, the more moral we are the more liberty can we enjoy, and our lives get better and better instead of worse and worse.

 

If I were to try to have a discussion with someone about a chair, but insisted upon using the word "table" to denote the chair, it would not be permissible for me to accuse others of a lack of willingness to understand because they don't accept my redefinition of "table". A chair is a chair, a god is a god, and you appear to be talking about neither.

 

Oh you have a definition for God? A chair is defined and a table is defined, but God is unknown.

 

You're using a definition of "god" and "church" that no one else does, and then insisting that the atheists here are arguing that this "church" is the only authority on morals?! Every single atheist here has always claimed that religion/god/church is N-O-T necessary AT ALL to have an ethical, moral foundation in life. You have COMPLETELY misunderstood this point.

 

Now that is so mixed up, I don't know if can straighten it out. What is my definition of God? It most certainly is not the church. As I understand, the church is an institution based on mythology.

 

Now how do you determine morals without a concept of The Law? I don't think I am the one misunderstanding the point, but think if others did understand the point, there would be no argument.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Athena

[doG]

I started two other threads to address the God issue, "The Law" and "Logos". Both are about how things work and we think of this as God.....

And that right there is where your understanding breaks down. There is no 'how we think of this as God' regarding law. There is no we, only you that has this twisted definition of law. No one else here sees this as you do. You've invented your own definitions that no one else uses and you keep arguing that your definitions are the right ones. No they're not. If they were you would be able to find at least one dictionary on the planet that agrees with you and thus far we've not seen you provide that support for your assertion. Now, if you can't find any support for your assertion you need to accept the fact that you're wrong. You can't just make willy-nilly assertions and claim that they're right because you said so and everyone else is wrong. Just because it's your pet hypothesis does not make it right.

[Athena]

Define god then, in a clear, unambiguous, falsifiable, agreed upon way. The problem, Athena, is there are countless "definitions" of god, and most research shows how every individuals concept of god is based on their own wishes and desires.

 

It's obvious that you're a talking about a deistic version of god... or some blather where "god equals the cosmos" or some similar. That doesn't exactly help your cause. Even when we move past the abrahamic conceptions of deity, it still remains little more than an ambiguously defined three letter word.

 

If you want people to understand you better, Athena, you need to express your points more precisely and with fewer assumptions or baseless premises.

 

Wonderful, and what is wrong with every individual having a personal God? We project ourselves into others, and into god and Satan as well. We can expand our consciousness by doing this, and learn a lot. Each Greek god and goddess is an archetype. I am not sure modern day psychology has surpassed the genius of the ancient Greeks. Apollo is among other things, a god of reason. Athens was about where we are now, when it was realized things were spinning out of control, and they needed a God of reason, so they invented one. Athena started out as holding Demeter's place. That is the people of Athens thought if Athena was pissed off, they would go hungry. Like the Persians hadn't destroyed her temple, the common man would have ignored the Persians, instead of agreeing to get into a boat and engage in sea battles. What united them was fear that if they didn't appease Athena, they would starve. But this war is crucial to our history! More was needed to make people willing to fight for Athens. Athens had no money for defense, so those in power agreed to share a say in government with everyone who defended Athens. At this point, Athena becomes a goddess of Liberty and Justice, and those who stand for liberty and justice. My point is how we project ourselves into gods, and what we have to gain from doing so.

 

I think it is misguided to deny everyone a concept of God, rather than be tolerant, and from there argue what is true of not true of God. As Socrates would handle this, is it good to be jealous, revengeful, punishing and fearsome? Is the God of Abraham jealous, revengeful, punishing and fearsome? How about our choice in husbands? What God is their role model. Or is you like, how a woman in your life whose role model is mother nature? God's are perfection and what is perfect?

 

If I gave you all my thoughts in one post, it would be far to large to post. However, I have repeatedly said our democracy is built on Greek and Roman classics, so it is not like I am keeping my thoughts a secret, they just are no longer a part of public education, so we are having a communication problem. Actually, you all are helping me formulate my thoughts, and I pray I will get that book written before I die. The challenge is to pick out thoughts from many, many books, since ancient times, and then organize them in

such away that people as yourselves can relate to what I am saying. You all are having a problem relating to what I am saying, because you have education for technology, not liberal education. My challenge is huge!

[immortal]

I think the word Logos and God completely derails the thread, if we can for a short moment keep aside an ill-defined term like God we can discuss about this thread effectively.

 

 

I don't think this thread has anything to do with the existence of God or the literal Greek mythology, I think Athena is talking about the morals based on human experience which guide our political conduct and a right conduct to our life.

 

Such stories are known as Panchatantra.

 

See- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchatantra

 

 

Mitra-bheda, The Separation of FriendsIn the first book, a friendship arises between the lion Piṅgalaka, the king of the forest, and Sañjīvaka, a bull. Karataka ('Horribly Howling') and Damanaka ('Victor') are two jackals that are retainers to the lion king. Against Karataka's advice, Damanaka breaks up the friendship between the lion and the bull out of jealousy. This book contains around thirty stories, mostly told by the two jackals. It is the longest of the five books, making up roughly 45% of the work's length.^[20][21]

 

Mitra-samprāpti, The Gaining of FriendsSeeing the favour the rat performed to free the dove (or pigeon) and her companions, a crow decides to befriend the rat, despite the rat's initial objections. The storyline evolves as their friendship grows to include the turtle and the fawn. They collaborate to save the fawn when he is trapped, and later they work together to save the turtle, who falls in the trap. This makes up about 22% of the total length.^[20][22]

 

Kākolūkīyam, Of Crows and Owls

 

Traditional enemies, the crows and the owls are at war. One of the crows pretends to be an outcast from his own group to gain entry into the rival owl group; he learns their secrets and vulnerabilities. He later summons his group of crows to set fire to all entrances to the cave where the owls live and the creatures suffocate to death. This is about 26% of the total length.^[20]

 

Labdhapraṇāśam, Loss Of GainsThe story tells of a symbiotic relationship between the monkey and the crocodile. The crocodile risks the liaison by conspiring to acquire the heart of the monkey to heal his wife. When the monkey finds out the plan, he avoids the grim fate.

 

Aparīkṣitakārakaṃ, Hasty ActionMain article: The Brahmin and the MongooseA Brahman leaves his child with a mongoose friend. When he returns, he sees blood on the mongoose's mouth, and kills his friend, believing the animal killed his child. The Brahman discovers his child alive, and learns that the mongoose defended the child from a snake. He regrets having killed his friend.

 

 

 

These are not creation mythos, these are logos based on repeated human experience on the nature of humans and the world.

 

What Athena seem to be accusing is that in your country you lost such a liberal education when an education purely based on technology was introduced without much knowledge about right wise conduct. This has nothing to with morals coming from religion or god, these are morals based on common experience which should be taught in schools among all youths.

 

 

 

The novelist Doris Lessing notes in her introduction to Ramsay Wood's 1980 "retelling" of the first two of the five Panchatantra books,^[54]that

 

"… it is safe to say that most people in the West these days will not have heard of it, while they will certainly at the very least have heard of the

Upanishads

and the

Vedas

. Until comparatively recently, it was the other way around. Anyone with any claim to a literary education knew that the

Fables of Bidpai

or the

Tales of Kalila and Dimna

— these being the most commonly used titles with us — was a great Eastern classic. There were at least twenty English translations in the hundred years before 1888. Pondering on these facts leads to reflection on the fate of books, as chancy and unpredictable as that of people or nations."

 

[Athena]

And that right there is where your understanding breaks down. There is no 'how we think of this as God' regarding law. There is no we, only you that has this twisted definition of law. No one else here sees this as you do. You've invented your own definitions that no one else uses and you keep arguing that your definitions are the right ones. No they're not. If they were you would be able to find at least one dictionary on the planet that agrees with you and thus far we've not seen you provide that support for your assertion. Now, if you can't find any support for your assertion you need to accept the fact that you're wrong. You can't just make willy-nilly assertions and claim that they're right because you said so and everyone else is wrong. Just because it's your pet hypothesis does not make it right.

 

Thanks, you helped figure out another piece of the communication problem. First, if everyone had liberal education, we would not be having such a communication problem. Second, many of words have Latin roots, and we used to promote study of the Latin language and folks like Thomas Jefferson, could read Latin and often Greek as well, and they read the Greek and Roman classics in their original language. This was the meaning of being literate in their time.

I use a very large Webster dictionary that provides the roots of words, and my understanding of words does come from the dictionary. For example a root for law is "that which is laid or fixed". The rest of the definition for law, in this Webster Dictionary fills 3/4 of the page, and pages are very large. Logos is, "reason, the controlling force of universe.." also from this dictionary.

 

Do you know the root for "human" is "moist soil"? Our language carries religious beliefs without our awareness of this fact. And morale is what comes our being moral. The "e' is used to tell us what comes of what. So truly understanding what I am talking is understanding our language and it does come from a dictionary.

[Polednice]

Oh you have a definition for God? A chair is defined and a table is defined, but God is unknown.

 

You're obfuscating the issue again by putting linguistics in apposition with concepts when you ought to consider only one at a time. Where do you think the definitions of "chair" and "table" come from? There is no absolute authority, no external decree, which necessitates that those letters and the sound patterns they represent must signify the concept of a chair and a table. Like money, they obtain their definitions from widespread understanding and mutual acceptance. Similarly, the word "god" is understood to refer to a certain set of ideas, and yet you are playing on the concept of god, stating that the concept is undefined. That may well be true, but we're talking about word-use, and, again, your unrelenting insistence on using the word "god" in a way that does not match up with popular use of the term cannot do anything but confuse the discussion.

 

Thanks, you helped figure out another piece of the communication problem. First, if everyone had liberal education, we would not be having such a communication problem. Second, many of words have Latin roots, and we used to promote study of the Latin language and folks like Thomas Jefferson, could read Latin and often Greek as well, and they read the Greek and Roman classics in their original language. This was the meaning of being literate in their time.

I use a very large Webster dictionary that provides the roots of words, and my understanding of words does come from the dictionary. For example a root for law is "that which is laid or fixed". The rest of the definition for law, in this Webster Dictionary fills 3/4 of the page, and pages are very large. Logos is, "reason, the controlling force of universe.." also from this dictionary.

 

Do you know the root for "human" is "moist soil"? Our language carries religious beliefs without our awareness of this fact. And morale is what comes our being moral. The "e' is used to tell us what comes of what. So truly understanding what I am talking is understanding our language and it does come from a dictionary.

 

This is the etymological fallacy and is not a valid way to go about using the language.

[MonDie]

The moved posts were dispersed throughout this thread on the basis of the date-of-posting. I'll find out the proper methods of contacting the moderators, and I'll inform them of this.

 

Here is the interaction between Athena and I. Athena's next post that was moved, which was a response to iNow, is #36.

 

I really think this depends on how one defines god, and my opinion of those who do not understand this is extremely low.

 

I understand the bible as mythology and would argue this understanding of God is no better than Zeus, however, I very much respect the benefits of believing in this god, that seem so lacking in those who do not have religion, or a philosophy, or some kind of framework of principles to live by. Going through life basing our decisions on our feelings, is not a good way to go! I would say, the people who are broken are more apt to be those who do not have religion, or any other frame work of principles to live by.

 

If we returned to liberal education and education for good moral judgment and citizenship we would not have the problems that we have. Amoral education for a technological society with unknown values, means not only a lot of broken people, but possibly a very unpleasant future as well. Capitalism with morals is self destructive. Science without morals is very dangerous. I think we are head for big trouble and don't even have the concepts essential to reasoning our way out out this.

Athena, I don't know of any evidence that religion causes morality or even well-being.

Also, as I realized while making posts prior to this, religion isn't all that easy to define. When religion starts to include otherwise secular concepts, such as helping others as valuable behavior, where is the boundary between religion and general culture?

EDIT: Furthermore, there is the issue of cause-and-effect because people who join religion-based community service groups might do it out of a desire to be helpful, not out of religiosity.

EDIT: However, that same idea can be applied to the evils committed in the name of religion. Do people who murder homosexuals truly do it out of religiosity?

 

For sure religion causes morality. It works like this, human populations are much larger than animal populations because we create our social world with language and representations. Civilizations are held together with ideas of rights, duties, obligations and responsibility.

 

It is religion that makes our huge populations possible. The alternative to religion is democracy when all the concepts of democracy are known. Being one nation under God is very, very important, however, we need a believable God, and religion is always based on myth, not science and logic. Democracy, however, can give us God and morals without religion, when all the concepts are understood, and if we don't get over our hangups about God, and bridge this gap between the secular and religion, what do you think will hold civilizations together? Anything without morals is self destructive. Capitalism without morals is self destructing. Government without morals self destructs and humans without morals self destruct.

 

I am witnessing all the self destruction happening right now, and doing my best to put back into our consciousness, awareness of why education for good moral judgment is essential. The US had education for good moral judgment without religion, from the beginning, until 1958. We called this liberal education and the foundation of it was Greek and Roman classics, and religion, especially Christianity, and seasoned with mythology and history from around the world. Amoral education for a technological society focused almost exclusively on technology, is manifesting a society with unknown values. This is breaking down all systems that manifest civilization. It is now not just individuals who are broken, but our institutions and then our civilization.

 

Edit, I like the way you did that.

 

EDIT: Furthermore, there is the issue of cause-and-effect because people who join religion-based community service groups might do it out of a desire to be helpful, not out of religiosity.

 

There are benefits to morality set by religion, and disadvantages. A benefit is, being good simply because one learned a rule about being good. But then a problem comes up when this is associated with superstition instead of reason. When it is associated with superstition, people can wrongly believe they can get away with doing the wrong thing, if they sacrifice to a God, or burn candles and pray. When morality is a matter of reason, we know there is no supernatural power that is going to step in and save our ass. What happens is the consequence of what we think and do, because that is how things work. I am highly motivated to be moral, because I don't believe there is a supernatural force that can alter the consequences of what I do. By the way, this also means I am highly motivated to do all I can so everyone understands morals, because I don't think there is a supernatural force that is going to safe us, and I want my grandchildren and their children to have good lives. This won't happen if we don't start talking morals real fast.

 

Another problem with being reliant on religion instead of reason, is morality based in the passed, includes assuming slaves and kings, and doesn't work so well for modern moral questions. Google explains complete violation of our privacy as a means of giving us better individualized service. I don't think you will open a holy book and find the moral rule for this.

 

EDIT: However, that same idea can be applied to the evils committed in the name of religion. Do people who murder homosexuals truly do it out of religiosity?

 

How about taking your moral questions to the philosophy thread about "morals". It would make the thread much more interesting on on subject. Not all people who murder homosexuals do so because of religion, however, religion does lead to much killing, including killing one's own daughter, or selling her into slavery.

[iNow]

Wonderful, and what is wrong with every individual having a personal God?

That's entirely beside the point, and quite moot. You're trying to use one definition of god, yet you here now concede that everyone holds a different one.

 

You all are having a problem relating to what I am saying, because you have education for technology, not liberal education. My challenge is huge!

As seems evident to everyone here except you, the problem of miscommunication in this series of exchanges rests with the presenter, not the audience.

[doG]

I use a very large Webster dictionary that provides the roots of words[/b], and my understanding of words does come from the dictionary.

So!!! I posted the etymology of law at the beginning of the thread and pointed out to you that it references god no where. Your interpretation of what's not in the dictionary doesn't really matter to anyone but you, the one that chooses to use their own definition. The unsupported foundation of your premise that law=god undermines your whole argument. If you can't support that assertion then it's really a waste of time to follow what you have built on top of it.

[Moontanman]

Well Moontanman, you are making a liar of me. that is a good thing in this case. I started two other threads to address the God issue, "The Law" and "Logos". Both are about how things work and we think of this as God. It is not exactly man's reason, but the reason things are as they are. The Law includes the laws of physics as well as morals, and even the gods are controlled by logos, reason, the controlling force of universe. That is neither the gods nor ourselves can do anything we please, because if we do wrong the thing, things will go bad. This line of thinking brought the philosophers to one God, and then they argued with Christians over who has the right to define God.

 

 

Why does this mean "God" to you? Why does there have to be a God involved, why can't things work the way they do because simply because they do? Why does there have to be a God behind the scenes manipulating everything?

 

The laws of physics are what they are, if they wren't then things would be different...

 

Morals are behaviors evolved due to humans being a social species, the members of our group who did things that supported the group tend to reproduce more successfully and the ones who did not didn't...

 

I see no need, indeed no room for the concept of god in this and the idea that our education system is somehow to blame is an assertion with no support other than the assertion...