It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why is salvation important and why do people care or don't care about morality

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
His case for objective morality does have a presupposition built in, but it's hardly arbitrary.


The problem with being objective is all "good" objectivity is subjectively determined. One person's objective science is another person's junk science.

Science seems to me to be very bounded to the idea of using language like mathematics to represent HOW nature behaves. Science really doesn't answer any "why" questions. I think it's bit disingenuous to think the "why" of nature is answered by the "how" which a lot scientists do.

However, I do like your post as a way of answering why morality is important. I'm just not that fond of the idea that science is objective therefore you do not need religion is a stretch for me. But I am trying to appreciate your position.




posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Honestly, did you watch that video fully or read the link I provided of the transcript in its entirety?

I only ask because I feel most people that argue against Sam's case, and that video, have not actually watched it. I imagine most here have not, nor read my link of the transcript.

I ask this because if we are to have a discussion about it, I need to know you at least are on my page.
edit on 20-11-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


I have a general conspiracy theory that the teachings of Jesus were rewritten to serve the purpose of perpetuating the legitimacy of government by monarchy. I generally think the Bible was written by men in order to preserve the power of the monarchy. So I don't trust the Bible.

That is a very interesting theory. What leads you to believe that? According to some modern authorities the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were dated from about 150 CE. to about 250 CE.. We have 13 sources of Matthew, 1 source of Mark, 10 sources of Luke and 7 sources of John. All 31 sources are from different locations and dates. That does not include the other 23 letters of the NT.. So after 250 CE. someone collected those 31 sources and had them rewritten to keep people under their control? But you have no idea when this great forgery took place?

The entire NT. as to this date was found as being 350 CE. and written in Greek. So let us assume that all of the NT. was involved in this coverup but still for the sake of the gospels we will take those 31 sources of between 125 CE. and 150 CE. and use them as the main forgery. We now have a window of between 250 CE. and 350 CE. as being when the forgery took place. Within that 100 years is when the NT gospels were changed. About 1716 years ago. Now all one has to do is realize who was in power to do this forgery in 300 CE.? Why did it not work? Name me one world power that used this forged NT. as a controlling tool?



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
"Objective morality exists"

"No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion"

Before you say that you should have watched the video that was linked in that post as it makes a fairly strong case for objective morality. From Sam Harris. It's about 20 mins. It's rather good.

A 'fairly strong case" fails beside it's clear refutation!
If YOU want to take the pro side in a discussion, I'd be happy to school ya'! *__-
It seems that I have the ability to think for myself, and there is no cogent argument, whatsoever, for the existence of an 'objective' anything!
Every Perspective is unique, and is an integral feature of that which is perceived.
If anything, that means that all Perspectives are 'subjectively perceived' and understood.

Such delusional trickery/dishonesty is how 'believers', those engaged in the sinsanity of 'morality', excuse their behavior; "everyone does it/it's Universal"!
No, it is not!
There are those who do not 'judge'; there are those who actually Love, for instance...

Again, see the definition of 'morality'.



edit on 21-11-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
"Objective morality exists"

"No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion"

Before you say that you should have watched the video that was linked in that post as it makes a fairly strong case for objective morality. From Sam Harris. It's about 20 mins. It's rather good.

A 'fairly strong case" fails beside it's clear refutation!
If YOU want to take the pro side in a discussion, I'd be happy to school ya'! *__-
It seems that I have the ability to think for myself, and there is no cogent argument, whatsoever, for the existence of an 'objective' anything!
Every Perspective is unique, and is an integral feature of that which is perceived.
If anything, that means that all Perspectives are 'subjectively perceived' and understood.

Such delusional trickery/dishonesty is how 'believers', those engaged in the sinsanity of 'morality', excuse their behavior; "everyone does it/it's Universal"!
No, it is not!
There are those who do not 'judge'; there are those who actually Love, for instance...

Again, see the definition of 'morality'.


You comment that there is no cogent argument for the existence of 'objective' anything made me think of a funny story I read once:

One day two monks were in a garden arguing subjectivity versus objectivity. The Zen master hearing them arguing approached the two students. The Zen master asked, "that rock over there, does that exist inside your head or outside your head?". One of the monks looked up at the Zen master and replied, "Well, our religious bible tells us that all truth is subjective so that rock only exists inside my head." At which point the Zen master replies, "Then it must be pretty heavy all day walking around with that rock in your head!"



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
That is a very interesting theory. What leads you to believe that? According to some modern authorities the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were dated from about 150 CE. to about 250 CE.. We have 13 sources of Matthew, 1 source of Mark, 10 sources of Luke and 7 sources of John. All 31 sources are from different locations and dates. That does not include the other 23 letters of the NT.. So after 250 CE. someone collected those 31 sources and had them rewritten to keep people under their control? But you have no idea when this great forgery took place?


I just cannot imagine you actually believe the church doesn't control what is allowed to be in the Bible. The teachings of Jesus were antithetical to the existence of monarchy. I doubt Jesus was crucified over splitting the finer hairs of church doctrine. It wasn't that long ago when the King was actually thought to be God. A king needs two things. First is obedience to his authority. And second, lots of happy slaves. I imagine the "great forgery" started happening as soon as it possibly could.


originally posted by: Seede
The entire NT. as to this date was found as being 350 CE. and written in Greek. So let us assume that all of the NT. was involved in this coverup but still for the sake of the gospels we will take those 31 sources of between 125 CE. and 150 CE. and use them as the main forgery. We now have a window of between 250 CE. and 350 CE. as being when the forgery took place. Within that 100 years is when the NT gospels were changed. About 1716 years ago. Now all one has to do is realize who was in power to do this forgery in 300 CE.? Why did it not work? Name me one world power that used this forged NT. as a controlling tool?


An omnipotent God doesn't need anything from us. The idea of worshiping authority is needed by monarchy. A religion of authority worshiping obedient slaves serves the king. The king needs to be worship. It would make sense for the king to make sure the religion of the land preserves monarchy not tears it down. It just seems to me an omnipotent God would not base a religion on authority worship. It's hard to imagine what would be valuable to an omnipotent God that would be the basis of a religion.

If God wanted authority worshiping slaves he would have created us as automatons incapable of free-will. It seems our creator finds us more interesting with having the ability to make choices. God seems to be pro-choice because based on human experiments there is no amount of evil God will not tolerate in order to preserve our free-will. Maybe what God is interested in seeing is all the choices we are capable of making.

Given an omnipotent God, what would God possibly want from us that he doesn't already have? Or, maybe I have it all wrong and being a good slave is the path to salvation with God and the true purpose of our lives. So to live a moral life means to listen to who is in charge with reverence.


edit on 21-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Perhaps salvation is simply a motivational social construct in genetic memory. It serves as a way to accept failure and start a new but, authority can exploit a survival response.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: dfnj2015
Honestly, did you watch that video fully or read the link I provided of the transcript in its entirety?


Sam Harris has no distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. The idea that subjectivity could be determined objectively is completely nonsensical. It would be me like saying you can't have good science without praying. All objectivity is subjectively determined. All "good" science is chosen to be "good" by a subjective judgement. We just "know" what "junk" science is when we see it.

Objective morality may be the worse thing I've ever heard in my whole life. Honestly, if scientific measurements determine your moral decisions then you will end up with the worse possible dystopia imaginable. People will be murdered because it makes sense to strengthen the population.

He paints or hints that religion as kind of a cause of the what is not morally good in the world. And scientist are better at deciding what is "right" and what is "wrong" through objective rationality. Well, if religion did not exist at all in the world we would have just as many wars, murders, and unnecessary evil. Religion did not invent or create human nature. And if you think scientists are immuned to human nature you haven't seen two graduate students compete with each other for funding. Religion is not perfect because people are not perfect. Science is done by people.

I'm not sure what Sam is proposing is going to be an improvement even though it may seem to make perfect sense. But his entire argument for objective morality is based a set of non-sequesters. It doesn't follow that his examples of "immoral" behavior support his premise that what is moral can be decided rationally. Yes, his examples did show some really immoral behaviors but that doesn't mean anything. It's like Sam is pretending he can make good moral decisions, which many times require empathy, in rational way. He's pretending subjectivity doesn't exist. It's not true. Junk science is junk science and many times can't be decided rationally. What papers get published and which papers do not is purely subjective.

Oh my God what Sam is saying is like crossing the stream in Ghost-busters. Bad things happen when you cross the streams.


edit on 22-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
"Objective morality exists"

"No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion"

Before you say that you should have watched the video that was linked in that post as it makes a fairly strong case for objective morality. From Sam Harris. It's about 20 mins. It's rather good.

A 'fairly strong case" fails beside it's clear refutation!
If YOU want to take the pro side in a discussion, I'd be happy to school ya'! *__-
It seems that I have the ability to think for myself, and there is no cogent argument, whatsoever, for the existence of an 'objective' anything!
Every Perspective is unique, and is an integral feature of that which is perceived.
If anything, that means that all Perspectives are 'subjectively perceived' and understood.

Such delusional trickery/dishonesty is how 'believers', those engaged in the sinsanity of 'morality', excuse their behavior; "everyone does it/it's Universal"!
No, it is not!
There are those who do not 'judge'; there are those who actually Love, for instance...

Again, see the definition of 'morality'.


You comment that there is no cogent argument for the existence of 'objective' anything made me think of a funny story I read once:

One day two monks were in a garden arguing subjectivity versus objectivity. The Zen master hearing them arguing approached the two students. The Zen master asked, "that rock over there, does that exist inside your head or outside your head?". One of the monks looked up at the Zen master and replied, "Well, our religious bible tells us that all truth is subjective so that rock only exists inside my head." At which point the Zen master replies, "Then it must be pretty heavy all day walking around with that rock in your head!"

Your story reminds me of someone, I forget who, attempting to refute Zeno's logical proof that 'motion' is impossible, by walking away.
No, it really doesn't refute anything, but it was sufficient for the 'common mind'...

The only point of the 'subjective/objective' discussion is emotional/ego (as I have said), not rational/logic.
Science, once upon a time, had the 'objective observer' as an ideal.
They were never able to achieve that ideal, and quantum mechanics demonstrated why.
It is impossible.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
OP is brilliant...

Yet... I believe he/she has not read the whole book.... properly.

Hell Is Real. And Its A Dreaded Torment. And There Is No Escape. Jesus... May Be The Path. But Always In All Things You Are The Traveler. Dont Fret. In God... You Find... When You Are Dead.... Blindness... Deafness... And Muteness... So That You Sit In Peace... OBLIVIOUS To The Suffering And Torment Of The Others. You Have But Ask Those Three Wishes.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pinocchio
OP is brilliant...

Yet... I believe he/she has not read the whole book.... properly.

Hell Is Real. And Its A Dreaded Torment. And There Is No Escape. Jesus... May Be The Path. But Always In All Things You Are The Traveler. Dont Fret. In God... You Find... When You Are Dead.... Blindness... Deafness... And Muteness... So That You Sit In Peace... OBLIVIOUS To The Suffering And Torment Of The Others. You Have But Ask Those Three Wishes.


I don't need any wishes because my faith in God is stronger than yours. An all-powerful all-loving God would not allow anyone to suffer in Hell. People who believe in Hell are just projecting their own personal hate and desire to see other people suffer onto God. And since you only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like in yourself, each of us is our own gatekeeper into Heaven.


edit on 22-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Is this a discussion of contengency or non contegency? The answer allows this discussion to be more valid and sensical.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TAECOLE7
Is this a discussion of contengency or non contegency? The answer allows this discussion to be more valid and sensical.




a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.


Is your questions connected with Synchronicity?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

No, just rather the subject was built on one's view of a case or .the understanding of the case.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss



The only point of the 'subjective/objective' discussion is emotional/ego (as I have said), not rational/logic.


From my point of view it is complete opposite. Subjective is emotional and cares about what you are feeling regardless if there are measurements that prove you/me wrong. It is all ego. While objective is putting your/my emotions aside and ego aside to follow the measurement regardless of previous indoctrination.



They were never able to achieve that ideal, and quantum mechanics demonstrated why. It is impossible

People who say things are impossible will never search for understanding keeping themselves subjectively blind instead of gaining insight.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Those authorities are speculating.

The first author of the primitive faith outside the New Testament was Justin Martyr, who never mentions or quotes from any of the four and uses ''Memoirs of the apostles" as he calls it.

The Oldest Bible is roughly 4th century, maybe mid third and Justin lived before that, way before that, and mentioned Marcion but not Paul or the Gospels.

Next is Iranaeus who is the first to mention the four Gospels and Paul si obviously they got Paul from Marcion and wrote the Gospels later.
edit on 26-11-2016 by SethTsaddik because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join