The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2015, 08:23 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 08:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Belief in a designer/s is fine though? I can still be an atheist and believe this right?

Of course. Is your god omnipotent ?
If so it could have created an infinite number of designers.

Ah okay, designer/s are fine, creator/s are not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 08:27 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2015 09:13 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 08:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 07:57 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No believing in a "creator" would basically be deism a or another theistic belief.

Belief in a designer/s is fine though? I can still be an atheist and believe this right?

You said earlier that the founder of integral theory believed in design: "The Integral Theory is all about a design.. the idiot founder of it even used dumb arguments like irreducible complexity of the eye in his ideas about design".

So people can believe we were designed and still be atheists, according to you.,

Quote:I don't want you to replace your idea; I want to realize that your argument is wrong.

Your entire argument is that my use of the term religion, in particular "religious belief" is wrong, because it doesn't fit the one single definition you have in mind. And it's a silly one at that.

Creator/Designer is the same thing. (TO me I should add) I didn't think it was necessary to elaborate on stating such an obvious concept.

No.. he is using the same arguments of intelligent design but the guy, Ken Wilbur's, actual ideas aren't that we were being designed... but he sees evolution as a Ladder going up. And that consciousness is a higher state of being so evolution directed us toward it... The eye to him was a step in this stage that only could of happened with a goal... but not one set forth by any entity or being. Just he thinks that's the way evolution works. He thinks that it has an inherent order, because the universe has an inherent order, but not that anyone(thing) made it. It simply is that way.

No.. my argument is your concept that not-religious people don't believe in inherent moral obligations is wrong, because it is! Because there are people like Ken Wilbur and his millions of followers who are atheists and think there are inherent moral obligations.

But I was trying to be nice and fair to you by giving you a caveat to say, "oh but I meant religious in a broad any metaphysical thought idea" but you've yet to make a hard stance on if you did mean that or if you only meant Gods/Deities/Creators/Designers type of religious.

I can do the quoting a source that isn't an actual ultimate authority to how we use language too.. re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

It doesn't matter what "authorties" say about the term. What matters IS ONLY what you are using it as and what the people you are discussing with think it means. That's how we actually define language in the world.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 03:54 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 08:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Of course. Is your god omnipotent ?
If so it could have created an infinite number of designers.

Ah okay, designer/s are fine, creator/s are not?

There could be any number of explanations for designers without creators. You asked a question, I answered it. Creators are not a coherent concept. The term is meaningless. It's a bit above your pay grade, but creation requires planning, decision and action. All temporally dependent concepts. In the absence of space-time already in place, they are all meaningless. Creation also renders the concept "infinite" false.

Perhaps when you take Anthropology 101, you can also take Philosophy 101.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 01:29 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 03:02 AM by gofish!.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 04:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 03:53 PM)gofish! Wrote:  What are you asking? Are you asking me to prove that a belief in intrinsic moral obligations is a religious belief?

Uhm, because it's a teleological belief. Or in other words if you believe there are intrinsic moral obligations, you'd have to believe in world were such shits possible, where human beings are endowed with an intrinsic sense of purpose, directed towards the moral life, sort of like the way characters in a fucking story book are. Or in other words a religious worldview.

So you obviously think all good actors are left handed, right? After all, Tom Cruise is a good actor*, Tom Cruise is left-handed, therefore all good actors are left handed.

* I couldn't help throwing in the moot claim, to make the metaphor for your logic complete.

Not good enough: try again.

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 03:43 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 01:29 AM)gofish! Wrote:  So you obviously think all good actors are left handed, right? After all, Tom Cruise is a good actor*, Tom Cruise is left-handed, therefore all good actors are left handed.

On a tangentally related note: This is amazing.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
21-01-2015, 03:48 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 03:43 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 01:29 AM)gofish! Wrote:  So you obviously think all good actors are left handed, right? After all, Tom Cruise is a good actor*, Tom Cruise is left-handed, therefore all good actors are left handed.

On a tangentally related note: This is amazing.

Yes. Good link. Although they missed that he shouldered his assault rifle left-handed in "Oblivion".

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 04:41 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 04:45 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Duplicate post
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 04:42 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 05:00 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 04:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 08:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There could be any number of explanations for designers without creators.

Okay. Okay. I'll stop dicking around, and own you folks real quick.

Do you know who would love to hold hands with you folks? The Discovery Institute, who made the same exact argument, but better put together. lol:

Quote:"It should be apparent that "intelligent design" does not meet any of these definitions of "religion." Intelligent design says nothing about whether a person has or should have a relationship with a creator (if there is one), and says nothing about whether there are or should be any obligations or duties owed to a creator (if there is one). Nor does intelligent design require belief in, reverence for, or worship of a supernatural power. Intelligent design does not suggest that the intelligent is a supernatural intelligent cause. Intelligent design simply says nothing of whether the intelligent cause is a supernatural or non-supernatural intelligent cause. Furthermore, intelligent design does not suggest that all else in life is subordinate to it as a theory of origins or is ultimately dependent on it.

For an even starker contrast between intelligent design and religion, consider for a moment characteristics typically seen in religions -- characteristics which are clearly not seen in intelligent design.

Intelligent design has no liturgy or form of public worship, no clergy or people ordained for religious service, no observance of religious holidays, no sacred text, and no churches or other religious institutions. Intelligent design, unlike religion, takes no position on the existence of God or gods, does not require belief in God or gods, takes no position on any theory of morality or code of ethics, presents no opinion as to an afterlife, and holds no opinion on the ultimate meaning of life or the universe."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/...ligion.htm

Of course the courts ain't buy that shit, and declared it a violation of the establishment cause, exactly because it was a religious belief.

If the courts didn't buy their silly argument, why would I buy yours?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 04:51 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Perhaps the Disovery Institute, should reorganize, ditch irreducible complexity, and campaign teachers to teach that we have intrinsic moral obligations, that there's an eternal moral law. And this wouldn't be a violation of establishment clause, and even atheists agree. And perhaps they can get some Rawlians on board.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 05:07 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 04:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Okay. Okay. I'll stop dicking around, and own you folks real quick.

Do you know who would love to hold hands with you folks? The Discovery Institute, who made the same exact argument, but better put together. lol:

Of course the courts ain't buy that shit, and declared it a violation of the establishment cause, exactly because it was a religious belief.

If the courts didn't buy their silly argument, why would I buy yours?

You don't even know what the hell you think you're buying. That is NOT the argument I made. YOU asked why designers could be accepted, but not creators. I did NOT make an argument for ID. But nice try there to derail and deflect, sport. I simply poeinted out why non-deity designers were AT LEAST as coherent as a god.

You're really not up to this dear.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: