The moral code part I don't agree with, since humans don't need anyone to tell them what's good or bad - that knowledge comes from higher brain function.
But yeah, the rest I can definitely agree on.
humanity...what is it after all?
- Thread starter Danteredgrave
- Start date
The moral code part I don't agree with, since humans don't need anyone to tell them what's good or bad - that knowledge comes from higher brain function.
But yeah, the rest I can definitely agree on.
most humans have a basic idea of what is right but at times it is to vague and not everyone follows that idea of morality. so something needs to exist to guide people when they are not sure what the right action and something needs to exist to force those who lack morality to avoid taking actions that harm others.
Well, we all know (not from experience, but simply because we can reason) that killing, stealing and coveting your neighbour's wife are all bad things - we didn't need the Ten Commandments to tell us that. I didn't need to be told that by my parents, either.
Things like having multiple wives are not bad things - that's what our religion (or our upbringing) tells us they are. Perhaps these are the vague ideas of what's right and wrong you're referring to.
If I was born in a predominantly Muslim country, I would think having multiple spouses was normal, and it would be.
1. there are many people who do actions that they know are wrong and need to be prevented from continuing those actions
2. there are many differences in people's ideas of what is right and even in the same persons idea of what is right at different points in their life
3. not everyone has the ability to understand the idea of morality (people with mental illnesses,developmental disorders, personality disorders etc.)
4.the fact that rules need to exist doesn't mean that every rule that exists is needed. no matter where rules come from there will be some that are not needed and some necessary rules will not be created.
5. what's wrong with coveting your neighbor's wife?
(no seriously i didn't marry the guy i don't owe him anything.)
1. there are many people who do actions that they know are wrong and need to be prevented from continuing those actions
2. there are many differences in people's ideas of what is right and even in the same persons idea of what is right at different points in their life
3. not everyone has the ability to understand the idea of morality (people with mental illnesses,developmental disorders, personality disorders etc.)
4.the fact that rules need to exist doesn't mean that every rule that exists is needed. no matter where rules come from there will be some that are not needed and some necessary rules will not be created.
5. what's wrong with coveting your neighbor's wife?
1. If they know it's wrong, they don't need a moral compass, they need professional help.
2. That stems from religion, upbringing and the environment you're in.
3. True, but what does that have to do with giving them a moral compass? Most of them wouldn't need one, since it wouldn't help.
4. Rules need to be necessary, as far as I know. If they aren't necessary for things to run smoothly, then why do they exist? Some rules are useful, for instance: 'no drunk driving', but things like 'do not steal' are superfluous.
1. professional help is for the mentally ill not those who are just greedy.(or those who need something they cannot get legally )
2. Yes and what do you do when people who are from different situations (and would have a different idea of what is right) are in the same place. you get them to agree on a set of rules so that they all know what can be done and what cannot.
3. Someone who is not aware of the right thing to do can be taught what is expected of them and given a reason to do those things.
4. You don't think that there should be a law against stealing? So if someone broke into your house and took everything you own (or at least every valuable thing they can carry) would you refuse to call the police to enforce this "unnecessary rule". (also where do you live and what are the most expensive things you own? i am just a bit curious
)5. you still didn't answer my question about coveting my neighbor's wife (see this is one of those differences in morality i was talking about.)
1. professional help is for the mentally ill not those who are just greedy.(or those who need something they cannot get legally )
2. Yes and what do you do when people who are from different situations (and would have a different idea of what is right) are in the same place. you get them to agree on a set of rules so that they all know what can be done and what cannot.
3. Someone who is not aware of the right thing to do can be taught what is expected of them and given a reason to do those things.
4. You don't think that there should be a law against stealing? So if someone broke into your house and took everything you own (or at least every valuable thing they can carry) would you refuse to call the police to enforce this "unnecessary rule". (also where do you live and what are the most expensive things you own? i am just a bit curious
5. you still didn't answer my question about coveting my neighbor's wife (see this is one of those differences in morality i was talking about.)
1. Alright, I agree with that. Though people who keep doing those things when they don't need to are mentally ill.
2. I never said I didn't agree with that. In that case, rules are useful, as they should be.
3. People with mental illnesses don't usually adhere to the rules you set up, unless they're on medication. And when they're on medication, they don't need a moral compass, since they would be in their right mind again.
4. That law against stealing is necessary for things to run smoothly, therefore it should be enforced. But I see your point - people have to know that once they cross the line, they will be punished, even though they knew it was wrong. In that sense, some laws are superfluous yet necessary.
5. Coveting your neighbor's wife can be seen as intent to steal, or stealing. Sadly, people do think of their spouse as their property.
I live in the Netherlands, and the most expensive thing I own... well, probably my PC XD Haven't started my education to be a teacher of English yet.
1. if someone were to find a method to test for the existence of an afterlife and get repeatable results that definitively prove that something like that exists that it would become an accepted scientific theory but there is no method to do so therefore science must operate on the basis that something like that does not exist. making guesses about something and then claiming them to be true without evidence is not something scientists have the option of doing.
2.100% is by definition the highest possible percentage something can be. if you are 100% sure of something you have absolutly no doubts about it. if you claim to be "1000000000000%" sure of something you are being excessively over dramatic and no one will take you seriously.
Anyway its freaking obvious that they cannot prove anything beyond matter that's for sure they can't experiment "nothingness"
Put it either way my point is legit even if i write it 100 %
the way something is explained doesn't change the significance of the statement however it does change the way the statement is received. the truth spoken foolishly will be ignored in favor of lies spoken convincingly and lies spoken foolishly will be met with only laughter.Anyway its freaking obvious that they cannot prove anything beyond matter that's for sure they can't experiment "nothingness"
Put it either way my point is legit even if i write it 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 %
Why do you think that's dubious?
You might not exist after you die. I personally believe that once your brain is dead, you're dead. All that you are is contained within your brain, after all: your personality, your strengths and weaknesses, all of it.
Religion's generally just a set of rules. Since humans are born not knowing squat, they have to be taught how to fit into society so that it can operate with as little conflict and bloodshed as possible. But you don't need religion to impart morality. I'm not religious and I have a real strict moral code. I think religion was just what they used to try to create that social harmony before science came along to explain why we did it, or why we ought to. People had a sense of what led to bad and what was good for the human spirit, and wrote stories that incorporated them into it and over time developed a mysticism that invited 'faith' in those concepts.
see not even you're completely sure on what happens after death or how the process of life works and its better if we leave it as it is and stop speculating which is beyond our reach and btw i'd still exist after my death its just that i won't be in alive as a one being anymore i'll live through my DNA of course if that's taken into account
personally i don't give a crap to whatever happens after death it's just out of my control all i know is that i have given a time-frame and i should complete the desired errands/tasks in time if possible that's it
The Rules Ah ! why do the seem so bleak and shallow to me ? why do they seem outdated ? sometimes very childish too like fairytale stories
Religion is just made up story by a human being just because human being is a coward to deal with problems he wants someone to "Guide" or "Help" him I'm sick of it though as i can see there is no reality behind the faith in nothing its just a waste of time
okay dude corrected it already i was so casual when writing that comment guess i should've been more serious
It depends on what your definition of life is. I don't think you're alive if only some of your DNA is left. Your DNA isn't alive, after all.
It is known that your personality (your soul, if you will) is contained within your brain - everything is, really. No brain? No personality, no person, just a body.
I don't know if your soul can somehow escape from your brain, but that doesn't seem logical.
Well then what about mentally disabled people ?? they don't seem to have a personality or do they ??
As a religious intellectual, I will state that I believe in Science's ability to be able to formulate the commonalities of our Universe into things that are not utterly random but systematic. Why? Because I believe in God the Father who has placed both natural and spiritual laws that govern this universe. As he is unchanging, these laws are also unchanging. It is under this belief that I inquire of both him, myself, and the Universe in order to understand those laws. Some of the greatest scientific minds, to whom we give credit for some of our modern knowledge to, held this belief. They knew that, by itself, Science can't solve all problems. However, where human inquiry can no longer surpass its limits, we can look toward God who knows the answer. Because he knows the answer, we can believe that there is one and thus can delve deeper into the depths of our minds and our known Universe to search for that answer.
This is to those who believe that Religion and Science don't fit together or that both are used for two different things. The ultimate basis for Science (and this is true) is that the Universe is governed by unchanging laws. This thought was brought about by the religious belief that God is unchanging. Even the ancient scientists of Greece and Rome had to believe in an unchanging God or force (either known as the Unknown God or Logos) in order for them to believe in universal laws. It isn't a stretch to say that true Scientists are religious.
Now to give my two scents on the topic of Humanity. It would be best to ask the question of Life. It is of my belief that to live is to struggle. Every living thing on this Earth struggles for something, the most basic reason is to survive. However, what seperates us from the animals is that we can overlook our need to survive in order to care for things that are greater than ourselves. Thus, our Humanity lies in our selfless compassion for our fellow man and, ultimately, our fellow creature. It is true that animals have shown signs of compassion towards creatures that aren't of their kind, but this is a rare occurence. However, we are made to have immense compassion that, if we were willing, can outnumber that of our selfish actions and desires.
This is to those who believe that Religion and Science don't fit together or that both are used for two different things. The ultimate basis for Science (and this is true) is that the Universe is governed by unchanging laws. This thought was brought about by the religious belief that God is unchanging. Even the ancient scientists of Greece and Rome had to believe in an unchanging God or force (either known as the Unknown God or Logos) in order for them to believe in universal laws. It isn't a stretch to say that true Scientists are religious.
Now to give my two scents on the topic of Humanity. It would be best to ask the question of Life. It is of my belief that to live is to struggle. Every living thing on this Earth struggles for something, the most basic reason is to survive. However, what seperates us from the animals is that we can overlook our need to survive in order to care for things that are greater than ourselves. Thus, our Humanity lies in our selfless compassion for our fellow man and, ultimately, our fellow creature. It is true that animals have shown signs of compassion towards creatures that aren't of their kind, but this is a rare occurence. However, we are made to have immense compassion that, if we were willing, can outnumber that of our selfish actions and desires.
The problem is... that i don't believe in things which doesn't have a proof of existence
And the thing you're talking about (selfishness,compassion) All are linked with the level of intelligence humans have
Define "existence" and naturally give an example of a "proof of existence." To say that something exists is no longer a straightforward term since existence has always been dependent on referrences to space and time but, since space and time are being questioned as not existing either, it is best to use the term "real" even though that's a subjective term that depends more on possibility and logic as opposed to empirical reasoning. Simply put, it is hard to say that something can exist since relativity itself is being questioned.
Of course, but intelligence doesn't define us as human, does it? Intelligence is, more or less, just a distinguishing factor brought about by the "brain power" necessitated by the mechanical and systematic workings of our body. In reality, all it determines is our capacity to do something, not really our ability to do it. Ultimately, if we are to find the source of our selflessness and selfishness, I would say it has something to do with our needs as social animals. It has been hypothesized that our egoticism and compassion come for our own desire- our need to attain things that are not of our possession. As such, since we are social animals, we need to preserve each other since we are, potentially, tools that can be used by each other. However, I don't believe that we think way and neither do I believe that that is the basis of our compassion. I believe that our ability to relate to each other and understand ourselves as being alive and the same is our basis for our selflessness. Naturally, selfishness comes from a desire for self- satisfaction.