• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

On Nature, morality, and God

^^^
An imaginary stinkless fart that offends noone

Clever. Let me know how that works out

( Saying it sounds great in theory)
 
Last edited:
See, if I was a humanist I would argue what is good for natures benefit or maybe what is good for species always trumps what is good for individual
......just saying
but then you have to be willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for your species.
If you are, you're an obedient servant

Has anyone ever seen the twilight zone episode
"The obsolete man" with Burgess Meredith?

Rod Sterling's imagination was/is an art
 
Last edited:
I am saying that there can be both. There will be some that do what is best for community and there are some that do what is beat for themselves.
 
^^^^
Yes, I understand your viewpoint.....

But between me and you,
In a celebrity death match which one wins?

(joke you dont need to answer)
 
I actually answered this guys questions and he has ignored my answer. I don't know the point of asking questions and disregarding the response.

I believe that we are born with these morals

What, then, is the source of these morals? Is it god? Who constructed this morality and why?
 
^^^^

sorry bud followed your earlier answers with questions only.

-------
You say something doesn't need a point to make it meaningful.
You're asserting that something that is pointless can be meaningful.
Isnt the the idea of pointless kinda mutually exclusive to meaningful (full of meaning)
I define pointless as without value/ senseless/
fruitless / without purpose

To use your examples,
Point of meditation spirituality-------- give meaning to peace/spirituality/existence
Point of studying/observing science-------- give
meaning/purpose to science/ build intelligence/improve life/ or even appreciting nature
Point of art------- give meaning to abstract ideas/
express idea to another/ give meaning to what you consider beatiful
Art can mean different things to different people but it has meaning.
Tripping------give meaning to self/ dam voices in my head (lol), laughter---point being to make things funnier.

Now you dont have to ask yourself why these are meaningful or what defines them
but I would argue you dont do anything meaningful (purposeful)for self without first having a direction

Now we're getting into territory of what I think meaning of life is
point of this thread is for you ask those questions of yourself.
Not for me to necessarily push an agenda
My answer has no bearing on yours unless you accept my meaning
and yes I do have a meaning
 
Last edited:
What, then, is the source of these morals? Is it god? Who constructed this morality and why?[/QUOTE]
I honestly am not sure. Possibly these are morals that have slowly been acquired over time. As you know I am an atheist so god would not be my answer. I think it could be something that is learned over time possibly as a refelction of interactions with others.
 
Ok, you asked for it, lol
(Warning spiritual)
NOTE: I only can comment as to what I BELIEVE has been revealed to me.
I do not speak for God.
But of him.
Answer in short: morals from spirit/truth/God

Meaning of life to ME
To know God.
Bringing him glory. To shine light/ his image back him while absorbing it. TO reciprocate love
To dwell in his presence/dimensions

Becoming divine as a reflection of him.
God doesn't need this for himself, he does this for our benefit.
To allow us experience his attributes. TO know truth.
God is infinite, we must be some part of him as you can not logically subtract or add to infinity.
To know God and truly be made in his image we must have freedom to experience our senses. To experience what our mind alone can not.
To develop body, understand soul ,and know spirit/absolute truth through our experiences.

To learn exactly what the entity of God is we must know what he /entity is not.
This is achieved by overcoming sin.
Eienstien imo correctly pointed out evil is the absence of good. Therefore good is absent of evil.
Now you have probably asked yourself why couldnt God have made us where we had to choose him.
Well he could have. We could be robots(without life)
Robots apparently do not give him glory/reflect him or allow the robot to truly know him.

The meaning of this life is to understand how to know God and seek it. To fulfill his plan.
To achieve this I believe we must search for God diligently. Really want to know Gods truth.
Do what it takes to achieve his plan.
To realize and understand his character.
TO know him intimately (not sexually)
To accept a free gift by choice not force.
To use faith to show trust and love

I can not possibly explain Gods plan.
I am not God.
I can however use faith to accept he has got it figured out and will let me know he wants and does not want me to be doing.
To stay in the light and walk as close to spirit as I can get.

Just my opinion that you asked for.......
 
Last edited:
I will respectfully disagree lol. For one basic reason. If we get our morals from god then why do people all over the world in different communities with different beliefs have different sets of morals. So out of all of those religions you are assuming that your god is the correct one. If that were to be the case then why such a wide range of morals instilled in people around the world?

I am in no way trying to be disrespectful just curious.
If I a have misunderstood let me know.
 
I will respectfully disagree lol. For one basic reason. If we get our morals from god then why do people all over the world in different communities with different beliefs have different sets of morals. So out of all of those religions you are assuming that your god is the correct one. If that were to be the case then why such a wide range of morals instilled in people around the world?

I am in no way trying to be disrespectful just curious.
If I a have misunderstood let me know.

Free will.
 
Well you have to establish some line of objective fact to have morals imo.
We're talking about objective morals when I say morals. True for everyone, everywhere.
Certainly people can do "good"/align with absolute moral objectives without knowing they are necessarily subscribing and aligning their subjective morals with objective morals.
But without some ultimate set in stone authority,
a subjective moral can crumble in face of good or evil. Because there are different points of view, you would need a guide that is immutable.

We all inherently have evil tendencies imo.
We also have ability to recognize them and not do them. The recogintion of this winning or losing struggle is defined by objective moral law.
But I submit if you believe in good you are excepting the idea of good and evil.

Let me borrow from Ravi Zacharis ,

"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question"?

I believe sinned entered into the world kin to a cancer/curse/punishment/ a TRUTH that states absolutley sin must be exterminated by death.
Adam was morally perfect in fact his record of sin was zero. Perfect record up till then.
Not because he couldnt sin, because he didnt sin.
He allowed evil to enter the world because he was tempted and went contrary to word of God----he sinned.

Moral absolutes produce either good or evil.
They bear good fruit or bad fruit.
Simply put, they "count" for good or evil and are what convict us and sentence us to death.
The wages are high. The mutation has been introduced and it doesn't skip a generation.
We are utterly incapable irradicating sin, and we need something outside ourself to be restored.

Why does it appear different cultures have different morals is because they do.
They are subjective morals that aid in survival.
They can change with the wind.
Since good usually build and evil usually destroys, naturally good usually wins out.
God and God alone gives objective morals by way of spirit imo.
They are written in our soul as a compass.
A compass that gets more precise and tends to point due north as we are revealed Gods word/truth. That is if u take time to look.
But like sin and like adam, fortunately we inherited free will to choose and unfortunately we inherited sin/evil tendencies that make it hard often to choose right.
Self preservation and avoiding death for as long as we can pretty much reinforces self as king.
 
Last edited:
I will respectfully disagree lol. For one basic reason. If we get our morals from god then why do people all over the world in different communities with different beliefs have different sets of morals. So out of all of those religions you are assuming that your god is the correct one. If that were to be the case then why such a wide range of morals instilled in people around the world?

God can only be established - 3rd party - by cross-referencing all religions, removing anomalies and finding commonalities (of which, there are many.) Things are added to and removed from divine experiences, according to man's agenda. Also, time distorts the truth. Your counter argument relies on the assumption that God's word is translated directly and without fault onto paper, which is absurd.

Translating the divine is near impossible, like trying to piece together dreams in their entirety. With enough mistranslations, however, it is possible to get a rough idea... and, without having a divine transcendental experience yourself, that's the best you're going to get. If that's grounds for dismissal as far as you're concerned, not much can be done about that. You are as close-minded as the average atheist. I don't think there's any room for convincing you, especially considering the "evidence" that you require cannot and will never exist.

You're basically just re-enforcing the beliefs you have already established. I'm not sure why you're doing that, but I suspect it has something to do with (repressed) insecurity.
 
^^^
I don't know why you are calling me names and being defensive. We were having a chill conversation just expressing our opinions.I was just trying to understand where he thought morals in nature came from. If you read back in the thread we weren't even talking about relgion originally. I hardly believe that I am close minded. I am going n in way insecure either. As I stated in a previous.post this something that I had also thought about.

We are all in nature. Nature is us. I see similarities in morality in communities of animals.
As I stated before I believe that we are born with these morals in our conscience. I feel that through many years slowly we learn which morals are effective and which are ineffective. Very similar to communities of animals in the wild.
Meth-While I do understand why you are saying. It does make sense if and only if you have faith in that. We both have different ideas about this however it is interesting.
 
Last edited:
Calling you as closed minded as the average athiest (some insult 8) ) is not calling you names.

I haven't bothered to read half the shit you wrote but I agree with his last sentence- you're not looking to be challenged you're looking to be reinforced.
You're ignoring things that are said, bringing out more strawmen than a farmer, and dribbling a whole lot of... nonsense.

Also morals aren't objective in the sense of being inherent or certain, and god is not a prerequisite for "objective morals" (read: the law)
 
Dystopia,

I didn't call you names and I wasn't being defensive. I was attempting to explain why there might be differences in mistranslations.

There seems to be a lot of people on this sub-forum that insist repeatedly upon God being obviously absurd. If you've already made up your mind that God is absurd and that religious people are mentally ill, I'm not sure why you're spending so much time re-enforcing those beliefs. (The only thing I can think of is insecurity.) I'm sorry if I offended you by saying that you're close-minded. You're not particularly open-minded about religion, are you? Those who adhere to specific religions, especially those who adhere blindly to literal interpretations of particular scriptures, are also close-minded IMO.

If you think religious people are mentally ill, then why are you having a discussion with a religious person?

...

you said:
I believe that we are born with these morals
willow said:
What, then, is the source of these morals? Is it god? Who constructed this morality and why?
you said:
I honestly am not sure. Possibly these are morals that have slowly been acquired over time. As you know I am an atheist so god would not be my answer. I think it could be something that is learned over time possibly as a refelction of interactions with others.

You directly contradicted yourself, unless I'm missing something.
Are we born with them or did we acquire them over time?
Did we "evolve" morals over time: is that what you're saying?
I, honestly, don't understand what you're saying.

Like meth in the evolution thread, you're denying the possibility of God and you don't even have an alternate.

you said:
I believe that we are born with these morals
you said:
If we get (are born with these morals) then why do people all over the world in different communities with different beliefs have different sets of morals.

Another direct contradiction.

you said:
I see similarities in morality in communities of animals.

So do I.
 
Yes I said that I believe that we may be born with morals in our conscience and through many years of interaction we have learned which morals are effective. I mis-spoke when I said that the morals are slowly acquired. That is not how I meant it.
Also,yes I will deny the possibility of god because I am an atheist. However, he started this thread for people to share their opinions. So because I deny god we can't shate opinions?
 
Moral or religious discussions do not have to be argunentative. IF you believe you beleive what you believe.
Ive stated my belief and views on morality
Your ultimately you're own jury.

I am glad I have an outside source to weigh the big decisions on.

BUT my views are my opinions.
Not to be substituted for one word of Gods.
I do not speak for him but about him and the good news of restoration.

As far as thread, I was asked for religiois views and attempted to keep it not about God of my understanding.
ITS all good,
I would hope an unbeliever (not saying that derogatory) would understand I am not suppose to be silent or ashamed of my faith.
Especially when asked
 
Dystopia said:
Yes I said that I believe that we may be born with morals in our conscience

You said you believe we are born with them. So, to answer your own question, why - if we're born with them - would they differ across the world? (Or can you not answer your own question?) Are you saying that morals, over time, were hard-wired into our genetic code (that is, we "evolved" morals) or that all animal species have the same morals? I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Do all animals have a conscience? Do all animals have the same conscience?

Dystopia said:
he started this thread for people to share their opinions. So because I deny god we can't shate opinions?

Nobody said you weren't allowed to share your opinions. Am I not allowed to share my opinions? Why can't I ask you the same questions that you're asking meth? I'm merely attempting to level the playing field. It seems you don't like it very much when the spotlight is on you, which supports the "re-enforcing"\"close-minded" statements I made earlier. (It appears as if you don't like being challenged. Also you have a tendency to get very defensive and avoid answering simple questions... I wonder why that is.)

Abject said:
There is no god; that's the alternative. I don't understand where you're coming from here.

I meant an alternate theory as to where the morals come from. Dystopia has attempted to shoot down one theory, but hasn't offered another one that isn't severely incomplete / doesn't directly contradict itself. (He asked questions of someone else that he cannot himself answer: that was my point.)
 
Top