Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Of course logical deductions need an axiom but they do not need emotions. Emotions are actually notorious for distorting reason and should be minimized in any logical deduction. You keep referencing different, logical conclusions but I have yet to see a single one where one logical conclusion was more logical than another. I invite you to provide me with such a case where the logic is not distorted too much by emotions (which are considered illogical and, thus, should not be included in a logical argument) and the answers are both logically sound, where one is not more rational than the other.

 

 

And Shievien, I agree. Inaction is an action and choosing not to stop something when you can (if you can, reasonably) should be a crime. Depending on the circumstances, naturally.

The emotion does not have to come from the person making the logical deductions. If there is any other human involved *their* emotions have to be taken into account as a variable, otherwise the conclusion drawn will differ from the actual progression of events.

 

Also, as you yourself have admitted, it is impossible for any human to be entirely emotionless. If A (humans) cannot be B (emotionless), and C (logic) cannot be achieved without B (lack of emotional input), then A (humans) cannot attain C (pure logic).

 

That said you are failing to notice the problem I was attempting to point out in your arguments - namely that you assert that humans are creatures of emotion, and then go on to say that the only correct way of looking at the world is to ignore emotion entirely. Doing so is actively ignoring a variable in any argument, which can only ever lead to drawing an incorrect conclusion.

 

To demonstrate a point on how conclusions can differ depending on which variables are accounted for:

 

Person X knows that point A is 10 miles away from point B. The speed limit on the road is 30 miles per hour. Person X logically concludes that it would take 20 minutes to get from point A to point B. This is simple mathematics. For an appointment at point B at 11:00 person X therefore leaves point A at 10:40.

 

Person Y knows in addition that the 10 miles between point A and point B contains 6 intersections. Understanding this, person Y concludes that probability suggests they are likely to stop at at least 3 of them. Person Y would therefore depart point A at 10:30 in order to arrive at point B for an 11:00 appointment.

 

Person X made a completely logical deduction, and came to a completely logical conclusion based on the information they had available. Person Y, understanding a greater number of variables, came to a different, likewise logical, conclusion. Whether person X arrives at their appointment on time now comes down to their luck in arriving at every intersection on a green light. Person Y, on the other hand, is unlikely to be late because they understood all of the variables involved. Person X was not illogical, nor did they come to an illogical conclusion, but because they failed to take into account all the variables the end result is not the one they expected.

 

You can see the difference, yes? Variables effect outcome. By failing to take emotions into account you become person X in this example - the conclusions you draw may be logical, but the emotions of other people mean that the outcome of your dealings with them will not be the one you expect.

 

This can then be taken further. You have, again, said yourself that chaos and instability in a group or society is bad. If a person fails to take into account the emotions of those around them then there is a high probability of their actions *causing* said chaos and instability - because the outcome of their actions will not necesarily be the outcome they predicted.

 

One cannot, therefore, completely ignore emotion when dealing with humans - because the emotions of other humans *will* effect their behaviour.

 

I would also like to point out a logical conclusion that can be drawn from some of the statements you have made.

 

Morality aligns with rationality. If something is irrational, it is amoral.

Humans are not rational creatures. Nothing in our history points to us being rational.

 

I can therefore conclude from these two statements that you believe nothing humans do can be considered moral.

 

I would also like to quote something else you have said during this discussion

God (Or the concept of him) always struck me as a major ass.

I find it interesting that, while you are now falling back onto defending yourself with 'logical' reasoning and arguments, you have posted things that are pure emotional reaction.

 

Edit to add: You hvae also said this

Athiesm is technically a religion. Not an organized one, mind you, but a religion.

And I therefore find it quite odd that you were recently denying that you deified logic.

Edited by TikindiDragon

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going in the direction of epistemological nihilism, which is what an atheistic worldview is forced into.

 

(Edited to make more clear my fix): Atheist's just someone who does not believe that any god exists.

 

I find these discussions - "but you can't really know that you're valid" - to be ridiculous, because they have no end result. There is no point in them. It affects nothing. It has no basing in reality. We have to make some base assumption in order to progress, but I don't see any point in saying that because we made that base assumption that everything we've done is invalid, or can't be really proven. So what's the purpose of saying that? Does it matter? We can't move forward without it. Also, what you're saying has very little actual place in reality behind it. It's like playing the ultimate game of "what if". I have plenty enough information to make it almost beyond reason that I exist, and that I can trust what I see.

 

Why does having a god that may or may not exist fix whatever you're saying?

 

 

Your exposition of how you use senses and reasoning to arrive at knowledge is great, but there's still not explanation for its validity within your worldview. You're relying on your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning. Your basis for knowledge collapses in circularity, but that doesn't sit well with you because you have knowledge, right? You know that you're seeing things. You know that you're thinking. I would even say that contrary to centuries of silly existential philosophy that you know you exist. You just don't know how you can know those things.

I do know how I can know these things. I am relying on the fact that my eyes perceive and my brain decodes a particular wavelength as the colour blue in order to call the sky what we call the colour blue, which we only call blue because my eyes and my brain decode that particular wavelength as the colour blue. Everything is just a set of physical reactions. My knowledge comes from a series of physical reactions, provided by outside stimulus. I can then relate and compare that input with other input, to provide output (making connections, new ideas, et cetera). I know things because my brain has stored the previous input, which can be brought up again by new situations with similar or linked input.

 

I think it's fairly obvious that I need to rely on my senses to know that I am sensing something. I can't do anything else.

 

And I'll ask again; what is the non-lala land importance of this discussion?

 

Within a world of chance that lacks transcendent standards, you can't know anything.

I can very certainly know things, not even using any assumptions. I don't need a standard to compare myself to, least of all transcendent; we make our own standards. There isn't some ultimate blue I need to see, know, and memorize in order to know what other blues look like. I don't need to know that ultimate blue in order to say "that green is not blue." Blues that aren't that ultimate blue are still blue. I know stuff based on the fact that I know stuff. If I didn't know stuff (i.e. I was dead, or didn't exist), then I wouldn't know stuff. The presence of fire confirms the presence of fire. What if there were no fire? Then there is no fire.

 

How do you know that your god's knowledge confirms your knowledge? How do you know that you have knowledge, and that your god is just a figment of the imagination? Why would having some god's opinion suddenly confirm that you have knowledge? How can you do the former if you don't even know if your god does exist or not, in the realm of reality?

 

Just so I'm making sure I don't misrepresent you, what is your epistemological foundation? How are you able to have knowledge?

I am able to have knowledge based on my knowledge that I have knowledge. I know I can have knowledge, because I can take that assumption and test it until a point where it is reasonable to confirm, or, if you will, assume, that I do have knowledge.

 

I can tell you the fire is there, because the fire is there. Prove it? I can throw something in the fire. I can show you how the fire raises the temperature of the surrounding environment. I can show you that there is a light source the area that the fire is located in. I can show you the smoke, and measure what happens to it when I douse it with water or put more wood in it.

Ah yes, it could still not be fire. It could still not exist. But with each new level of confirmation, it becomes more and more reasonable that it does to the point that it is almost baseless to assume that it doesn't, or that it safe enough to assume that it does. That's how science works, and I think it's safe enough to assume that I have enough proof that I do exist. Trying to debate the point that I can't observe proof, or that all the proof I'm seeing doesn't actually exist, is bordering on the line of ridiculousness. It isn't worth anyone's time to do that, because we would get nowhere.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post

An atheist view is simply that we trust in things that we can observe and prove.

It is not "atheist view" - there is no such thing as the singular view of people who don't happen to believe in the existence of god(s). It is the materialist and ... now there was some other, more defining word for it, but my memory fails me at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
It is not "atheist view" - there is no such thing as the singular view of people who don't happen to believe in the existence of god(s). It is the materialist and ... now there was some other, more defining word for it, but my memory fails me at this point.

Yeah, I had gone back to correct it. I'll just remove that entirely, seeing as it wasn't clear enough.

Share this post


Link to post

I highly suggest looking up quantum fluxes--they are currently the popular belief of how energy first transformed into matter, or something like that. I don't know much about the subject myself, but from what I do know, it seems very likely.

Share this post


Link to post

The emotion does not have to come from the person making the logical deductions. If there is any other human involved *their* emotions have to be taken into account as a variable, otherwise the conclusion drawn will differ from the actual progression of events.

 

Also, as you yourself have admitted, it is impossible for any human to be entirely emotionless. If A (humans) cannot be B (emotionless), and C (logic) cannot be achieved without B (lack of emotional input), then A (humans) cannot attain C (pure logic).

 

That said you are failing to notice the problem I was attempting to point out in your arguments - namely that you assert that humans are creatures of emotion, and then go on to say that the only correct way of looking at the world is to ignore emotion entirely. Doing so is actively ignoring a variable in any argument, which can only ever lead to drawing an incorrect conclusion.

 

To demonstrate a point on how conclusions can differ depending on which variables are accounted for:

 

Person X knows that point A is 10 miles away from point B. The speed limit on the road is 30 miles per hour. Person X logically concludes that it would take 20 minutes to get from point A to point B. This is simple mathematics. For an appointment at point B at 11:00 person X therefore leaves point A at 10:40.

 

Person Y knows in addition that the 10 miles between point A and point B contains 6 intersections. Understanding this, person Y concludes that probability suggests they are likely to stop at at least 3 of them. Person Y would therefore depart point A at 10:30 in order to arrive at point B for an 11:00 appointment.

 

Person X made a completely logical deduction, and came to a completely logical conclusion based on the information they had available. Person Y, understanding a greater number of variables, came to a different, likewise logical, conclusion. Whether person X arrives at their appointment on time now comes down to their luck in arriving at every intersection on a green light. Person Y, on the other hand, is unlikely to be late because they understood all of the variables involved. Person X was not illogical, nor did they come to an illogical conclusion, but because they failed to take into account all the variables the end result is not the one they expected.

 

You can see the difference, yes? Variables effect outcome. By failing to take emotions into account you become person X in this example - the conclusions you draw may be logical, but the emotions of other people mean that the outcome of your dealings with them will not be the one you expect.

 

This can then be taken further. You have, again, said yourself that chaos and instability in a group or society is bad. If a person fails to take into account the emotions of those around them then there is a high probability of their actions *causing* said chaos and instability - because the outcome of their actions will not necesarily be the outcome they predicted.

 

One cannot, therefore, completely ignore emotion when dealing with humans - because the emotions of other humans *will* effect their behaviour.

 

I would also like to point out a logical conclusion that can be drawn from some of the statements you have made.

 

 

 

 

I can therefore conclude from these two statements that you believe nothing humans do can be considered moral.

 

I would also like to quote something else you have said during this discussion

 

I find it interesting that, while you are now falling back onto defending yourself with 'logical' reasoning and arguments, you have posted things that are pure emotional reaction.

 

Edit to add: You hvae also said this

 

And I therefore find it quite odd that you were recently denying that you deified logic.

That is a good example. However, it isn't exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Person A did not have the information of person B about the street lights. This is another set of data that, had person A been exposed to, should have logically altered his time schedule to leave earlier to accomodate for it. Thus, this is not an example of two people with the same data and information coming to seperate, equally rational answers.

 

It is also not an example of why emotions should be placed in logical arguments. Emotions are illogical so putting them in a logical argument would be illogical. The addition of the new point is not an illogical data set so, thus, it cannot be compared to emotions.

 

Let's take childbirth. There is a mother who discovers that her fetus does not have a brain and will never develop one. Logic says that this fetus will not form into a functional member of society, will most likely die within the first few days and will be a waste of resources while it is alive. Logic says get rid of it.

Emotions come in with the silly notion that perhaps a miracle will happen and the baby will turn out alright. It doesn't have a brain so it won't be able to see, hear, touch, taste or smell. But emotions say give birth to it. This is illogical but overpowers the system and many choose to keep the fetus and give birth to it in hopes it will turn out okay. This is a waste and we can see emotions corrupting the logical system and skewing it away from rationality.

This is why emotions should not be counted as a variable. They ultimately interfere and overpower the other, logical variables in the dataset and usually lead to irrational decisions.

 

I can therefore conclude from these two statements that you believe nothing humans do can be considered moral.

 

I would also like to quote something else you have said during this discussion

 

I said that humans are illogical but we can demonstrate logical. By my standards (Morals vary from person to person, mine happens to be based upon logical arguments), humans are capable of moral acts when they think logically and rationally.

 

I find it interesting that, while you are now falling back onto defending yourself with 'logical' reasoning and arguments, you have posted things that are pure emotional reaction.

I recognize that I do have emotional reactions, however this label of this god being an ass is not based purely upon an emotional reaction, but rather his supposedly being omniscient and permitting slavery, human sacrifice, etc. These things are logically quite condemnable and characteristics of a person or creature that should be scorned. That is, he has the traits of an ass.

 

 

 

Edit to add: You hvae also said this

 

And I therefore find it quite odd that you were recently denying that you deified logic.

"The terms "atheist" (lack of belief in any gods) and "agnostic" (belief in the unknowability of the existence of gods), though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings, do not by definition mean the opposite of "religious". There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic. The true opposite of "religious" is the word "irreligious". Irreligion describes an absence of any religion; antireligion describes an active opposition or aversion toward religions in general." Source

Athiesm in itself is a religion does not mean you worship a god or gods. It is a set of beliefs that relates humans to the universe. Lack of a god or creator is a belief that relates humans to the universe.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone hates on me for being an atheist. Well, I was since I was 6. Big deal.

Share this post


Link to post

This dragon raiser doesn't think that's an acceptable age to make such mature decisions, but whatever.

 

Also, I like how this conversation is going! Really sharpens the mind. He says, not contributing anything to the topic at hand in any way, shape, or form at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Everyone hates on me for being an atheist. Well, I was since I was 6. Big deal.

Uhm, well, I think that's a bit young to be firm in anything you believe, mainly cause plausible/logical formation of questioning and the like really isn't something a 6 year old could do.

Share this post


Link to post

I dunno, it seems old enough to realize that a certain religion doesn't really make sense.

 

I recall myself being very young and saying things that my parents had to "correct" me on because they were wrong according to our religion, and thinking that it was silly that they way that I was wrong because they couldn't know for sure. (Most notably the idea of "Well, I guess when we die we find out who was right" and I was told "No, we know that we're right already" and I always thought that was weird because how could we know? God himself wasn't literally telling us that.)

 

 

I want to say I was less than 8 myself, since around 8 was when we moved and I'm preeeeetty sure I recall saying that in the kitchen of our old house.

 

So, even since I was quite young I myself wasn't firmly religious and didn't understand it. I think that's what gave me so much anxiety and ultimately helped me break from trying to follow a religion--I just never was able to have it "click" and it never felt right. I always questioned it too much to be a good little follower when I found holes in it. Even from childhood.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but there's a difference between finding a plot hole that doesn't sit right and completely denouncing something. While I'm all for throwing off the shackles of religon, I seriously disagree that such a conclusion can be made around the same time you're still learning basic addition and subtraction. Your story literally says that. At a young age, religon didn't click with you, and later on you became fully atheist. The other person is straight up claiming he full on denounced religon at age six.

Edited by PrinceVertigo

Share this post


Link to post

Uhm, well, I think that's a bit young to be firm in anything you believe, mainly cause plausible/logical formation of questioning and the like really isn't something a 6 year old could do.

I wasn't 6 but I was 7 or so when I first became interested in religion. My parents were not atheist at the time, but were simply too busy to bring my brother or I to church and work overtook religion for them. My friends, however, had a variety of religious beliefs. I followed my best friend to church on several occasions, had my parents buy me storybook versions of holy books that I could read and had my other friends take me to their religious meetings. By the time I was 9, I had been exposed to Jewish, Christian, Buddhist and Hindu stories, as well as a variety of mythologies. And I looked at all of them, looked at my parents and decided that religion wasn't for me. I was formally agnostic since I couldn't decide if I knew a god existed or not (Or which one, for that matter). But that quickly changed over to atheism within a few months.

 

So I was exploring by 7, questioning by 9 and not believing soon after that. And even though I was young, I still think that my decision was acceptable given the fact that I had done my research on the topic and explored it until I was able to strongly explain WHY I had my beliefs. Denouncing something is one thing. Explaining why is another.

Share this post


Link to post
That is a good example. However, it isn't exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Person A did not have the information of person B about the street lights. This is another set of data that, had person A been exposed to, should have logically altered his time schedule to leave earlier to accomodate for it. Thus, this is not an example of two people with the same data and information coming to seperate, equally rational answers.

 

It is also not an example of why emotions should be placed in logical arguments. Emotions are illogical so putting them in a logical argument would be illogical. The addition of the new point is not an illogical data set so, thus, it cannot be compared to emotions.

 

Let's take childbirth. There is a mother who discovers that her fetus does not have a brain and will never develop one. Logic says that this fetus will not form into a functional member of society, will most likely die within the first few days and will be a waste of resources while it is alive. Logic says get rid of it.

Emotions come in with the silly notion that perhaps a miracle will happen and the baby will turn out alright. It doesn't have a brain so it won't be able to see, hear, touch, taste or smell. But emotions say give birth to it. This is illogical but overpowers the system and many choose to keep the fetus and give birth to it in hopes it will turn out okay. This is a waste and we can see emotions corrupting the logical system and skewing it away from rationality.

This is why emotions should not be counted as a variable. They ultimately interfere and overpower the other, logical variables in the dataset and usually lead to irrational decisions.

Incorrect - emotions change the bahviour of the people around you. If you fail to take emotions into account as a variable then your predictions of what people *should* do will never match up to what they *actually* do.

 

You are trying to keep your logical judgements in the purely theoretical sphere - I am pointing out to you that in the actual, practical world life doesn't function that way. Not only that, but by trying to make life function that way you would actually be creating the kind of chaos in the herd that you have said is the ultimate in undesireable.

 

Take your example of the mother. Let us say that the medical profession has acted purely logically and terminated the fetus for her. They also logically reason that the woman is perfectly healthy, and capable of bearing further children, and discharge her home with no further support.

 

However the woman, being unable to properly mourn a child she was never able to hold, commits sucide on what should have been the anniversary of the child's birthday.

 

If you applied logic, and did not take the woman's emotions into account as a variable, you would have said that, being healthy and capable of bearing more children, she should have been fine after the termination of the malformed child. If her emotions *had* been taken into account as a variable one would have realised that she required counselling to help her through the emotional process. It can, further, be argued that if the woman had been allowed to hold her child she would have had an easier time coping with it's loss.

 

As you, yourself, have said humans are not rational creatures. Attempting to impose pure logic and rationality on the other humans around you only serves to alienate them.

 

Incidentally I am not sure wether or not you realise it, but you are coming across with an extremely holier-than-thou attitude. You have stated that you consider logic to be the only moral choice, you have stated that you consider humans in general illogical, and you follow this by stating that any emotions lead to irrational decisions. Wether you mean to or not, the conclusion that most people *will* drawn from that information is that you look down upon the rest of the human race for being illogical and emotional and that you hold yourself as being more worthy because you eschew that.

 

It is not a nice attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Uhm, well, I think that's a bit young to be firm in anything you believe, mainly cause plausible/logical formation of questioning and the like really isn't something a 6 year old could do.

I was gifted. And everyone is over 13, right? Ok, that's also the age I stopped believing in Santa. I never had childhood innocence, and sometimes I wish I wasn't gifted. This isn't a brag, it's the reason for my beliefs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Just as a general bit of advice; religious debates that revolve around the notion 'you weren't there, you can't know!' generally get nowhere. We were not there for either a big badass boom or a great sky fairy shaping everything, so trying to use a lack of direct sensory observation to debunk theism OR a scientific approach to understanding origins is kind of moot.

 

-streaks through thread-

Share this post


Link to post
Just as a general bit of advice; religious debates that revolve around the notion 'you weren't there, you can't know!' generally get nowhere. We were not there for either a big badass boom or a great sky fairy shaping everything, so trying to use a lack of direct sensory observation to debunk theism OR a scientific approach to understanding origins is kind of moot.

 

-streaks through thread-

Very much this. I don't believe in any kind of god; I can't prove (scientifically or empirically) that there isn't one, but no-one can prove there is, either.

 

We are all entitled to believe in whatever we like. Faith is not a matter of PROOF. Faith just IS. There are a few things held as tenets of faith that can be "disproved" (I don't choose to list them all, as I am VERY much against antagonising those with other faiths but transubstantiation would be the big one.) So what ? If that is something someone genuinely believes in, that is fair enough. If the ultimate result of my non-belief means I wake up in hell after I die - fair enough; I will do my level best to use that experience to come back here and say "hey guys; they were RIGHT" xd.png I already have a deal with a believer friend that whoever dies first will come back and let the other one know what it's all about ! (I DO believe in life after death, though am still considered exactly what that might mean ! but there are too many coincidences involving dead people for me not to believe in it !)

 

I believe in quite a lot of supernatural things - just not a god. But the ONLY issue I have with religion is when people try to use it to make laws affecting "non-subscribers" That is NOT OK. I'm not wild about proselytism either. But for that reason - I never see the point of a thread like this. No-one will be converted as a result, and all such threads seem to do is foment discord. I haven't seen anyone become convinced of anything in all the (HOW many ??) pages of this,

Share this post


Link to post

Not only that, but by trying to make life function that way you would actually be creating the kind of chaos in the herd that you have said is the ultimate in undesireable.

Ooh, ooh, pick me!

 

Yeah, logic without emotion = Chaos. I am proof enough of that. I don't know how you can come from such a similar position from me and end up so opposite. But my attempts at removing emotion and making decisions solely based on logic have landed me where I am

 

And honestly, morals are inherently emotional. Morals are what stop us from only doing the logical thing and allow us to listen to our emotions and do what's right. That's why they make no sense to me. Logic is worthless without emotion (Listen to her, being all hypocritical, isn't she just so cute? Yeah, don't worry, I'll change my mind in like ten minutes when I don't feel so much of this idiotic regret)

Share this post


Link to post

Ooh, ooh, pick me!

 

Yeah, logic without emotion = Chaos. I am proof enough of that. I don't know how you can come from such a similar position from me and end up so opposite. But my attempts at removing emotion and making decisions solely based on logic have landed me where I am

 

And honestly, morals are inherently emotional. Morals are what stop us from only doing the logical thing and allow us to listen to our emotions and do what's right. That's why they make no sense to me. Logic is worthless without emotion (Listen to her, being all hypocritical, isn't she just so cute? Yeah, don't worry, I'll change my mind in like ten minutes when I don't feel so much of this idiotic regret)

Even Spock bypasses logic when that is the RIGHT thing to do xd.png

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
And honestly, morals are inherently emotional. Morals are what stop us from only doing the logical thing and allow us to listen to our emotions and do what's right. That's why they make no sense to me. Logic is worthless without emotion (Listen to her, being all hypocritical, isn't she just so cute? Yeah, don't worry, I'll change my mind in like ten minutes when I don't feel so much of this idiotic regret)

That sounds more like ethos, or ethics, rather than pathos, which is emotion.

 

Pretty sure morals are based on what we think is right and ethical. Yes, emotion is tied to it, but it sounds more like you're trying to describe ethics.

 

ethic:

a set of moral principles, esp. ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct

 

It's not that emotion is bad, but it's INCREDIBLY strong and persuasive. For the most part, when going for facts, it's better to follow logic and stay away from highly persuasive emotional appeals. That's all. ^^

Edited by edwardelricfreak

Share this post


Link to post
That sounds more like ethos, or ethics, rather than pathos, which is emotion.

 

Pretty sure morals are based on what we think is right and ethical. Yes, emotion is tied to it, but it sounds more like you're trying to describe ethics.

 

ethic:

a set of moral principles, esp. ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct

 

It's not that emotion is bad, but it's INCREDIBLY strong and persuasive. For the most part, when going for facts, it's better to follow logic and stay away from highly persuasive emotional appeals. That's all. ^^

So here's a question... Do we settle on the ethics we abide by because of our emotional responses to events, or do we have emotional responses to events based on the ethics by which we abide?

Share this post


Link to post

ethics ≠ emotion

 

All three are used in balance when forming laws, etc (or should be, anyway). Logic deals with the facts and numbers and things that make sense. Ethics deals with if it's morally right or wrong. Emotion deals with how you feel about it.

 

I think both of those are true and also depend on the situation at hand. They're ignoring the logical side, though.

 

I think usually emotion will win out, mainly because we're emotional creatures and it's very powerful, so we end up thinking that whatever impacts us emotionally in whatever way is ethical or not.

 

 

 

I feel like this is deviating from religion, though...I don't think questioning each others' morals, etc, is really the way to go, but I guess they kind of fit in with the topic?

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like this is deviating from religion, though...I don't think questioning each others' morals, etc, is really the way to go, but I guess they kind of fit in with the topic?

Well the question of where you get your morals (ethics) came up when a non-believer commented that believers should not have to get their morals from reading a book (with the attitude that the Bible is a collection of myths).

 

Are morals/ethics intrinsic or taught? If intrinsic, why do they vary so much between people? If taught, then from what source?

 

Also, my earlier question did not assume ethics = emotions. It assumed that one was dependent on the other. The question was, in which direction?

Edited by Awdz Bodkins

Share this post


Link to post
Well the question of where you get your morals (ethics) came up when a non-believer commented that believers should not have to get their morals from reading a book (with the attitude that the Bible is a collection of myths).

 

Are morals/ethics intrinsic or taught? If intrinsic, why do they vary so much between people? If taught, then from what source?

 

Also, my earlier question did not assume ethics = emotions. It assumed that one was dependent on the other. The question was, in which direction?

I don't think you'd have to get them from a book, personally. The Bible does have some good teachings in it that should be followed, though.

 

I think they're taught for the most part. Some are intrinsic only because if we were to do certain things, like kill each other all the time, then it would wipe out the species. We aren't taught from one single source, though. We learn from parents, society, media, laws, etc.

 

Oh, I wasn't directing it at your comment specifically, just clearing it up cuz sometimes it gets similar, I guess. It was mostly towards earlier posts muddying up ethics and emotion. But all of them are dependent on each other. The direction depends on the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
If intrinsic, why do they vary so much between people?
Mutations and environmental influences.

Share this post


Link to post

My religion is something like slavic paganism (i believe in soul of any thing, power of my ancestors, spirits, magic) but i don't like most "slavic pagans" coz no one says "go love our tradition, create a beautiful future, dance to the glory of our gods" more often it sounds like: "go hate Christians, believe in the delusion, neo-fascism, xenophobia"

 

Here is some type of neo-paganism (my vision, imho and broken english xd.png)

 

"rodreligion" (type of neo-paganism in Russia, mishmash of beliefs in mystic power of family relations, slavic goods under version of a Soviet scientist (sic!), folklore)

"vedism" (type of neo-paganism in Russia, belief in power of fake book Slavic-Aryan Vedas (something like book about mostly forgotten slavic past ~40,000 years),

"anastasiyareligion" (another type of neo-paganism in Russia, belief in power of mystic girl Anastasiya, who lives in tayga with children, can view the future, do wonders. Adepts will live in tayga too, for leading ecological farming. But no one saw her, exсept leader)

 

Sadly, but in Russia most people join hands for hates, faith in delusion (like xenophobia, telegony, fight against vaccination, etc). Orthodox church kindle this fire, condemning any heterodoxy. TV kindle this fire too. There are not many ways to find religious identity.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.