It's not the first time that I stated my views on controversial things and have been told that "your religion shouldn't play a part on this because not everybody believes the way you do..." Frankly, I'm sick of my opinions being belittled because they're based on my faith.

Are my opinions on abortion, divorce, homosexuality, death penalty, birth control and other issues of little value because I mention my faith as I give them? It's not like I'm preaching or anything. I'm not forcing everyone to convert when I talk about issues like the ones mentioned above.

People even imply that opinions that are influenced by religious beliefs are "statements of blind faith." Why? We were given intellect for a reason, right? I think the reason is so we could determine right from wrong, and so to avoid following a Church blindly....

Agh. I need to organize my thoughts more. :( Anyway, just a hint on what I think... Any comments?

I'm an atheist and...gotta admite I don't like religion...only if it's moderated, cause if it gets to fanatism, like all those mussulmans (is this how you write it?) who even explode themselves, believing that Ala will receive them as heroes in heaven.

But if it's not excessive, religion can be a good thing. It teaches you to be good to others and all...It's like my granpa used to say 'If it doesn't teach you to steal or kill, then it's ok, right?'.

And your opinion may be influenced by your religion, but...who cares? We are all influenced by something or someone, so why can't we say what we think? It's like saying that, because we are Cloriths, that we can't discuss Advent Children, because it'd be biased. Silly, silly reasons. :rolleyes:

For me you can say what you want, whatever your culture, color and beliefs are.

From what I learned it was pronounced Muslims/ Musliman. Anyway, those whom exploded themselves , I dunno what went on in their minds but all I know is that they were willing to sacrifice themselves just to seek revenge on what was taken from them when the 'war' started. Actually when did it really start I'm not sure. Being a muslim myself, I may understand why they are doing it but I think they were foolish as our teachings indicate that killing ourselves or others is a sin (but whether what they did was a good deed or a sin I'm not sure ) :unsure: .

That's what was taught to me and my classmates whether they be Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic , Hindu , a free thinker, etc.... Forgive me if I have used religious views in this forum and it has offended everyone :( .

I sometimes turn to religious views due to the fact that it may be more suitable but at the same time it might not. Other than that, it may be resulted due to situations or maybe even mood swings.

It may offend people at some times , but at the end of the day, some teachings are similar and some maybe truthful.
Sorry again if I said anything which may offend everyone and if I said anything wrongly.

The main point of all this is that every person has different needs and requirements, especially when considering meaning and morals.

Religion is a necessary, rational, human process as proven by the fact that every different race on the planet created a god for themselves (i am athiest and assuming that there is no god, i apologise if anyone is offended).

It teaches faith and many of the morals considered generally good by society, which is ofcourse an important role to play in society. The problem with religion, as is the problem with most things that cause war, is only when fundamentalism is included. most Muslims i know and most Christians all believe that the act of war is disgrace and is against the teachings of their respective gods. However in each example there will always be the fundamentalists that misinterpret the holy script for their own beliefs, Islam is in this process now with suicide bombings etc and the Crusades are the ultimate example of the Christian fundamentalists.

We must understand also that if someone is willing to commit suicide for their religion and their god then they must have absolute faith in theri actions. It is simply not possible otherwise.

Much of the Islam/American hatred is fueled by the belief in freemasonry also and the supposd coming of a great war between Islam and the freemasons. Think what you will on that.

Lastly i think it's important not to determine absolute wrong and right. Wrong and right are elements of a human nature that very with different people and different needs. Human need is what creates their actions. I do not mean in such examples as a starving child stealing a loaf of bread. The best example is that of a serial killer.

Most people believe that killing is wrong and indeed for most of us it certainly is. (or i should say the killing of humans, most people have no problem with the death of certain other species) However psychopaths and sociopaths are not your ordinary human being. Simply put they cannot feel emotions or empathy as other human beings, making them in many ways very unhuman and demonised and you will find for most serious psyhopaths the only time they can feel "passion" is through killing another. In this case i would argue it is right for the person to do so as they must fulfill their needs, though it doesn't need to be said that they must also be removed from society for the safety of others. Yet the level of emotional incapacity varies meaning the acceptance of right and wrong varies and this explains, often, the actions of so called "con-artists".

My point is that right and wrong is very very difficult to define and is usually subjective.

Raist, you've written such an interesting piece, but this is the only line that I could... uhm... say something to:

Yes, very true. Truth is relative; everybody has a different truth based on their backgrounds and experiences.

This is partially my point. My truths are belittled because my beliefs are greatly influenced by my religion. Is that right? For them, a truth is more valid when it is based on something... ah... "faithless", like intellectual and logical arguments or something. My point is, people shouldn't consider a religiously-influenced view as less valid than a view that's not based on religion.

Views are views--one isn't better than the other. I just wish some people would understand that! (cries)

(But of course, in saying this, I *might* sound like I'm imposing my beliefs again. Ah, irony.)

I love irony. There have been countless occasions where it has literally made my day.

Anyway to your post.

I agree with you entrirely Zhakeena as i said it's a major reason for the majority of the world's problems, fundmanentalism. Your truths or what you believe in, in some cases will be belittled by some people because of their beliefs, this will generally occur around people of completly opposite belief. If you were to attend a meeting of athiests you would likely have your personal truths belittled the same as i would (to some degree) in visiting a church. To be perfectly frank the majority of religous people i know are by far more intelligent and open minded than my athiest friends. Religion doesn't mean your opinions and values should be trodden on, you have every right to voice them and have people consider them (though please do this with care, religion and politics get people very angry).

That being said i would love for you to read some athiest literature, just to get another view.

Well it's been a while since I've been here....

I've realised what the OP said: many people seem to think that if an opinion is based on religion then it isn't a well reasoned one, that it is irrational and/or it is not universally applicable. Assuming the first two because faith is a source is unjustified, and the third runs us into a deeper issue that is accentuated when dealing with religions and truth, an issue that Raist and our dear topic creator have recently addressed.

It is on this issue that I feel most compelled to respond. Firstly, I'll go to the shorter post.

zhakeena

Your statement is self-refuting and hence, meaningless. Think about it.

Saying that "Truth is relative" is making an objective claim about truth. But your claim denies the reality of objective claims - it denies itself. Therefore, it disproves what it states and implodes, much like the sentence "This statement is false."

Actually, I think that the problem is quite the opposite.

Most people who have problems with the religious who preach or impose their beliefs on others have the problem because the people do their preaching because they think that 'their truth' is the truth.

The Christian claim that if you don't accept Jesus as your Saviour you'll go to hell wouldn't pack half its punch if we said that this is only true if you think it is true: ie, you must believe that not accepting Jesus as your Saviour will send you to hell for you to go to hell for not accepting Him as your Saviour.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. Your view that 2+2=4 is obviously superior to mine that 2+2=7

:) 'tis almost unavoidable when you hold to the view of relative truth.

Oye.

So he's right to kill someone because it fufills his needs? So an action is right for a person if it fulfills his needs?

What makes an action wrong for that person?

Hmmm.... I'd say that our perceptions of right and wrong are subjective, not unlike our perceptions of everything else.

I agree with you, though, that defining right and wrong may be a bit tricky. However, I think that the subjective view of it can ruled out; not absolutely convincingly and without a shadow of a doubt, but I think it can.

Same here. :)

I don't think that the belief of absolute truth is limited to fundamentalists. I know for certain that within Christianity, it's a presupposition in the Conservative camp, which makes up perhaps over 80% of all Christians in the world's eyes and are all the Christians in most of their own eyes (>_<).

I agree.

Relative/subjective truth's problem isn't only limited to the self-refuting nature of such a position, but reaches also to its consistency. Really, it's not very good in practice. Not many of the relative truth claimers will say that someone saying the sky is beautiful collage red, purple and teal is as right as everyone else who agrees that it is blue. Nor will they agree that a group of people getting together and setting out as their dogma that there are no observable effects of gravity - not of what we think gravity is now nor of anything resembling it - are as valid as your average person, animal or plant that agrees that gravity is observable.

Subjective/relative morality, however, is not so easy to refute. It seems that, at best, one can show people who don't agree with it how cruel it is and/or defeat common concepts of justice, honour and several other human virtues. That is, one may also show how impractical it is in many cases, or its dissonance with reality.

In both cases, the aspect of subjectivity that they are both based on and try to overdo can be adequately explained as our subjective perceptions of objective truths, be they truths about truths or truths about morals.

Whoa.

With all due respect, Seeker, I didn't understand most of your statements, but yeah, I think I get what you're saying... in some way or another..... :D

Yeah, but say there are only 5 people plus me in the world and they all think that 2 + 2 = 7. That makes my view inferior than the other.

....wait, I kinda lost my point...
..... so, would you trust the view of the majority that 2+2=4, or is it just a matter of trusting your own point of view? It may be hard having a different point of view than everybody else, but in my opinion, that does not, you know.... make your statements completely wrong.

(agh. I feel dizzy)

lol :P

I'm not saying that having the different view is what makes you wrong. I mean, even if the whole world believed that 2 + 2 = 7 that wouldn't mean that 2 + 2 actually is 7; 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of what the wrold thinks.

So the truth of at least some statements (like 2 + 2 = 4) does not depend on how many people agree with it. Whether it is truth or not is independent of things like that.

Yes you're getting the gist of my arguments.

What is right for you is inherently whatever reduces pain and maximises pleasure. People often argue when i make this point that they do many unpleasant things, that they certainly don't enjoy because they have to. But this is inherently filling a need. Without completeing such a task, a burden is placed upon them that is immediately an indicator of pain. The advantage humans have is simply our ability to perceive imminent pain for later pleasure. The happiest people, you will alway find, fulfill all of their needs, or the vast majority, most of their lives.

Now in the case of a serious psychotic they have a need to feel and emote as the rest of us do on a daily basis. They however, are denied this pleasure, though it is still a need and resort, in many cases, to killing others to accomplish their need. In their case i argue, and in their minds, their actions are right. To the efficient progress of their society they are obviously wrong and require constant awareness. It is a common fact that psychopaths, in general terms with their happiness and wellbeing, when in prsion or mental institutions devoid of any way to emote are in a desperate state and seem less human than even their killing selves. In this case however for the benefit of the whole we must put a few to pain.

To be perfectly frank the wrong thing in this case would be to not fulfill their needs, or simply to not do whatever it is that allows them to emote. Keep in mind not all killers are psychopaths unable to emote or feel empathy and consequently most deaths are mistakes made by individuals that many come to see immediately after or in the prison system. Morals and needs i argue, Perc, are not objective but subjective. Entirely to the personality and make-up of the individual. This being said i obviously do not believe in the theory of "tabula rasa".

I may be wrong but i'm fairly certain Perc that i never said that truth is relative, and i believe Zhakeena used the word in a different sense also. But morals and needs certianly are.

Actually checking back on my post i did use the word truth and i must go back on that now. My use of the word truth is incorrect as you pointed out Perc.

Our perceptions of truth will certainly shape our beliefs and to some extent our morals. But not absolutely and in many cases the needs of our body that are exist absolutely will override any perception of an objective truth. In this case i speak of Kant and his belief that our perceptions are warped by our own imperfect qualities or filters you might say. Now while a person may and can change, it will only ever change according to the needs they adhere to and often change will occur only to further fulfill or indeed at all fulfill those needs.

In regards to fundamentalists my point was that it is the unshifting, concrete view of their absolute belief that causes so many of today's problems. The world if not allowed to bend quickly breaks and fundamentalists appear in every corner of society to differing harm and danger. My greatest example of this will always be Hitler, any psychologist of the modern era will attain that Hitler was not a psychopath he was simply a fundamentalist.

I love arguing with you Perc. :D

o_O

O_O

O_o

This is bizarre.

So on what grounds do we condemn them? I'm thinking it can't be in the name of "justice" since they haven't done anything wrong to warrant a just retribution.

And what good, then, is right or wrong? What use has it with that definition?

Hmmm....

Hmmm.

Perhaps. But unity at the cost of truth - particularly the very important ones - seems an unfair trade to me.

And he was wrong...

...which is another thing. In a world where all perspectives and opinions are equally valid, what basis do we have for condemning Hitler or his ideals without denying the equality of all perspectives?

And I with you :P

It's not so much a matter of right and wrong as it is for protection and safety for the rest of the species. By that logic anything that can harm me is wrong to my system of survival. Now if i get in the path of a psychopath it his right for him to remove me and wrong for me to be removed if you get my meaning. However my death would also be wrong to several others, more it seems reasonable to argue than wuld benefit from my death directly or indirectly. So for the benefit of the whole it is necessary to remove this person from society. Rehabilitation is the attempt to readjust the person's sense of what is right and wrong for them, but rehabilitation is not always possible.

It is my opinion that no person can ever technically commit a mistake. In each situation, I believe, a person will act according to the information they have of the people, setting and everything that involves that scenario. They then make a decision based upon that information. Let's say that decision then leads to something harmful, whereas another choice they could have made would have been beneficial. However at the time of decision, with the information they had, the choice they made was indubitably the right one. Regardless of the result in this example their action has not been incorrect. Next time if a similar issue occurs they have extra information (from past experience) and will make a different decision that is again right in that particular scenario.

I agree, but how many others do? The majority of my non-philisophical friends believe whole-heartedly that ignorance is bliss. I don't. But i suppose this comes down to a 1984 argument, and i don't want to get into that...yet.

This is my point, we don't. Hitler was not evil, he was not some terrible demon sent from the underworld or something similar (or so i believe being athiest anyway), he was a fundmentalist, living and acting according to those needs he found necessary to himself. Fundamentalism is considered by the psychological profession (generally, as all things are) to be irrational. It denies the existence of other possible proofs or truths which, it seems obvious, is highly irrational. Hitler had to be removed for the protection, benefit and safety of the majority of the world. This does not mean he should be condemned (the exception here are those terribly affected by his actions, emotional condemnation is different) for his beliefs.




[QUOTE]And I with you tongue{/QUOTE]

Strange isn't, i've been arguing alongside you for so long.

For the benefit of the whole? What determines what is for the benefit of the whole? Naturally, there are cases that are clear cut...but what's to say that Hitler's ethnic cleansing wasn't "best"?

And really, you're in essence saying "there is no such thing as right or wrong"?

Rehabilitation seems more geared to making people function better or not repeat their mistake than to readjust their perception of right and wrong. Obviously, there are cases where adjusting perceptions of right and wrong are necessary for proper functioning; but that is not always the case.

So because a choice was made it is right?

Why?

:) Does it matter who agrees? :P

o_O

The two are not mutually exclusive.

This argument only holds if you deny the traditional definitions of right and wrong, and good and evil. I can't see of any way to logically combat it; but practically speaking, I don't see how it can hold.

lol. yup :D

Well yes, isn't the benefit of the whole always the most difficult question to answer. Effectively it doesn't exist, i think that all humans are predominantly selfish (though not outrightly so, i'm not Ayn Rand) and so the idea of a benefit of the whole, in reality comes to the self's benefit. Exectly, Hitler's cleansing method may have been better for Germany, Hitler certainly believed it was, he believed it was right and so for him what made it wrong? The point is that for most of the people involved in this ordeal, and most of those observing it, view it as a crime and something that could harm them. So it is certainly worse for them. In the end the majority ruled and Germany was over ruled.

Essentially yes, but don't mistake this for me saying people shouldn't kill or rape. On the contrary i'd hope that most people don't, but if one does i will not persecute them and i will accept that at the time with the information available to that person, they were making the decision they believed was most correct for themselves. They should be kept away from society but it does not make them any more animalistic or barabaric or primal.

But in most cases i would argue it is. If i'm an armed robber and i get caught, i will then go through stages to stop me from doing so again. That will only happen if i see no benefit in robbing those banks. This in my mind can only be done by changing a perception of what is right and wrong or presenting such a choice as dangerous to that person. So yes it does not all come down to perceptions of right and wrong, you are correct.

However, it does come down to what the person believes is the best course of action for themselves, what is right for them and not wrong for them. That's the main point i'm trying to make.

I'm not really sure how to explain this. In retrospect the choice may have been wrong, that is certainly true, we have all made mistakes. But initially when the choice was made it was made according to a variety of factors, factors that led to our believing one path was beneficial while another was not or less beneficial. My point is that at the time of the choice, the mind makes the choice it sees as most correct, GIVEN THE INFORMATION IT HAS (sorry i can't be bothered bolding that)at the time the choice is made. Afterwards it may be seen as a mistake, because of some other factor the person did not know of or did not include at the time. If they had the information would the same choice have been made? It's not that making a choice is right, it's that the choice made is the best for the body at the time of the choice, given the information the mind has.

Ok fair enough, i'll give you that one. But remember that i'm athiest Perc, i don't believe in evil. For me fundamentalism is irrational thought, not evil. I think that's what a lot of our differences here will come down to. I simply don't believe that evil beings exist. That presumes, IMO, that we are a step above animals (since when do people consider animals evil, they are only seen as primal), that our actions are not inherently protective. But that's a matter we're not going to get anywhere on, i think.

I know, but knowing me, you know i have warped definitions of right and wrong. Why can't you see how it can possibly hold?



I wish we could get some others in on this...

This resopnse is extremely late. Sorry about that.

*sigh*

I see.

You assume, it seems, that the person did not already know these things.

And really, it just doesn't compute. I mean, I can understand your point, but the phrases "right for them" and "wrong for them" just amount to nonsense in my mind. It seems quite useless to use the words in that sense - or at all, for that matter - if you don't think that there is any such thing as right and wrong. Granted, they do grant an...approximation of your meaning, but when it comes to debating these issues, that's usually not enough.

But that's just really semantics.

Okay.

Aiight.

Murdering an innocent child isn't wrong, for example.

Zhakeena

Don't worry, you're not the only one. <_<

*glares at Seeker*

Seeker

I think I'm basically getting what Raist is saying. Let's put it this way, if you are given a choice to save an innocent child and army of soldiers that's protecting a town. Which one would you choose to save?

Edit: BTW!!! I'm an Uncle!!!!!!!! It's a boy!!!! :winner:

:D YOU'RE ALIVE!!!! :lol:

Man! All these long disappearing acts get us worried!!!

:D

Meh, I think that's a different issue. I really dunno! :(

Woot!

*throws a party*

And that reminds me. My sister gave birth to a daughter about a month ago. So I'm an uncle too!!!!!! :P

*invites his friends to your party*

*LOL* Baby bussiness and all that Perc. This is one of the free days I have. :lmao:

In a way, not really. Like Raist, a person's actions isn't driven by what's right and wrong. This is about fulffiling your needs. Will you be able to accept the fact that you have to sacrifce one over the other and vice versa? Will you feel good when you feed the hungry,shelter the homeless, cloth the naked? There's always something in it for you no matter how righteous it sounds.

Quoting someone I don't remember.(Ask Raist, maybe he knoews)

"Good and Evil are not the contending forces in the sentient mind. They are Love and Fear. What you know as "Good" is the joy of love . What you know as "Evil" is borne of fear. All else is contrivance of culture"

Basically saying, the joy that comes from love, and the need to quell one's fear is the fullfillment we acheive when we act out of "right" and "wrong". This is where I disagree with Raist because I do believe that we are a step above animals due to the fact that we are capable acting out of those two primordial force.

Now, here's a question. Am I making any sense??

*high fives Perc and breakdance*

Life is wonderful. :sad:

Heh eh.

Well, if duty calls, by all means, answer! :P

I don't think this is the issue here.

We're not really talking motivation for performing actions as much as the objective right or wrong of the action itself. It may well be that we are selfishly motivated to do a righteous act, but Raist is denying that there is such a thing as a "righteous act," not that a man can be motivated to act in the name of one.

Yeah, you are. More sense than he is. :P (half-joking :D)

:lol:

Yeah!

Unfortunately, I'm here in the Caribbean and she and her daughter and her husband are in the U.S. So I haven't met my niece yet :(.

But they're coming down for the summer! :D

It's hard to explain. (You and Raist have a habit of choosing the most complicated subject) My head hurts. @_@ Maybe he's referring to the fact that the standards of righteousness is only created by us and not really a universal truth that existed before?

I mean, if you choose to save an army of soldiers and everyone cheered for you because its the "righteous thing to do". Would you agree to it? What if one condemns you for killing an innocent child in order to save those army of soldiers? Would you still call your actions righteous??

In a way, I think righteousness is subjective and is base only to those who thinks you're doing the right thing. I don't know what Raist thinks about it though.

Trust me, it feels wonderful holding the kid. Just reminds you everything precious and wonderful in life. :fanboy:

Sheesh I don't even know where to begin in here. I agree with Raist though but I'm just gonna stop there becasue for one-this is too heavy for early in the mourning. And two my head hurts already.

But continue, this is interesting, it's painful but interesting. I'll come back when I'm in SUCH a good mood nothing will feel heavy on my heart. Though a day like that is unlikely anyway. You will see me again. Farewell.

Ahhhh....

Yeah, I think that's part of it.

Except, of course, that 'tisn't a "fact." :D

I really dunno. Tough questions. As a Christian, I suppose I'll do what the Holy Spirit leads :).

His view is something like that. I strongly disagree with it. :P

Hehe. Beginning to feel it's time for one of your own? ;) :P :lol:

*sigh* Damn, it seems i'm the only one with no kids popping into my arms. but CONGRATS, to both of you!

Ok where am i going with this issue, well i must admit i've had a change of attitude recently. Damn C.S Lewis and his damn Mere Christianity and his damn Moral Law.

OK. I'm at the stage where i believe there are certain moral laws, and that there are certain rules, or guidelines that should be adhered to, or that are adhered to by each culture and religion regardless of any other factors. For example, to quote Mere Christianity, if someone grabs the last seat on a train before we do we will always except that they were there first and leave it be. This is far different from a person removing me from the last seat remaining, that on the other hand would seem immoral and unethical, yet both are just as inconvenient. The same as we always do, as long as it does not disadvantage us to any great deal, the right thing by our friends, and by this i mean our true friends and not just acquaintances. And if we do not do these things then we feel a sense of wrong or shame. I can't deny that that feeling exists.

This doesn't mean though that each human action, i believe, is not driven by some benefit to ourselves. We still do nothing unless it can or will benefit us in some way. This is true regardless of whether a Moral Law is acting upon us. I help the friend out so as he may help me out in the future as much as because of this moral law. There is still always something in it for us. And Perc there are still cases where i believe what is right and wrong can be relative to the person.

As Shroud said in the case of the soldiers and the child, what is right and wrong there will come down to the individual, and the Moral Law can't seem to influence that decision, except perhaps by removing the choice of doing nothing. Now that i think of that, it's actually closely related to Kantian ethics, as flawed as they are.

My main problem with a Moral Law though, or a law which exists that influences us to do the "right" thing, has to do with psychopaths. I know i've discussed this with you Perc, and you said that Mere Christianity covers it, so i'll wait before i go into this in depth because i'm sure Lewis will have some theory behind it, but for Shroud and others here. A Psychopath does not view the world in the same way we do, they do not see humans as humans and do not feel emotions or empathy. (interestingly enouhg most con artists are psychotic to a degree, it explains a lot :D ) So if i get in the way of what a psychopath wishes to do, he only sees me as an obstacle, thus he removes me. That is not the same as murder in his eyes, so how can they be chained by a Moral Law? But i'll repeat that Lewis writes something on this in Mere Christianity, so i'll leave that there.

Yet the more i think about this in some ways Perc the more i think that perhaps that's not exactly how it works. Let's say i hear someone scream and KNOW that that person is in danger, it is no hoax or similar such thing. Now i will feel compelled to help that person, i should also feel concerned for my own safety and perhaps think of just leaving. The question i'm asking, is whether you help out, so as to remain a "respected" member of society and not have the ridicule of the public or because you actually wish to help the person. But that does sound flat doesn't it. Hmmm i need to think more on this.

SHROUD! Where have you been Sir! It's been far too long. Good to see you back here. You know us Shroud, we're always going to be asking the harder questions.

And once again congrats to both of you on new relatives!