to not believe in the God of scripture is.....illogical?

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by Canibusfan420

It's tricky though, because the idea that humans have subverted or overcome instinct is often accepted as fact, but it's difficult to determine. It's true that we are aware of our instinct, which most likely separates us from other animals, but that could just be retroactive reasoning as a product of our relative intelligence.

The concept of morality might be purely a reinforcement mechanism, whereby actions positively contributing to the perpetuation of our species are good, with the opposite being true of unproductive behaviour.

This kind of stuff is a quagmire of confusion as far as i'm concerned. Which is why when people make absolutist claims relating to morality they need to be questioned.

http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Polit...gyofMorals.pdf

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by Canibusfan420

I agree that enlightenment era philosophy trumps BC era philosophy... that should be a given (well, not in this forum obviously, but everywhere else).

And yes, the categorical imperative is absolutist.... and? What does it have to do with your point about morality extending to other species?

As you said, morality is a concept of "right" and "wrong".... how would you apply this to non human animal behaviour?

i wasnt applying it to animals. i was saying the guys argument would be better if he connected morality with the categorical imperative.

[Longbongcilvaringz]

Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang

u can easily see morality in animals. such as dog training. u teach ur dog what is good and what is bad.

That isn't analogous to the our theory of human morality though which is generally seen as something separate from simply rewarding "good" actions. Morality relies on other concepts such as free will and awareness of death. These concepts simply don't apply to other species in the same manner.

The correct phrasing of your post would be something like "you impose your concept of human morality onto your dog by exploiting it's relative lack of intelligence and reliance of basic instinct."

[Longbongcilvaringz]

Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang

i wasnt applying it to animals. i was saying the guys argument would be better if he connected morality with the categorical imperative.

Ok, i'm not trying to be adversarial, but you clearly did apply morality to animals. It's doesn't matter, i think we both agree this guy's argument is flawed at best

[Longbongcilvaringz]

Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang

http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Polit...gyofMorals.pdf

I haven't read this, but what little i have read of Nietzsche's on morality is thought provoking and open minded. I'll try and get a copy of this, because i'm not going to read it online....

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by Canibusfan420

Ok, i'm not trying to be adversarial, but you clearly did apply morality to animals. It's doesn't matter, i think we both agree this guy's argument is flawed at best

i think we might have a differing opinion on morality.

humans definitely have a more complex morality.

morality is just differentiating different things into good and bad.

all animals with a higher level of conciousness do this.

morality can be taught such as training dogs.

by training a dog youve forced him to differentiate different actions into good and bad.

parents do the same thing to their children.

the concept of morality is connected to concepts such as free will but it isnt dependent on them.

also im an existentialist nihilist which means i think life doesnt have an absolute objective meaning. so my opinions might differ from urs.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by Canibusfan420

I haven't read this, but what little i have read of Nietzsche's on morality is thought provoking and open minded. I'll try and get a copy of this, because i'm not going to read it online....

do u want to read it on kindle/ipod etc cuz i can email the book to you. or do u prefer to get a paperback version.

[THE W]

Originally Posted by soul controller

totally awesome,. if god created that code, why isnt it discussed in any religion??

why doesnt every religion, (or christianity) see the code, and unite humanity? why do most people of religion, try and force their religion, why do they try and take everything, and make it out like 'god' did it, with out any proof

if you do research into that 'code' you will see its part of a simulation.. due to its fractal routes,.

does the bible speak on fractals? does it speak on the electric universe??


the proof is there, that we are in a simulation, ancient cultures knew this.. but the modern day religions refused to put this in their books (besides the i ching)


im sure if you research it more, you will see how it has nothing to do with god, they are software languages for our limited sense of reality (4% visible light)

are you saying god is the 'entity' that made this simulation for us? again, where is the proof of that??

cos ancient cultures say something vastly different....





you may not live in fear now, but im sure at one point.. you would have felt, you had to be a good christian to atone for the sins of the father?

what where those sins?? how are they passed onto the children?

you know your subsconcious and conscious are heavily formed at an early age,. do you think, being in fear at those early ages(when you have no experience of anything) is detrimental to ones own progress?

as your whole reality is based off of a book, not even a factual book, no one knows who wrote it, when it was wrote, or how many times it has been edited... but yet thats the book you rely on? (not having a go at you.. sorry if it seems like that...) we are infinite consciousness, to find out about the whole of reality (outside the 4% of visible light) tjeh information would need to come from more than one book, unless you want to remain trapped with that limited belief.. (again no one knows who made the book to begin with, let alone the ideas/stories stolen from older religions..)

I do not think you live in fear, i think christians or any religious person, who trys to justify their religion (to others) or tries to push their religion onto others, is the one living in fear, as factually. there is nothing solid to base anything on.

i dont see why the scriptures would need to document all that stuff. why would i need to know such details?

the scriptures already tell me what i need to do to live a good life on the earth.

yes, i do use the bible as my ultimate authority in matters of truth. what's your ultimate authority?

[knowcheeze]

the God of scripture is a council of black men....so its pretty logical that you shouldn't worship any man or woman unless that man or woman is yourself.....the God of scripture didn't nessesarily outlaw slavery so.....yeah Elijah wasn't lying when he said Fard was the greatest God to hold the throne of that council....

[diggy]

soul controller - totally awesome,. if god created that code, why isnt it discussed in any religion??

You could ask why other matters discussed amongst us humans are not in it, but then you would be missing the point of what the scripture is about. It is a book of moral guidance not a science book.

[RAT NIPPLED REBEL]

Originally Posted by FMJ

not a science book.

nor a history book,

could you use the bible or any other religious text in your history lessons? as quantifiable proof?




Nope no irony at all.

[D.projectile]

Originally Posted by D.projectile

i'd advise a christian to ignore the old testament really..

until ready...

[D.projectile]

Originally Posted by FMJ

You could ask why other matters discussed amongst us humans are not in it, but then you would be missing the point of what the scripture is about. It is a book of moral guidance not a science book.

its multi dimensional and only for the initiates who are ready to absorb the esoteric meanings.

beneath the surface its a book about the self/universe

[D.projectile]

Originally Posted by Canibusfan420

It's tricky though, because the idea that humans have subverted or overcome instinct is often accepted as fact, but it's difficult to determine. It's true that we are aware of our instinct, which most likely separates us from other animals, but that could just be retroactive reasoning as a product of our relative intelligence.

The concept of morality might be purely a reinforcement mechanism, whereby actions positively contributing to the perpetuation of our species are good, with the opposite being true of unproductive behaviour.

This kind of stuff is a quagmire of confusion as far as i'm concerned. Which is why when people make absolutist claims relating to morality they need to be questioned.

i hear ya..personal evolution stage or quite simply a persons nature and morality must match

[D.projectile]

oh so thats how you change font colours...dam im a wally