NationStates Jolt Archive

Really, it's been puzzling me for some time now. Why is it so utterly and majorly important for some people to see a meaning and a purpose not only in their own life, but also in the universe on the whole?
And further, why won't it just do to find a purpose for themselves, or an explanation that suits their own life and view of the world, why do they consider it necessary to claim to have an absolute truth?

Personally, I know that in a greater sense, my life has no meaning whatsoever. I live in a radom univers, on a random planet and am a random occurence in a timeframe so large my conscious mind is unable to grasp it. I'm not immortal, nor do I strife to become immortal, not even in part. My life has meaning through what I think and do, and I may be lucky enough to be meaningful to others. And that's about it.

Why would there have to be more?

I came here for the tacos. *nod*

I came here for the tacos. *nod*

*lol

Ok, I can identify with that.

Really, it's been puzzling me for some time now. Why is it so utterly and majorly important for some people to see a meaning and a purpose not only in their own life, but also in the universe on the whole?
And further, why won't it just do to find a purpose for themselves, or an explanation that suits their own life and view of the world, why do they consider it necessary to claim to have an absolute truth?

Personally, I know that in a greater sense, my life has no meaning whatsoever. I live in a radom univers, on a random planet and am a random occurence in a timeframe so large my conscious mind is unable to grasp it. I'm not immortal, nor do I strife to become immortal, not even in part. My life has meaning through what I think and do, and I may be lucky enough to be meaningful to others. And that's about it.

Why would there have to be more?
As with everything else in life, I feel that a videogame metaphor will help clear things up:

Imagine you're playing one of those newfangled RPG videogames where you are an elf with a bow, or a dwarf with a hammer, or some other Tolkein ripoff. Now, dorky as these games are, they put a shitload of energy into make the game worlds very very pretty. I mean really pretty. And with better resolution than the real world. They make them addictively gorgeous so that people will want to continue paying the monthly fee to live in the fantasy realm created by the developers, and boy howdy...they usually succeed.

In these games you will be expected to go on "quests," missions where you walk all over the freaking world in your efforts to slay a particular dragon or rescue a particular damsel. For most people, those quests are the motivation they need to really explore the world; they're not going to spend 15 minutes running their little elf character to the other side of the fantasy continent just for the hell of it, after all, so they need to be offered a reward by the game developers (read: the gods) to expend that energy. On the way, they might get attacked and killed by monsters or bad guys, and if they're going to keep trying to persevere then they need some kind of motivation to keep them going.

Real life imitates videogames. In real life, there are a precious few people who are able to move through life for no reason other than the pure joy of living, but the vast majority of humans need something more. Most humans need motivations to keep them moving. Most people will end up spending their lives in a holding pattern unless they are provided with a reason to explore (both physically and metaphorically). Most people need to have a Big Reason or Purpose to keep them from giving up when they hit one of the rough spots in life. Or when they get mugged by orcs. Sometimes the lines blur, for me.

As with everything else in life, I feel that a videogame metaphor will help clear things up:

Rockin', as usual...

--snip--

*blink*

I like tacos also.

Going back to the nihilism thing - I'd agree with you. I've arrived at the 'no god, no aliens, no santa claus' state of mind too, and I'm fine with it, not depressed.

It's important to realise that this is a belief - your post reads a bit like you are stating fact. Can you prove that there is no higher meaning to your life? What if you're in the matrix or simply a part of an enormous mind experiencing itself subjectively? And so on.

I'm currently combining nihilism with hedonism - I reckon I might as well enjoy myself while I'm here, and I've identified what's important to me (family, allieviating suffering) so I work towards that as a 'delayed gratification' type of pleasure-seeking. Gives my life structure and direction.

Don't tell people about this though - they look at you like you're odd. I also avoid telling people I don't believe in guilt 'cos they think I'm gonna eat the nearest baby.

(FYI it's just the fear of getting caught and facing the consequences.)

Take care fellow realists.

Why would there have to be more?It makes things a helluva lot more interesting, for one.

wow. Bottle, did I ever tell you that you are super smart? I was trying to figure out how to say that, but the video game analogy pretty much sums it up. wow.

oh yeah, and I agree..............;)

Kudos on the video game analogy, Bottle, that has to be the most brilliant thing I've seen on this board today.

And as to the whole meaning of life thing, I assign meaning to life simply because I'd probably have a shooting spree if I truly believed nothing I'd ever do meant anything. After all, why care about other people when nothing matters?

<snip>


See, that's exactly what I meant.

Why wait until somebody tells you what to do? Why not start out and see what you enjoy doing?

That's actually the very reason why I never really liked video games... I had to do stupid stuff, I could never go where I just wanted to go, the really interesting bits were always blurred or simply non-existant for the game...
What I appreciated were games like Black&White, where you really just do what you want and decide for yourself.

Everybody has the option to live their live the way they think is good and right, why are so many people fixed on turning it into a video game instead?

In these games you will be expected to go on "quests," missions where you walk all over the freaking world in your efforts to slay a particular dragon or rescue a particular damsel. For most people, those quests are the motivation they need to really explore the world; they're not going to spend 15 minutes running their little elf character to the other side of the fanstasy continent just for the hell of it, after all, so they need to be offered a reward by the game developers (read: the gods) to expend that energy. On the way, they might get attacked and killed by monsters or bad guys, and if they're going to keep trying to persevere then they need some kind of motivation to keep them going.

Real life imitates videogames. In real life, there are a precious few people who are able to move through life for no reason other than the pure joy of living, but the vast majority of humans need something more. Most humans need motivations to keep them moving. Most people will end up spending their lives in a holding pattern unless they are provided with a reason to explore (both physically and metaphorically). Most people need to have a Big Reason or Purpose to keep them from giving up when they hit one of the rough spots in life. Or when they get mugged by orcs. Sometimes the lines blur, for me.Is that really the explanation? The promise of a reward?

I've played RPGs. Not online, but the paper, rock, scissors kind. I did it because it was a fun way to interact with others. And it was fun to see what would happen.

That's pretty much the same reason I go on living. It's not that if I do A, I'll be rewarded with B. It's that I can do anything I can think of, and usually, I won't have a very clear idea of what consequences my actions will have. That's interesting to me.

But then, I don't believe in the afterlife, and really.. The thought of such a thing scares me a little. I'm not saying it would get so mindnumbingly dull that I'd go insane, but I can't really imagine it wouldn't.

I suppose for me, it's not really the destination that matters, but the journey itself. I just didn't think I was fundamentally different from most other people.

Kudos on the video game analogy, Bottle, that has to be the most brilliant thing I've seen on this board today.

And as to the whole meaning of life thing, I assign meaning to life simply because I'd probably have a shooting spree if I truly believed nothing I'd ever do meant anything. After all, why care about other people when nothing matters?

I don't think you understand that correctly.

While I don't think that things eventually matter in any BIG sense, they do matter to the individual.

The individual wants to live an agreeable life, therefore it is in its own best interest to keep things peaceful and not to hurt anybody.

See, that's exactly what I meant.

Why wait until somebody tells you what to do? Why not start out and see what you enjoy doing?

That's actually the very reason why I never really liked video games... I had to do stupid stuff, I could never go where I just wanted to go, the really interesting bits were always blurred or simply non-existant for the game...
What I appreciated were games like Black&White, where you really just do what you want and decide for yourself.

Everybody has the option to live their live the way they think is good and right, why are so many people fixed on turning it into a video game instead?
Well, see, you're one of the special ones. I'm the same way, as a matter of fact, and it pisses off my boyfriend to no end.

"Dammit, Bottle, why are you wandering off over there?! We have to deliver this message to Captain PointyEars at Tower DarkityDarkDark! Let's get a move on!"
"But look! A pond! With FISH in it! I must sit by it and muse..."
"We're NEVER going to level if you keep this up!!!"
"What is leveling? Is it an increase of our powers, or an increase in our belief in our powers?"
*Boyfriend's head explodes*

Why would there have to be more?

People ascribe a greater meaning to their lives (beyond themselves, or vague, fuzzy nicenessess like 'be nice to other people', 'don't call someone £^%*£££, even when they obviously _are_) for the same reason they want to feel that they have free will, I think - it's an illusion (and more? dunno!) of 'specialness'. Man is a speck in infinity, so sometimes we need to build walls around us so it looks as though infinity's a lot smaller!

Is that really the explanation? The promise of a reward?

For most people? Yes. Just ask them.

Hell, at least 75% of Christians will tell you that there is no reason to be moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid going to hell. And, in America, that's like half the population right there. Reward and punishment is the force behind their lives.

Is that "right" or "wrong"? Meh.


I've played RPGs. Not online, but the paper, rock, scissors kind. I did it because it was a fun way to interact with others. And it was fun to see what would happen.

That's pretty much the same reason I go on living. It's not that if I do A, I'll be rewarded with B. It's that I can do anything I can think of, and usually, I won't have a very clear idea of what consequences my actions will have. That's interesting to me.

But then, I don't believe in the afterlife, and really.. The thought of such a thing scares me a little. I'm not saying it would get so mindnumbingly dull that I'd go insane, but I can't really imagine it wouldn't.

I suppose for me, it's not really the destination that matters, but the journey itself. I just didn't think I was fundamentally different from most other people.
Well, I don't know if this will bum you out or not, but you ARE fundamentally different from most other people. Most people don't work that way. Doesn't mean you're a freak or that they are sheep, it just means that you happen to live according to a worldview that is a bit unusual. Since it happens to also correspond with MY worldview, please allow me to wave my tiny "welcome to the club" flag for you:

*wave*

Well, see, you're one of the special ones. I'm the same way, as a matter of fact, and it pisses off my boyfriend to no end.

"Dammit, Bottle, why are you wandering off over there?! We have to deliver this message to Captain PointyEars at Tower DarkityDarkDark! Let's get a move on!"
"But look! A pond! With FISH in it! I must sit by it and muse..."
"We're NEVER going to level if you keep this up!!!"
"What is leveling? Is it an increase of our powers, or an increase in our belief in our powers?"
*Boyfriend's head explodes*

I never much played myself, but I drove my brothers nuts with similar comments ... :p

"Oh, look, over there looks interesting.... what do you mean, you can't go there? .... Try anyway! ... Why do you have to kill that monster? Couldn't you just find a way around? It looks so nice..."

:D

They eventually banned me from the room when they were playing.

I don't think you understand that correctly.

While I don't think that things eventually matter in any BIG sense, they do matter to the individual.

The individual wants to live an agreeable life, therefore it is in its own best interest to keep things peaceful and not to hurt anybody.

Well, that's good to hear. You aren't the first person I've heard talk about how life is meaninglessness, but usually the others would dissappear for a while to work things out on their own, so I've just always wanted to ask that question.

I personally believe that my life is directed in some way by a power I can't see or understand, and I think that's only because I think of life as a narrative (comes from reading too much). The idea of a cosmic author, if you will, outlining events in my life, people I'll meet, and the twists in turns I'll take through life that leads toward some kind of purpose just appeals to me.

I never much played myself, but I drove my brothers nuts with similar comments ... :p

"Oh, look, over there looks interesting.... what do you mean, you can't go there? .... Try anyway! ... Why do you have to kill that monster? Couldn't you just find a way around? It looks so nice..."

:D

They eventually banned me from the room when they were playing.
Yeah, I also get yelled at when I object to killing brigands and bandits, because I point out how the genesis of a thriving criminal class is inevitable in pre-industrial feudal monarchies with minimal infrastructure, and that it would be better to combat the issue through progressive social policies.

Hell, at least 75% of Christians will tell you that there is no reason to be moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid going to hell. And, in America, that's like half the population right there. Reward and punishment is the force behind their lives.
really? Most of the Christians that I know wouldn't answer that way, but then again we tend to hang out with people who are most like ourselves so maybe since I wouldn't answer that the only reason I try to be a moral person is to try to get into heaven, then it would make sense that almost none of my friends have those same reasons.

Really, it's been puzzling me for some time now. Why is it so utterly and majorly important for some people to see a meaning and a purpose not only in their own life, but also in the universe on the whole?
And further, why won't it just do to find a purpose for themselves, or an explanation that suits their own life and view of the world, why do they consider it necessary to claim to have an absolute truth?

Personally, I know that in a greater sense, my life has no meaning whatsoever. I live in a radom univers, on a random planet and am a random occurence in a timeframe so large my conscious mind is unable to grasp it. I'm not immortal, nor do I strife to become immortal, not even in part. My life has meaning through what I think and do, and I may be lucky enough to be meaningful to others. And that's about it.

Why would there have to be more?
What baffles me is that people have to assign a specific meaning to everyone's life, instead of just their own. I mean, I know we are generally the same (humans) with a majority of similar qualities, but you can't get more personal than assigned meaning. Assigning meaning is a function of human consciousness... we all do it. We can't help it. I don't know as there is a 'why'.

All truth is absolute: it either is or it isn't. Sorry, that's the pedantist in me talking.

Randomness does not deny or negate meaning or purpose; in fact, it can be it, but that's a bit of a stretch. ;) People with literally no 'meaning to their lives' would be dead. That you're still around indicates that that is not the case for you.

But what you really meant, I suspect, was that you don't have that specific purpose that others apply to everyone. That's okay, in my book.

It would be funny if, in the end, we meet some Creator thing, and we ask It what the meaning of life was, and It looks up from Its copy of "Real Adventures in the Rifle Brigade" and says, "I didn't assign any. You were supposed to pick one. Next time I do this, character creation is not going to be random..."

*wave*
Thanks, I think? :p

I suppose that actually explains a lot of things that have baffled me throughout my life. Like religion, for example.

really? Most of the Christians that I know wouldn't answer that way, but then again we tend to hang out with people who are most like ourselves so maybe since I wouldn't answer that the only reason I try to be a moral person is to try to get into heaven, then it would make sense that almost none of my friends have those same reasons.
Yeah, I know, I had the same reaction when I found out about this. It may surprise some people who know me, but I have many Christian friends who I consider to be sane, reasonable, intelligent people. Thus, when I read published studies or survey results, I am often baffled by the numbers...Christians overwhelmingly tend to respond that there is "no reason" to be a good person if you don't believe in God, Heaven, and Hell.

Of course, we've also got a significant percentage of our country believing that the Sun orbits the Earth, so just keep in mind that there are a lot of VERY clueless people out there.

Christians overwhelmingly tend to respond that there is "no reason" to be a good person if you don't believe in God, Heaven, and Hell.
it makes me wonder now if that is what they actually said, or if they said that no matter how good you are there isn't any way into heaven but through a belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, because that would actually make sense.

it makes me wonder now if that is what they actually said, or if they said that no matter how good you are there isn't any way into heaven but through a belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, because that would actually make sense.

Yes, that would make sense.

Yes, that would make sense.
it would make sense for something a Christian was more likely to say. I didn't mean to imply that it would necessarily make more sense to you or anything. ;)

it makes me wonder now if that is what they actually said, or if they said that no matter how good you are there isn't any way into heaven but through a belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, because that would actually make sense.
Makes me wonder if the survey demographic isn't junior high schools.

Of course, we've also got a significant percentage of our country believing that the Sun orbits the Earth, so just keep in mind that there are a lot of VERY clueless people out there.
Like Smunkeeville, I wonder what the actual question was, because the phenomenon of Sun 'orbiting' Earth is a relative one (not literal, but very real from a certain perspective).

Makes me wonder if the survey demographic isn't junior high schools.
you know I am starting to wonder if there was a survey that said that at all. (although I am sick and I am rather cynical when I am sick);)

it makes me wonder now if that is what they actually said, or if they said that no matter how good you are there isn't any way into heaven but through a belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, because that would actually make sense.
No, seriously, a huge percentage of them say that they think there is no reason to be a moral person without the carrot-and-stick God model. Hell, start a thread about atheism on this forum and you'll see these folks come out of the woodwork: "Why should anybody bother to be good if there's no God? Why shouldn't I just kill somebody, if there's no God?" I know it sounds insane, but there are tons of people who say this stuff.

This is part of why there is so much hatred and fear directed at non-religious persons; those people have "no reason" to be good, in the eyes of some Christians, which makes them potentially very dangerous. Similarly, other religions are bad and scary because THEIR God might command them to do things the Christians don't like, and thus the carrot-and-stick model could cause them to be evil instead of good.

As with everything else in life, I feel that a videogame metaphor will help clear things up:

Imagine you're playing one of those newfangled RPG videogames where you are an elf with a bow, or a dwarf with a hammer, or some other Tolkein ripoff. Now, dorky as these games are, they put a shitload of energy into make the game worlds very very pretty. I mean really pretty. And with better resolution than the real world. They make them addictively gorgeous so that people will want to continue paying the monthly fee to live in the fantasy realm created by the developers, and boy howdy...they usually succeed.

In these games you will be expected to go on "quests," missions where you walk all over the freaking world in your efforts to slay a particular dragon or rescue a particular damsel. For most people, those quests are the motivation they need to really explore the world; they're not going to spend 15 minutes running their little elf character to the other side of the fantasy continent just for the hell of it, after all, so they need to be offered a reward by the game developers (read: the gods) to expend that energy. On the way, they might get attacked and killed by monsters or bad guys, and if they're going to keep trying to persevere then they need some kind of motivation to keep them going.

Real life imitates videogames. In real life, there are a precious few people who are able to move through life for no reason other than the pure joy of living, but the vast majority of humans need something more. Most humans need motivations to keep them moving. Most people will end up spending their lives in a holding pattern unless they are provided with a reason to explore (both physically and metaphorically). Most people need to have a Big Reason or Purpose to keep them from giving up when they hit one of the rough spots in life. Or when they get mugged by orcs. Sometimes the lines blur, for me.

if life does imitate vidiogames ... who got a cheat for infinate cash an a kickass base with lots an lots of weapons an the best food in the planet ? answers on a postcard... you know the address....

it makes me wonder now if that is what they actually said, or if they said that no matter how good you are there isn't any way into heaven but through a belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, because that would actually make sense.

Actually, I've seen a good number of threads on this very forum questioning the morality of atheists, because some people honestly seem to be of the opinion that if there is no threat of hell and no incentive of heaven, people have no reason to lead a good, moral life and therefore inevitably will lead a bad, immoral one.... I don't know if they believe it, but they do say it.
The attitude always puzzled me. But then again, many attitudes here puzzle me, it seems. ;)

I don't know if they believe it, but they do say it.
That's another good point...I don't know if, deep down, these people really believe what they say.

At times, I secretly suspect that religious people are motivated by the same natural forces as the rest of us, but that they simply name those forces "God" for their own reasons.

That's another good point...I don't know if, deep down, these people really believe what they say.

At times, I secretly suspect that religious people are motivated by the same natural forces as the rest of us, but that they simply name those forces "God" for their own reasons.

A good number of times, they simply seem to hide behind the concept, though. Rather than going to the effort of thinking for themselves and defending their own thoughts, they point to somebody elses thoughts and lead their lives according to another persons idea.

Really, it's been puzzling me for some time now. Why is it so utterly and majorly important for some people to see a meaning and a purpose not only in their own life, but also in the universe on the whole?
And further, why won't it just do to find a purpose for themselves, or an explanation that suits their own life and view of the world, why do they consider it necessary to claim to have an absolute truth?

Personally, I know that in a greater sense, my life has no meaning whatsoever. I live in a radom univers, on a random planet and am a random occurence in a timeframe so large my conscious mind is unable to grasp it. I'm not immortal, nor do I strife to become immortal, not even in part. My life has meaning through what I think and do, and I may be lucky enough to be meaningful to others. And that's about it.

Why would there have to be more?

Beautiful. That's some quality existentialism right there.

"Life is the great wonder of humanity. Life is ever-changing, unpredicable, and generally better than getting hit by a taxi."

--Me

first you say.....
Hell, at least 75% of Christians will tell you that there is no reason to be moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid going to hell. And, in America, that's like half the population right there. Reward and punishment is the force behind their lives.


then you say........

Yeah, I know, I had the same reaction when I found out about this. It may surprise some people who know me, but I have many Christian friends who I consider to be sane, reasonable, intelligent people. Thus, when I read published studies or survey results, I am often baffled by the numbers...Christians overwhelmingly tend to respond that there is "no reason" to be a good person if you don't believe in God, Heaven, and Hell.


both of which are different. The firt implies that Christians are trying to work thier way into heaven by being good, the second implies that there is no reason for non-Christians to be moral. They are two completely different statements, so which one is it? or is it neither?


This is part of why there is so much hatred and fear directed at non-religious persons; those people have "no reason" to be good, in the eyes of some Christians, which makes them potentially very dangerous.
I don't know many Christians who "hate" non-religious persons, perhaps they are annoyed time to time, because of the fact that we are talked down to, and many of the non-religious people straight out insult us for our beliefs. It kinda works both ways, many athiests hate Christians, because we think they base thier life on a lie, and many Christians dislike athiests because they run around talking about how we base our life on a lie.


Actually, I've seen a good number of threads on this very forum questioning the morality of atheists, because some people honestly seem to be of the opinion that if there is no threat of hell and no incentive of heaven, people have no reason to lead a good, moral life and therefore inevitably will lead a bad, immoral one.... I don't know if they believe it, but they do say it.
The attitude always puzzled me. But then again, many attitudes here puzzle me, it seems.
I don't know if anyone has ever pointed out to you, but NS General isn't a scientific sample of all Christians, in fact we are the minority around here, and I would say that a lot of the "Christians" on here are just trolls who are interested in flamebait and not actually trying to do anything else but start something.

When Bottle says 75% of Christians say............ then one assumes that came from some type of scientific survey and not Bottle's own experience with people who are "online"

first you say.....

Originally Posted by Bottle
Hell, at least 75% of Christians will tell you that there is no reason to be moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid going to hell. And, in America, that's like half the population right there. Reward and punishment is the force behind their lives.


then you say........

Originally Posted by Bottle
Yeah, I know, I had the same reaction when I found out about this. It may surprise some people who know me, but I have many Christian friends who I consider to be sane, reasonable, intelligent people. Thus, when I read published studies or survey results, I am often baffled by the numbers...Christians overwhelmingly tend to respond that there is "no reason" to be a good person if you don't believe in God, Heaven, and Hell.


both of which are different. The firt implies that Christians are trying to work thier way into heaven by being good, the second implies that there is no reason for non-Christians to be moral. They are two completely different statements, so which one is it? or is it neither?

One actually follows from the other.
If people believe that there is no reason for being good or moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid being sent to hell, it is logical to them that if you don't believe in heaven nor hell, you have no reason for being good or moralistic.

I don't know if anyone has ever pointed out to you, but NS General isn't a scientific sample of all Christians, in fact we are the minority around here, and I would say that a lot of the "Christians" on here are just trolls who are interested in flamebait and not actually trying to do anything else but start something.

When Bottle says 75% of Christians say............ then one assumes that came from some type of scientific survey and not Bottle's own experience with people who are "online"

Well, this IS NS General, and here I can only discuss with the Christians who ARE on NS General.
Most of the attitudes I try to get my head around here never ever occured to me in normal life or with the Christians I know personally. And yet, they are being brought up on this forum, so I think it's just appropriate for me to question them here.

Really, it's been puzzling me for some time now. Why is it so utterly and majorly important for some people to see a meaning and a purpose not only in their own life, but also in the universe on the whole?
And further, why won't it just do to find a purpose for themselves, or an explanation that suits their own life and view of the world, why do they consider it necessary to claim to have an absolute truth?

Personally, I know that in a greater sense, my life has no meaning whatsoever. I live in a radom univers, on a random planet and am a random occurence in a timeframe so large my conscious mind is unable to grasp it. I'm not immortal, nor do I strife to become immortal, not even in part. My life has meaning through what I think and do, and I may be lucky enough to be meaningful to others. And that's about it.

Why would there have to be more?

Do people really assign a "meaning" to their lifes? Not the people I know. Most of us are simply trying to survive somehow. It's more a question of "how" and not "why".

There are things that I like and things that I dislike, things that I do and things that I wouldn't do - but nothing of that is based on some kind of "meaning".

both of which are different. The firt implies that Christians are trying to work thier way into heaven by being good, the second implies that there is no reason for non-Christians to be moral. They are two completely different statements, so which one is it? or is it neither?Christians overwhelmingly tend to respond that there is "no reason" to be a good person if you don't believe in God, Heaven, and Hell.
75% of Christians will tell you that there is no reason to be moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid going to hell.

What is the difference exactly? Sure, different wording, but the assumption is the same, as far a I can tell.I don't know if anyone has ever pointed out to you, but NS General isn't a scientific sample of all Christians, in fact we are the minority around here, and I would say that a lot of the "Christians" on here are just trolls who are interested in flamebait and not actually trying to do anything else but start something.I just wanted to point out that I've seen a lot of "But you're all nihilists/Why do you even live/Why do you care about anything/Why don't you kill people" on here as well. I have never once experienced that kind of reaction in real life, so other than being mortified the first few times I saw it, I don't really put much weight on it. I assume that people either try to flame/bait or that they are clinically insane.
That said, I've read references to a staggering amount of Americans thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's of course possible that Americans simply respond in kind to stupid questions, but... It isn't that plausible, is it?

I didn't know about the alleged 75%, but I'm afraid it sounds somewhat plausible based on other, similar surveys of idiocy.

One actually follows from the other.
If people believe that there is no reason for being good or moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid being sent to hell, it is logical to them that if you don't believe in heaven nor hell, you have no reason for being good or moralistic.
in your mind one follows from the other, what Bottle said was that 75% of Christians believe that, and then reworded it into something completely different and claimed that an "overwhelming majority" believe this new thing too. I am simply saying that without solid proof I refuse to believe that either is true.

If I said that 90% of athiests believe that all Christians should be rounded up and put into internment camps, then I would get a lot of people questioning where I got that statistic.

All I am doing is asking if this is something that can be sourced, or if it's Bottle's personal opinion, and if it is Bottle's personal opinion maybe the "statistic" should have been prefaced by "In my experience" or "what I have seen" or "in my opinion"

Does "be happy" qualify as a meaning for life? :confused:

Christians overwhelmingly tend to respond that there is "no reason" to be a good person if you don't believe in God, Heaven, and Hell.
75% of Christians will tell you that there is no reason to be moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid going to hell.

What is the difference exactly?


Christians overwhelmingly tend to respond that there is "no reason" to be a good person if you don't believe in God, Heaven, and Hell.

says, that if you are athiest then there is no reason for you to "be good"

75% of Christians will tell you that there is no reason to be moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid going to hell.
says that as a Christian the only reason you are "being good" is to try to get into heaven.


there is a difference.

first you say.....



then you say........



both of which are different. The firt implies that Christians are trying to work thier way into heaven by being good, the second implies that there is no reason for non-Christians to be moral. They are two completely different statements, so which one is it? or is it neither?

I'm sorry if my wording was unclear to you, but I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Both of the meanings you came up with can be derived from the information I posted, without anything being contradictory. I don't know what meaning the Christians themselves attribute, since all I know is what they SAY they believe.


I don't know many Christians who "hate" non-religious persons,
Neither do I. However, I do know some, and I read about the activities of many others. This does not mean all Christians behave that way, nor did I ever claim they did.


perhaps they are annoyed time to time, because of the fact that we are talked down to, and many of the non-religious people straight out insult us for our beliefs. It kinda works both ways, many athiests hate Christians, because we think they base thier life on a lie, and many Christians dislike athiests because they run around talking about how we base our life on a lie.

This is true. There is often misunderstanding and frustration on both sides. However, there also can be geniune hatred from both sides.

Christians overwhelmingly tend to respond that there is "no reason" to be a good person if you don't believe in God, Heaven, and Hell.
says, that if you are athiest then there is no reason for you to "be good"

75% of Christians will tell you that there is no reason to be moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid going to hell.
says that as a Christian the only reason you are "being good" is to try to get into heaven. Yups.there is a difference.A Christian's only reason for acting ethical, is to get into Heaven/avoid being tossed into the Lake of Fire.

Athiests have no reason to act ethical.

I don't see the difference. Christians don't have any reason to be ethical if they don't get a reward/avoid punishment. Atheists (an presumably all non-Christians) have no reason for being ethical, because either way, they're not gonna get a reward/avoid punishment.

Is one not the direct extention of the other?

I'm sorry if my wording was unclear to you, but I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Both of the meanings you came up with can be derived from the information I posted, without anything being contradictory. I don't know what meaning the Christians themselves attribute, since all I know is what they SAY they believe.
where do you get your 75% then? is it your opinion?

I am sorry if I haven't made any sense today, I am sick:( and sometimes when I am sick, I don't make much sense.

I wasn't denying the sentiment, because I do know people who think that way, I was worried about you attributing it to 75% of Christians, without any proof that it was true.

I don't see the difference. Christians don't have any reason to be ethical if they don't get a reward/avoid punishment. Atheists (an presumably all non-Christians) have no reason for being ethical, because either way, they're not gonna get a reward/avoid punishment.

Is one not the direct extention of the other?
logically, but I was under the understanding that Bottle was quoting statistics from some type of study, in that case the rewording is worries me, because twisting of statistics to say what you want them to annoys me. I wondered if it was from a survey and Bottle claims both things were the same (when they are not, no matter how closely related) that maybe niether was what was said at all.

logically, but I was under the understanding that Bottle was quoting statistics from some type of study, in that case the rewording is worries me, because twisting of statistics to say what you want them to annoys me. I wondered if it was from a survey and Bottle claims both things were the same (when they are not, no matter how closely related) that maybe niether was what was said at all.Ok, very good point. So maybe he'll be good & show us a source?

Really, it's been puzzling me for some time now. Why is it so utterly and majorly important for some people to see a meaning and a purpose not only in their own life, but also in the universe on the whole?
And further, why won't it just do to find a purpose for themselves, or an explanation that suits their own life and view of the world, why do they consider it necessary to claim to have an absolute truth?

Personally, I know that in a greater sense, my life has no meaning whatsoever. I live in a radom univers, on a random planet and am a random occurence in a timeframe so large my conscious mind is unable to grasp it. I'm not immortal, nor do I strife to become immortal, not even in part. My life has meaning through what I think and do, and I may be lucky enough to be meaningful to others. And that's about it.

Why would there have to be more?


The Christian reply (as far as I know it) would be that we were made to live with meaning. When we don't have it, we hunger for it...that is until we find a way to cure the hunger, or to replace it with something else, or to drown it out in the 'noise' of living (some people call it the 'rat race'), imagining that it is possible to really enjoy ourselves without needing meaning.
The 'successful' ones either become 'liberated' from meaning or spend their lives running from it, while the 'broken ones' hear an invitation to believe. Guess I was one of the 'broken ones'.

Personally, I find it hard to think about an issue without being superficial without the problem of meaning coming up again and again.

Does "be happy" qualify as a meaning for life? :confused:
Absolutely.

No, seriously, a huge percentage of them say that they think there is no reason to be a moral person without the carrot-and-stick God model. Hell, start a thread about atheism on this forum and you'll see these folks come out of the woodwork: "Why should anybody bother to be good if there's no God? Why shouldn't I just kill somebody, if there's no God?" I know it sounds insane, but there are tons of people who say this stuff.

This is part of why there is so much hatred and fear directed at non-religious persons; those people have "no reason" to be good, in the eyes of some Christians, which makes them potentially very dangerous.
It's scary. If someone were to come up with a definitive, irrefutable, proof that there was no God, would all these people suddenly abandon their morals and go round killing, stealing and cheating for their own ends? If so, then they are the evil dangerous ones, whereas the millions of non-believers who live decent lives have proved that they are inherently moral, and can be trusted without having to be supposedly controlled from on-high.

The reality would be different, though. Most of the Christians who believe that they are moral because God tells them to be would be surprised to find that, without God, they remain moral. It's in their natures, and they do themselves a disservice by giving the credit to someone else.

Have you ever wondered why animals never search for something higher? I think the very fact that 99% of people throughout history have believed in a higher purpose of some kind is evidence that we were created by God for a higher purpose. The philosophers themselves only became nihilists after hundreds of years showed them they couldn't prove there was any ultimate meaning unless they used faith, which went against their "rational" methods. It turns out you can't even prove that you exist through reason alone. So much for the glory of mankind!

Imagine you're playing one of those newfangled RPG videogames where you are an elf with a bow, or a dwarf with a hammer, or some other Tolkein ripoff. Now, dorky as these games are, they put a shitload of energy into make the game worlds very very pretty. I mean really pretty. And with better resolution than the real world. They make them addictively gorgeous so that people will want to continue paying the monthly fee to live in the fantasy realm created by the developers, and boy howdy...they usually succeed.

In these games you will be expected to go on "quests," missions where you walk all over the freaking world in your efforts to slay a particular dragon or rescue a particular damsel. For most people, those quests are the motivation they need to really explore the world; they're not going to spend 15 minutes running their little elf character to the other side of the fantasy continent just for the hell of it, after all, so they need to be offered a reward by the game developers (read: the gods) to expend that energy. On the way, they might get attacked and killed by monsters or bad guys, and if they're going to keep trying to persevere then they need some kind of motivation to keep them going.

Real life imitates videogames. In real life, there are a precious few people who are able to move through life for no reason other than the pure joy of living, but the vast majority of humans need something more. Most humans need motivations to keep them moving. Most people will end up spending their lives in a holding pattern unless they are provided with a reason to explore (both physically and metaphorically). Most people need to have a Big Reason or Purpose to keep them from giving up when they hit one of the rough spots in life. Or when they get mugged by orcs. Sometimes the lines blur, for me.

I suppose you could say that. The analogy of a videogame to life in modern capitalism is one I have been pondering.

No, seriously, a huge percentage of them say that they think there is no reason to be a moral person without the carrot-and-stick God model. Hell, start a thread about atheism on this forum and you'll see these folks come out of the woodwork: "Why should anybody bother to be good if there's no God? Why shouldn't I just kill somebody, if there's no God?" I know it sounds insane, but there are tons of people who say this stuff.

This is part of why there is so much hatred and fear directed at non-religious persons; those people have "no reason" to be good, in the eyes of some Christians, which makes them potentially very dangerous.

If you ask me, there is no inherent reason to be moral without God. Why is one thing good and another evil? Can you show through pure logic that human life is inherently valuable and we should not kill? This might sound shocking, but it should. I find that most atheists and agnostics take Christian morality for granted even after they stop believing in a god.

Really, it's been puzzling me for some time now. Why is it so utterly and majorly important for some people to see a meaning and a purpose not only in their own life, but also in the universe on the whole?
And further, why won't it just do to find a purpose for themselves, or an explanation that suits their own life and view of the world, why do they consider it necessary to claim to have an absolute truth?

Personally, I know that in a greater sense, my life has no meaning whatsoever. I live in a radom univers, on a random planet and am a random occurence in a timeframe so large my conscious mind is unable to grasp it. I'm not immortal, nor do I strife to become immortal, not even in part. My life has meaning through what I think and do, and I may be lucky enough to be meaningful to others. And that's about it.

Why would there have to be more?

Then why bother to continue to live? Why follow the laws? Certainly it makes no difference if you commit the most heinous crimes and spend the rest of your life in prison, as opposed to doing anything else?

Then why bother to continue to live? Why follow the laws? Certainly it makes no difference if you commit the most heinous crimes and spend the rest of your life in prison, as opposed to doing anything else?Would that be one of the 75%?

Would that be one of the 75%?

I think that more and more people are coming to the conclusion that they don't have to follow any moral or ethical code at all - especially not a religious one, and they don't have to obey the law as long as they don't get caught.

Have you ever wondered why animals never search for something higher?
How do you know that they don't? They don't have the mental capacity to change their world much, but that doesn't mean that they don't have thoughts and aspirations beyond their everyday lives.
I think the very fact that 99% of people throughout history have believed in a higher purpose of some kind is evidence that we were created by God for a higher purpose.
It isn't evidence of anything of the sort. It's more likely to simply be evidence of intelligence, which creates a conscious awareness of the finiteness of life and a desire to overcome it; a desire which is born of our basic biological survival instinct. Insofar as it demonstrates an unwillingness to accept the realities of our limited existence, it could even be a congenital mental defect.

The philosophers themselves only became nihilists after hundreds of years showed them they couldn't prove there was any ultimate meaning unless they used faith, which went against their "rational" methods. It turns out you can't even prove that you exist through reason alone. So much for the glory of mankind!
"Glory" is a creation of the human imagination.

people feel the need to assign meaning to life, because without meaning, life is useless, futile, a waste of time. you may as well enjoy yourself as best as possible, and then die in osme exciting manner when you get bored of it.

the problem is, if you assume life has meaning, you must also assume a god to give it meaning. the created cannot assign meaning to their creation, only the creator can, and if there is no creator, if we arose simply through chance, then that's all it is, chance, and there is no meaning. so when you're seeking meaning, you're actually seeking god, which is an instinct built into every one of us. i can't remember his name, but an established author, intillectual and atheist put it very well. "unless you assume a god, the question of life's purpose is meaningless."

If you ask me, there is no inherent reason to be moral without God. Why is one thing good and another evil? Can you show through pure logic that human life is inherently valuable and we should not kill?
"Good" and "evil" are concepts invented by human beings to categorize their basic instincts. We're not moral, or immoral, because of reason, but because it's in our natures, and it's in our natures because it is part of an essential evolutionary survival strategy. Animals which are incapable of imagining a god protect their offspring and communities, attempt to enforce mate-fidelity (but also break it), show kindness, kill in self-defence or for food, just as both religious and non-religious humans do. We're more sophisticated about it only because we're more intelligent.

This might sound shocking, but it should. I find that most atheists and agnostics take Christian morality for granted even after they stop believing in a god.
Most atheists and agnostics throughout history have taken morality for granted even when they've never heard of Christianity. There's no such thing as "Christian morality" - there's only a Christian spin on human morality; and Christians have also been amongst the most bloodthirstly and immoral people in history.

Many atheists never "stopped believing in a god". Many of us never started believing in a god, but are every bit as moral as those who do.

people feel the need to assign meaning to life, because without meaning, life is useless, futile, a waste of time. you may as well enjoy yourself as best as possible, and then die in osme exciting manner when you get bored of it.

the problem is, if you assume life has meaning, you must also assume a god to give it meaning. the created cannot assign meaning to their creation, only the creator can, and if there is no creator, if we arose simply through chance, then that's all it is, chance, and there is no meaning. so when you're seeking meaning, you're actually seeking god, which is an instinct built into every one of us. i can't remember his name, but an established author, intillectual and atheist put it very well. "unless you assume a god, the question of life's purpose is meaningless."
Absolute baloney. This argument is a travesty of logic, science and empirical evidence.

Most atheists and agnostics throughout history have taken morality for granted even when they've never heard of Christianity. There's no such thing as "Christian morality" - there's only a Christian spin on human morality; and Christians have also been amongst the most bloodthirstly and immoral people in history.

So why is being bloodthirsty inherently immoral? How does the "is" of nature imply the "should" of morality?

If you ask me, there is no inherent reason to be moral without God. Why is one thing good and another evil? Can you show through pure logic that human life is inherently valuable and we should not kill? This might sound shocking, but it should. I find that most atheists and agnostics take Christian morality for granted even after they stop believing in a god.

And the fact that "Christian" morality is essentially hardly any different from, say, Buddhist morality, Taoist morality, Zen morality, Communist morality, ancient Greek morality or even Celtic morality doesn't surprise you a bit?

The fact that the ten commandments were not a revolutionary new idea back when Moses got them, but rather old news presented in a flashy fashion seems to me evidence enough that human society will always largely abide by these laws for the very simple reason as otherwise, there would be no human society.

Would that be one of the 75%?

Clearly :rolleyes:

Then why bother to continue to live? Why follow the laws? Certainly it makes no difference if you commit the most heinous crimes and spend the rest of your life in prison, as opposed to doing anything else?

Do you really assume that, if somebody actually feels the compelling urge to break the law in any form, fear of god or law enforcement would stop him?

If that were the case, capital punishment in the US would serve as a deterrant and would help to lower the number of murders and killings. Last time I dragged out those statistics, the US still had one of the highest violent crime rates of the developed world. By far. I would therefore assume that fear of punishment does not work as deterrant.

I don't refrain from stealing because I'm afraid of ending up in prison nor because I'm scared of god's eternal wrath, and I daresay neither do you, unless you are a very simple mind indeed. I don't steal because I don't want to hurt other people. I couldn't care less about god, but I care about humans.

"Why do you feel the need to assign "meaning" to life?"

Um ... I don't. Life is its own justification ... it's own "meaning."

So why is being bloodthirsty inherently immoral? How does the "is" of nature imply the "should" of morality?

Being bloodthirsty isn't inherently immoral. In fact, there are cultures which have considered it an asset. We think of things as being "inherently immoral" only because a particular model of morality has been ingrained into us since we began to understand language. Behaviors which a culture or subculture consider undesirable because they cause harm and would make life together impossible were they to become prevalent are considered immoral. In a culture with a different structure, though, there is room for different behavior. THere probably isn't a single behavior that any one of us thinks of as "inherently immoral" that hasn't been allowed for, or even idealized, at some point in the time and space of humanity.

Being bloodthirsty isn't inherently immoral. In fact, there are cultures which have considered it an asset. We think of things as being "inherently immoral" only because a particular model of morality has been ingrained into us since we began to understand language. Behaviors which a culture or subculture consider undesirable because they cause harm and would make life together impossible were they to become prevalent are considered immoral. In a culture with a different structure, though, there is room for different behavior. THere probably isn't a single behavior that any one of us thinks of as "inherently immoral" that hasn't been allowed for, or even idealized, at some point in the time and space of humanity.

My point exactly, so how do atheists and agnostics find a basis for morality? That's a question many seem to have overlooked.

My point exactly, so how do atheists and agnostics find a basis for morality? That's a question many seem to have overlooked.

Cultural background?
Morality varies and differs largely, even among Christians of different cultural backgrounds. It is less based on religion itself, but rather on tradition and social structures.

My point exactly, so how do atheists and agnostics find a basis for morality? That's a question many seem to have overlooked.

Morality stems from society, not religion. Natural selection is not just biological, and a society in which people kill, betray and generally act like dicks (ie immorally) will be less succesful than one in which people cooperate and act in the common good. Therefore moral societies will survive, while immoral ones do not. each generation will learn to behave in a moral way or face the consequences, not from god but from society itself.

the created cannot assign meaning to their creation, only the creator can...
It can if assigning meaning is what it does. Assigning meaning is what we do, and we do it very well. Sure, inanimate objects we create cannot assign meaning to themselves; machines cannot assign meaning to themselves; our ideas cannot assign meaning to themselves. But we can, and do.

If there is a creator, perhaps that was his intent, but the meaning we give ourselves is ours.

I just do it 'cos everyone else does. :rolleyes:

Really, it's been puzzling me for some time now. Why is it so utterly and majorly important for some people to see a meaning and a purpose not only in their own life, but also in the universe on the whole?
And further, why won't it just do to find a purpose for themselves, or an explanation that suits their own life and view of the world, why do they consider it necessary to claim to have an absolute truth?

Personally, I know that in a greater sense, my life has no meaning whatsoever. I live in a radom univers, on a random planet and am a random occurence in a timeframe so large my conscious mind is unable to grasp it. I'm not immortal, nor do I strife to become immortal, not even in part. My life has meaning through what I think and do, and I may be lucky enough to be meaningful to others. And that's about it.

Why would there have to be more?


Read Tom Robbins' "Jitterbug Perfume".

Christians overwhelmingly tend to respond that there is "no reason" to be a good person if you don't believe in God, Heaven, and Hell.it makes me wonder now if that is what they actually said, or if they said that no matter how good you are there isn't any way into heaven but through a belief and commitment to Jesus Christ, because that would actually make sense.

I wonder, maybe some of them are trying to say something like, "If you don't have a belief in an objective standard of real good and evil, and an objective consequence for actions, why bother talking about meaning and right and wrong and morality at all? Why not just admit you're doing whatever you feel like according to a subjective point of view? Why not admit there is no moral value to any action and no meaning to life?"

That's a perspective some people have on things like Truth and The Good and all the rest: "if there isn't something outside of me that really is Truth and Good, then why bother with it at all? One opinion about Truth and Good is pretty much the same as any other, and without a standard to measure them all against, who can say that anything is right or wrong?"

For someone like that, belief in God is the ultimate expression of the belief that there is such a thing as Truth and Good even when no one agrees with it or acknowledges it. I suppose it's a version of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" And those people would see no reason for an unbeliever to try to be a good person because an unbeliever could never be quite sure what "being good" is.

It's an argument that comes up often in Christian philosophers.

My point exactly, so how do atheists and agnostics find a basis for morality? That's a question many seem to have overlooked.How does religion or God really impact your ethics? Not much I wager, unless you're very extreme about it.

In most of the western world, we share both similar cultural background & similar ethical standards. We even pride ourselves in maintaining the most humane societies (at least internally). Yet we also have the highest concentrations of heathens. I don't just mean folowers of a minority religion, I mean people like humanists & materialists, who doesn't even recognise the possibility of there being anything supernatural, let alone divine.

I think you're perfectly capable of answering your own question. All you have to do is ask yourself who defines your ethics. Do you? Your upbringing? The standards the sorrounding society imposes on you? Your knowledge/education? Your ability to empathise with others? Your religion?

I bet the answer is 'All of the above', and I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint.

How does religion or God really impact your ethics? Not much I wager, unless you're very extreme about it.

In most of the western world, we share both similar cultural background & similar ethical standards. We even pride ourselves in maintaining the most humane societies (at least internally). Yet we also have the highest concentrations of heathens. I don't just mean folowers of a minority religion, I mean people like humanists & materialists, who doesn't even recognise the possibility of there being anything supernatural, let alone divine.

I think you're perfectly capable of answering your own question. All you have to do is ask yourself who defines your ethics. Do you? Your upbringing? The standards the sorrounding society imposes on you? Your knowledge/education? Your ability to empathise with others? Your religion?

I bet the answer is 'All of the above', and I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint.


Similized world, it sounds an awful lot like you created your own category of religiosity and assigned rules of how people in this category "must" act. That may make it easier for you to invent your arguments, but it does little to make your arguments correspond to the reality you're trying to describe, and it makes it harder for you to communicate meaningfully.

Specifically, you told Letila you don't think religion or God really can impact her ethics much "unless you are very extreme about it". You created an artificial category and then assigned it a label which has particular (negative) emotive implications: "extreme". In current usage it means "fanatic" or "fundamentalist". Certainly, "extremists" aren't the only religious people I know who let "religion or God" influence their ethics, and "extreme" is a really poor choice of words for the only category of religiosity you're willing to acknowledge.

By smuggling in a phrase like "very extreme" you were telling Letila that she can't take her religion seriously without being pathological according to your understanding. And you were saying it with such emotionally charged language that you dismissed any answer she might make. You reinforce this dishonest trick of argument with your last sentence:
"... I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint." [bold type added]

Such an insulting abuse of logic by creating falsely polarized extremes of position is so far from being honest you distort the whole discussion to the point where it is almost impossible to reason with you. This isn't the product of logical debate, it's spin-doctoring either at its most naive or its most dishonest. Is that what you really mean to do?

You also overlook wide variety in the degrees and kinds of religious practice. This variety includes people who sincerely applied their faith for the benefit of others. I mention just these 3:
Mahatma Gandhi and those he led against the British oppression were religiously consistent and ethically coherent, but extreme? That word (and its equivalents) seems more accurately used for the person who killed Gandhi and those who hired him. Martin Luther King and the countless people who worked with him in the Civil Rights movement were religiously consistent and ethically coherent. Again, "extremism" better describes those who opposed him and finally murdered him and his backers. Those in the late-18th and 19th centuries in England and the USA who fought to overthrow slavery based on their grasp of Christian teaching were, once more, religiously consistent and ethically coherent. It was the slave-owners who opposed them who were extreme. Mother Theresa lived her life taking care of lepers, outcasts and other people rejected by their society. She apparently did this because she believed this kind of behavior is the devotional and logical outcome of her faith; IOW, because it was religiously consistent and ethically coherent. There were those who opposed her work in India when she was alive, but again it could be argued that they and not she were the extremists.

Notice: I've used the expressions "religiously consistent" and "ethically coherent", to highlight a point. Your word, "extremism" as you use it, is capable only of conveying a negative implication to the concept of religious devotion. By contrast, the reality for many religious people may be, and is, a matter of integrating the various aspects of their personality to achieve a kind of wholeness of belief and practice. They are sincere and, to quote Douglas Adams, "mostly harmless".

In any case how can you possibly pretend to know what it's like to be religious in the way that Letila is? How can you pretend to know what it's like to be religious in the way that people like Letila are religious? Since you are not Letila, you're talking without relevant knowledge.

You are talking about fanatics or fundamentalists as if they make up the whole of the category of religious people who take their religion seriously. What makes you believe Letila falls into your category of extremists and not another? She's given no evidence I can see here of being either George Bush or (the late) Ayatolla Khomeini.

As for your other comments about the western world, you point out that in the western world we share a "similar cultural background & similar ethical standards". Yet that background and those standards are our inheritance from a time when Church and State were so nearly one that the laws enacted in our western world are the expression of Judaeo-Christian morality. We may be glad or regret that, we may work to change it or to reinforce it, but there's no use denying it unless we can't be bothered reading the history of western civilization. There isn't anyone who has grown up in a western culture (in the sense that we're using it here) who hasn't in some sense been influenced by the Judaeo-Christian "take" on right and wrong. That doesn't mean it's the only morality in the market place. But it's the one we took home with us for the last 1000+ years.

It's going to be very hard to keep this an honest, civil discussion if you're going to attack people like Letila and stoop to pointless and inaccurate (and perhaps lazy or dishonest?) caricatures of of what she and others say. There's enough of that kind of refusal to communicate in the world already. Why add to it?

Morality stems from society, not religion. Natural selection is not just biological, and a society in which people kill, betray and generally act like dicks (ie immorally) will be less succesful than one in which people cooperate and act in the common good. Therefore moral societies will survive, while immoral ones do not. each generation will learn to behave in a moral way or face the consequences, not from god but from society itself.

But why is the common good inherently valuable? Because it improves our chances of survival? Why is that inherently valuable. People want to survive, sure, but that isn't the same thing as survival having inherent value that we ought to recognize and base our actions on. Wanting to avoid death is an emotional response, but not a moral truth.

How does religion or God really impact your ethics? Not much I wager, unless you're very extreme about it.
define extreme

My faith in God dictates almost every choice I make, my actions and ethics are defined by my devotion to Him. One of the goals of Christianity is to be Christ-like (letting Jesus' teachings impact my actions)

How can someone be religious and not let thier religious belief at all into thier choices in life?

As with everything else in life, I feel that a videogame metaphor will help clear things up:

Imagine you're playing one of those newfangled RPG videogames where you are an elf with a bow, or a dwarf with a hammer, or some other Tolkein ripoff. Now, dorky as these games are, they put a shitload of energy into make the game worlds very very pretty. I mean really pretty. And with better resolution than the real world. They make them addictively gorgeous so that people will want to continue paying the monthly fee to live in the fantasy realm created by the developers, and boy howdy...they usually succeed.

In these games you will be expected to go on "quests," missions where you walk all over the freaking world in your efforts to slay a particular dragon or rescue a particular damsel. For most people, those quests are the motivation they need to really explore the world; they're not going to spend 15 minutes running their little elf character to the other side of the fantasy continent just for the hell of it, after all, so they need to be offered a reward by the game developers (read: the gods) to expend that energy. On the way, they might get attacked and killed by monsters or bad guys, and if they're going to keep trying to persevere then they need some kind of motivation to keep them going.

Real life imitates videogames. In real life, there are a precious few people who are able to move through life for no reason other than the pure joy of living, but the vast majority of humans need something more. Most humans need motivations to keep them moving. Most people will end up spending their lives in a holding pattern unless they are provided with a reason to explore (both physically and metaphorically). Most people need to have a Big Reason or Purpose to keep them from giving up when they hit one of the rough spots in life. Or when they get mugged by orcs. Sometimes the lines blur, for me.


DAMN dawg...thats some deep shit right there homie... good way of 'splainin it to us... hells yea dawg...hells yea:cool:

How does religion or God really impact your ethics? Not much I wager, unless you're very extreme about it.

In most of the western world, we share both similar cultural background & similar ethical standards. We even pride ourselves in maintaining the most humane societies (at least internally). Yet we also have the highest concentrations of heathens. I don't just mean folowers of a minority religion, I mean people like humanists & materialists, who doesn't even recognise the possibility of there being anything supernatural, let alone divine.

I think you're perfectly capable of answering your own question. All you have to do is ask yourself who defines your ethics. Do you? Your upbringing? The standards the sorrounding society imposes on you? Your knowledge/education? Your ability to empathise with others? Your religion?

I bet the answer is 'All of the above', and I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint.Similized world, it sounds an awful lot like you created your own category of religiosity and assigned rules of how people in this category "must" act. That may make it easier for you to invent your arguments, but it does little to make your arguments correspond to the reality you're trying to describe, and it makes it harder for you to communicate meaningfully.It seems I've offended you. Please accept my apology.Specifically, you told Letila you don't think religion or God really can impact her ethics much "unless you are very extreme about it". You created an artificial category and then assigned it a label which has particular (negative) emotive implications: "extreme". In current usage it means "fanatic" or "fundamentalist". Certainly, "extremists" aren't the only religious people I know who let "religion or God" influence their ethics, and "extreme" is a really poor choice of words for the only category of religiosity you're willing to acknowledge.I freely admit that I referred to what's usually called fundamentalists. I'm almost certain I was thinking of Jehova's witnesses when I wrote it. I can't claim the honour of inventing fundamentalism, however. Not Jehova's witnesses or any other kind.

I think you'll find that if you reread my post, I didn't even suggest that only extremists.. Oh, sorry.. Fundamentalists allow themselves to be influenced by faith-based ethical systems. Also, it stands to reason, that if I acknowledge an extreme practice of something, then I must also recognise a balanced or normal form of the same. For example, I highly doubt you ever express or refer to addition as extreme addition. There'd be no point, as addition can't be broken down in various degrees. I have a feeling I'm digressing, though. But I still don't see how my choice of words was improper.By smuggling in a phrase like "very extreme" you were telling Letila that she can't take her religion seriously without being pathological according to your understanding. And you were saying it with such emotionally charged language that you dismissed any answer she might make. You reinforce this dishonest trick of argument with your last sentence:"... I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint. [bold type added]I'm very impressed by your ability to present your interpretation of my words, as my words. If your post was long enough to constitute a work of intellectual property, I'm almost certain you could sue me for ripping you off in advance.. Or something. Sorry, I'm buggered, and this is silly.

I did not at any point even insinuate that religion cannot be very serious indeed for it's believers. And I did not insinuate, outright state or otherwise allude that people can't be serious about their faith unless they are fundamentalists, or as I put it; very extreme.

You're absolutely correct about me trying to get across that I believe religious extremism to be a malady. It would seem I succeded in making that point at least. I'm afraid you're correct about this possibly derailing this debate though, as you pick up on it again below.

I won't apologise for the sensationalistic approach. This is an internet forum. Things would get extremely dull if we all stopped doing that.Such an insulting abuse of logic by creating falsely polarized extremes of position is so far from being honest you distort the whole discussion to the point where it is almost impossible to reason with you. This isn't the product of logical debate, it's spin-doctoring either at its most naive or its most dishonest. Is that what you really mean to do?Aparently. Somehow, though, I can't help but feel you're the one spinning this. Odd that.You also overlook wide variety in the degrees and kinds of religious practice. This variety includes people who sincerely applied their faith for the benefit of others.Do I? Well, I don't actually. But youre right to believe that incidential.I mention just these 3:
Mahatma Gandhi and those he led against the British oppression were religiously consistent and ethically coherent, but extreme? That word (and its equivalents) seems more accurately used for the person who killed Gandhi and those who hired him.Perhaps it is just me, but then, I'm the author of the post you're criticising, so I suppose that's a moot point... Ehm.. Perhaps it's just me, but I consider knowingly & willingly marching into clubs & gunfire is just a tad extreme.Martin Luther King and the countless people who worked with him in the Civil Rights movement were religiously consistent and ethically coherent. Again, "extremism" better describes those who opposed him and finally murdered him and his backers. Those in the late-18th and 19th centuries in England and the USA who fought to overthrow slavery based on their grasp of Christian teaching were, once more, religiously consistent and ethically coherent. It was the slave-owners who opposed them who were extreme. Mother Theresa lived her life taking care of lepers, outcasts and other people rejected by their society. She apparently did this because she believed this kind of behavior is the devotional and logical outcome of her faith; IOW, because it was religiously consistent and ethically coherent. There were those who opposed her work in India when she was alive, but again it could be argued that they and not she were the extremists.You've managed to single out three extreme examples of both shining religious morality (as they percieved it), and humanity in general. These people stand out amongst all manking, throughout all recorded history. I think you need to redefine what extreme means, if you feel that word isn't applicable to all three of them.

Not that these people were inherently bad. That much I will concede. But people who let their actions be dictated by religious moral standards (as they percieve them), generally doesn't go down in history as universal ideals for humanity. And... Well, Miss Theresa really wasn't terribly nice at all, was she? "Oh, your sick? Poor baby! Well I'll try to help you survive, but forget about relief. If Jesus could cope with the pain on the cross, then surely you don't need anastethics for that mangled leg of yours." but i digress yet again.Notice: I've used the expressions "religiously consistent" and "ethically coherent", to highlight a point. Your word, "extremism" as you use it, is capable only of conveying a negative implication to the concept of religious devotion. By contrast, the reality for many religious people may be, and is, a matter of integrating the various aspects of their personality to achieve a kind of wholeness of belief and practice. They are sincere and, to quote Douglas Adams, "mostly harmless".This leads us down an interesting path. One where you will need to define some sort of objective right & wrong. Which I honestly don't think you can.

One of your examples above would surely have been mortified by the blatant disregard for pain & suffering one of your other examples had.. Or rather, judged to be a virtue. Likewise, this latter person would surely not believe a third or your examples happened to do the right things for anything but the wrong reasons.

Speaking of which, if someone acts in a manner that is universally recognised as ethical, and that someone is motivated by a religion shared only by a few (relatively speaking). And the persons interpretation of the ethics the religion in question dictates, differs from the majority of that religions followers, and collide directly with some of the ethics laid out by other religions, is that person doing these good acts because of the religion, because of her interpretation of the religion, or simply through sheer coincidence?

I'd say a roughly equal combination, what would you say?In any case how can you possibly pretend to know what it's like to be religious in the way that Letila is? How can you pretend to know what it's like to be religious in the way that people like Letila are religious? Since you are not Letila, you're talking without relevant knowledge.Yes & no. I'm making conjecture based on the knowledge I have. I know that knowledge can be relevant, and I know the conjecture can be accurate, but you are absolutely right that it may not be in L's case.

Was that anything but obvious?You are talking about fanatics or fundamentalists as if they make up the whole of the category of religious people who take their religion seriously. What makes you believe Letila falls into your category of extremists and not another? She's given no evidence I can see here of being either George Bush or (the late) Ayatolla Khomeini.Well.. At least that wasn't my intention. But I will still maintain the claim that unless you are fanatical about your faith, your ethics will predominantly be decided by other factors.
Feel free to prove me wrong.As for your other comments about the western world, you point out that in the western world we share a "similar cultural background & similar ethical standards". Yet that background and those standards are our inheritance from a time when Church and State were so nearly one that the laws enacted in our western world are the expression of Judaeo-Christian morality. We may be glad or regret that, we may work to change it or to reinforce it, but there's no use denying it unless we can't be bothered reading the history of western civilization. There isn't anyone who has grown up in a western culture (in the sense that we're using it here) who hasn't in some sense been influenced by the Judaeo-Christian "take" on right and wrong. That doesn't mean it's the only morality in the market place. But it's the one we took home with us for the last 1000+ years.That was actually my point of argument. And since you obviously don't contest this, then I have no doubt that you won't contest that a large part of what we today consider ethical behaviour is dictated by our cultural background. Or what?

Further, this social ethical standard have varied a great deal over the past 200 years, where secularisation of society have really kicked in. Both wars, calamities, social engineering, and workers rights have played a huge role in changing what we consider socially acceptable & ethical today. Don't you agree?


Social ethical standards is what I assume to be the dominating factor in determining individual ethical standards. Further; I assume one would have to be fanatical about one's religion to have it be the dominant factor in determining one's ethical standards.

Feel free to disagree.It's going to be very hard to keep this an honest, civil discussion if you're going to attack people like Letila and stoop to pointless and inaccurate (and perhaps lazy or dishonest?) caricatures of of what she and others say. There's enough of that kind of refusal to communicate in the world already. Why add to it?Considering the contents of your post, I find it hard to do anything but smile at that sorry excuse for a personal attack. In any case, I didn't intent to paint L as anything in particular. But perpaps my wording was very poor, as you believe. I'll try to be less arrogant about it.
That said, you seemingly don't disagree with me at all, only with my wording. And while I managed to at least make a point somewhere in my rant, you didn't really manage to do anything but attack my style of writing, and what you believe was my intent.

I'll freely admit that the last sentence in my post wasn't appropriate. Though it's no excuse, I suspect my catch 22 is very closely connected with one of the examples of 'bad' extremists you used. Or perhaps it's a combination of lazyness & being slightly fed up with being called an amoral suicidal murderor by a lot of fundies on this very board. But it's no excuse. So sorry, both of you.

I'll just sum up what I meant: I pose that only extremists (anormally religious people) base their morality predominantly on what they feel is religious moral standards.

Shall we put this behind us then, and debate the topic at hand instead?

define extreme

My faith in God dictates almost every choice I make, my actions and ethics are defined by my devotion to Him. One of the goals of Christianity is to be Christ-like (letting Jesus' teachings impact my actions)

How can someone be religious and not let thier religious belief at all into thier choices in life?Don't worry, I've always thought of you as a religious extremist. I'm sure you wouldn't want it any other way ;)

You're lightyears from the Avalon II's of this world, though. Thank Dog for that.

I've come to the realization that it is a waste of time to ask these type of questions. You are only going end up in arguement, since everyone has different opinions and all and no one can agree on anything. Its best just to live how you feel neccessary and not bother with anyone

I've come to the realization that it is a waste of time to ask these type of questions. You are only going end up in arguement, since everyone has different opinions and all and no one can agree on anything. Its best just to live how you feel neccessary and not bother with anyone

If it wasn't for arguments, what would we all be doing here, anyway?
I hope to learn, and this thread already gave me a few valuable insights. Especially Bottle's videogame analogy.

I don't

i'm doing this as i have nothing better to do

might as well have fun

but I need money for most of the things I call fun

so I need a job

so I need a degree (or rather 2 and my 5 year phd)

and that brings me to where I am

I've come to the realization that it is a waste of time to ask these type of questions. You are only going end up in arguement, since everyone has different opinions and all and no one can agree on anything. Its best just to live how you feel neccessary and not bother with anyone

How did you see it playing out? An idea would be presented, and unanimous agreement would happen, and it would happen without discussion?

Wait, what?

It seems I've offended you. Please accept my apology.

Your post against Letila didn't offend me, so I'm not the one you should apologize to. Your post did concern me, since you took somebody's thread apparently intended to discuss a topic of philosophical interest, and turned it into a means for making thinly veiled insults against someone who holds a certain point of view on that topic.

I freely admit that I referred to what's usually called fundamentalists. I'm almost certain I was thinking of Jehova's witnesses when I wrote it. I can't claim the honour of inventing fundamentalism, however. Not Jehova's witnesses or any other kind.

No, you didn't "invent fundamentalism". But then, I never said you did, so you've said nothing to the point. What I actually wrote is,
...it sounds an awful lot like you created your own category of religiosity and assigned rules of how people in this category "must" act. ...

1. Do you really confuse religiosity and fundamentalism?
2. "Creating categories" is not an unfamiliar concept in philosophical discussion. As for what I referred to, all you needed to do to understand that was read the paragraph that followed. This one:
...Specifically, you told Letila you don't think religion or God really can impact her ethics much "unless you are very extreme about it". You created an artificial category and then assigned it a label which has particular (negative) emotive implications: "extreme". In current usage it means "fanatic" or "fundamentalist". Certainly, "extremists" aren't the only religious people I know who let "religion or God" influence their ethics, and "extreme" is a really poor choice of words for the only category of religiosity you're willing to acknowledge.

By smuggling in a phrase like "very extreme" you were telling Letila that she can't take her religion seriously without being pathological according to your understanding. And you were saying it with such emotionally charged language that you dismissed any answer she might make. You reinforce this dishonest trick of argument with your last sentence:

"... I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint." [bold type added]

Are you saying now that you don't believe what you said when you wrote "I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint"?
3. Before any passing JWs take offense, I'd like to point out that there is no evidence that JWs ever try to convert anyone "at gunpoint", and surely you didn't mean that.

Incidentally the only thing I said you "invented" is your argument. I assumed you didn't just take it from someone else.


I think you'll find that if you reread my post, I didn't even suggest that only extremists.. Oh, sorry.. Fundamentalists allow themselves to be influenced by faith-based ethical systems.

Well let's see, you've just said that for you, "extremist" = "fundamentalists" so I won't worry about that distinction. But please tell me you don't expect that claim to be taken as anything more than a smoke-screen? Here are your words (I've emboldened the key grammatical structures for clarity):
How does religion or God really impact your ethics? Not much I wager, unless you're very extreme about it.
...
I bet the answer is 'All of the above', and I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint.

Both times, you specify that you don't believe Letila's religion has much to do with her ethics unless she's "very extreme"/"a raving religious maniac trying to convert people by gunpoint". That's more than "even suggesting" it. A lot more.

Also, it stands to reason, that if I acknowledge an extreme practice of something, then I must also recognise a balanced or normal form of the same. For example, I highly doubt you ever express or refer to addition as extreme addition. There'd be no point, as addition can't be broken down in various degrees. I have a feeling I'm digressing, though. But I still don't see how my choice of words was improper.

It doesn't stand to reason at all. It's equally possible that someone is describing an extreme version of something intending to indicate that it is the only version. For example, that is becoming a regular feature in quite a bit of what passes for modern political (and other) debate. It has been observable throughout history as a key feature of propaganda especially of hate propaganda.

For the record, there is plenty of point to aim at precision in a discussion like this one. It avoids misunderstanding and it allows someone to know what one actually means to say, with greater precision than if one doesn't bother. And yes, I'm afraid I normally distinguish between an extreme version of something and its other varieties. It's a habit.

I'm very impressed by your ability to present your interpretation of my words, as my words.

I'm sorry, if I didn't assume better I'd have to say you're engaging in intellectual dishonesty. Your own words again:
How does religion or God really impact your ethics? Not much I wager, unless you're very extreme about it.
...
I bet the answer is 'All of the above', and I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint.

It really isn't good enough for you to claim I'm putting words in your mouth. You're the one who claimed that only a "very extreme" person who is "a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint" would let their religion have a "predominant" influence on their ethical decisions.

Sorry, I'm buggered, and this is silly.

At last, something on which we can agree. :)


I did not at any point even insinuate that religion cannot be very serious indeed for it's believers. And I did not insinuate, outright state or otherwise allude that people can't be serious about their faith unless they are fundamentalists, or as I put it; very extreme.

Are you now distinguishing between "being very serious indeed" about one's religion, and making one's ethical decisions by reference to one's religion? Since most religions have a lot of ethical content, the latter is a large part of the former, and therefore I would say that you're dodging the meaning of your own words. So, see above. Your own words are still the best refutation.

You're absolutely correct about me trying to get across that I believe religious extremism to be a malady. It would seem I succeded in making that point at least. I'm afraid you're correct about this possibly derailing this debate though, as you pick up on it again below. I won't apologise for the sensationalistic approach. This is an internet forum. Things would get extremely dull if we all stopped doing that.

It could be a point worth discussing, but considering the original question, isn't it better to do it in a separate thread? Cabra West's post isn't polemic in any way; it simply reads as an inquiry into how different people think about this topic. Why polemicize it? Of course sensationalizing something can be fun at times, but where the topic is sensitive to some people, and where the thread-poster was apparently not wishing to flame-bait but only to discuss and understand, sensationalism just obfuscates the issues and alienates some people. No?

...

Perhaps it is just me, but then, I'm the author of the post you're criticising, so I suppose that's a moot point... Ehm.. Perhaps it's just me, but I consider knowingly & willingly marching into clubs & gunfire is just a tad extreme.

It really depends upon how we're using "extreme". I took issue with it only because you used in parallel with being a raving maniac. It tends to create logical flaws if we allow ourselves to use words in different senses without acknowledging that we're doing it.

In the general sense, of course the actions of people like Gandhi could be called extreme. But that is not a judgment one way or another. Only when we get answers to questions like "why?" "what results had been obtained by alternative approaches before that?" "what was at stake?" and so on, can we decide what we think of the "extremism" being shown.

The sense you addressed the word to Letila is very different. You used "extreme" in the sense of being a "raving religious maniac". That prejudges the level of commitment without first finding out to what the person might be committed.

So, was Gandhi being "extreme"? Yes. Yes indeed. But he was responding to an extreme form of racism and imperialism, he was responding to a British government that refused to make needed changes when approached reasonably, and what was at stake was the dignity of the Indian peoples and their right to feel respected in their own country. And he did it by refusing to be violent.

[Aside: On extremism, I suppose we could argue that some of what we call "heroism" is the result of a kind of extremism. It might make an interesting -separate- thread: "how extremism underlies the human vices and virtues" or something.]


You've managed to single out three extreme examples of both shining religious morality (as they percieved it), and humanity in general. These people stand out amongst all manking, throughout all recorded history. I think you need to redefine what extreme means, if you feel that word isn't applicable to all three of them.

Not that these people were inherently bad. That much I will concede. But people who let their actions be dictated by religious moral standards (as they percieve them), generally doesn't go down in history as universal ideals for humanity. And... Well, Miss Theresa really wasn't terribly nice at all, was she? "Oh, your sick? Poor baby! Well I'll try to help you survive, but forget about relief. If Jesus could cope with the pain on the cross, then surely you don't need anastethics for that mangled leg of yours." but i digress yet again.

I'm not that interested in my examples except that people tend to know about them and have opinions one way or another, so they're easier to discuss. It would have been as easy to choose people only I know, but then we couldn't talk about them in this context. The 3 I used all have their flaws as well as their virtues; the point for me is that they tried to let their religion or God guide their ethics and they tried to do something good for others at their own cost. It's for us or others to decide if they got it right sometimes. They were only useful in the context of this thread and more particularly in the context of your previous message at Letila.

I will say this though, do you really thing Gandhi and King won't go down as ideals for humanity? I hope your wrong about that.... I'd find either of them infinitely preferable over Stalin or Hitler (or Nixon or Bush) as "universal ideals".


see part 2

...

This leads us down an interesting path. One where you will need to define some sort of objective right & wrong. Which I honestly don't think you can.

...which is okay by me, since I wasn't trying to define one. The only thing I wanted to do was to set out the right of those who believe in some religion or God to define an objective right or wrong if they choose, and to argue against the tendency to polemicize this discussion with insults. The fact remains that an objective right or wrong is possible if you start from presuppositions that make it possible, and it's impossible if you start from presuppositions that make it impossible. To me, that leaves us a lot of room to ask one another about our presuppositions and a lot of room to respect one another (but not a lot of room to waste on smuggling in words like "raving" or "maniac").


One of your examples above would surely have been mortified by the blatant disregard for pain & suffering one of your other examples had.. Or rather, judged to be a virtue. Likewise, this latter person would surely not believe a third or your examples happened to do the right things for anything but the wrong reasons.

Absolutely! But that wasn't my point, as I've already tried to explain. The original issue was whether or not we should be equating all extremism with being "raving religious maniacs... (etc)"

Speaking of which, if someone acts in a manner that is universally recognised as ethical, and that someone is motivated by a religion shared only by a few (relatively speaking). And the persons interpretation of the ethics the religion in question dictates, differs from the majority of that religions followers, and collide directly with some of the ethics laid out by other religions, is that person doing these good acts because of the religion, because of her interpretation of the religion, or simply through sheer coincidence?

I'd say a roughly equal combination, what would you say?

You lost your own question somewhere while you were trying to lay your conundrum. You started with "and that someone is motivated by a religion" and referred to the person's interpretation. It's plain they're acting on the basis of their interpretation. That's common with all people -- even non-religious people do that, they just do it with their interpretation of their non-religious world-view instead of a religious one.

I believe this explains why there are people who do things like commit acts of terrorism or starts wars and then "blame" their religion for it even though the religion in question repudiates actions like terrorism and wars. But of course we're using a kind of shorthand here and that doesn't help. We should be talking about how they interpret the sources of authority in their religion, not "religion".

The option of coincidence may be impossible to settle even if it's relevant, since it seems impossible to settle to everyone's satisfaction how to understand the significance of religions as the foundation of most modern ethical precepts now that the ethical presuppositions have been rejected.


Yes & no. I'm making conjecture based on the knowledge I have. I know that knowledge can be relevant, and I know the conjecture can be accurate, but you are absolutely right that it may not be in L's case.

Was that anything but obvious?

It probably would have been obvious if you hadn't written using your dichotomy based around the idea that a person who lets God or their religion impact their ethics is "very extreme"/is a "raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint". But since you wrote like that, not to me.


Well.. At least that wasn't my intention. But I will still maintain the claim that unless you are fanatical about your faith, your ethics will predominantly be decided by other factors.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

I don't need to prove you wrong. You just need to be clear of how you're using words like "fanatical" -- and get out more. :)

Seriously though, that statement is so full of assumptions and illogic it's hard to know where to begin. Why do you think only a fanatic who lives by what they believe to be true? I believe I know what you're trying to say, but in psychological terms, you're actually saying the opposite.

Psychological health includes, among a number of other things, the ability to act consistently and coherently, where one's personality is sufficiently integrated to act on the basis of what one considers right. If "what one considers right" includes ethical guidelines and precepts from one's religion, it would be a sign of psychological lack of health if one then preferred to be influenced ethically by factors not related to one's faith. To the degree that someone holds to a religion and refuses to let it be an ethical influence, to that degree one's personality is insufficiently integrated.

"Fanaticism" is something quite different.


That was actually my point of argument. And since you obviously don't contest this, then I have no doubt that you won't contest that a large part of what we today consider ethical behaviour is dictated by our cultural background. Or what?

Of course not! And I have no doubt that you won't contest that a large part of what we today consider ethical behavior is dictated by our religious background.


Further, this social ethical standard have varied a great deal over the past 200 years, where secularisation of society have really kicked in. Both wars, calamities, social engineering, and workers rights have played a huge role in changing what we consider socially acceptable & ethical today. Don't you agree?


Social ethical standards is what I assume to be the dominating factor in determining individual ethical standards. Further; I assume one would have to be fanatical about one's religion to have it be the dominant factor in determining one's ethical standards.

Feel free to disagree.

You're repeating yourself and I don't feel like repeating my answers -- again. See above.


Considering the contents of your post, I find it hard to do anything but smile at that sorry excuse for a personal attack.

What personal attack? I've made none. I've responded to the personal attack you made on Letila (that would be the "raving religious maniac" corner into which you tried to paint her, in case you're wondering).


In any case, I didn't intent to paint L as anything in particular. But perpaps my wording was very poor, as you believe. I'll try to be less arrogant about it.
That said, you seemingly don't disagree with me at all, only with my wording. And while I managed to at least make a point somewhere in my rant, you didn't really manage to do anything but attack my style of writing, and what you believe was my intent.

I trust you now have a clearer idea of where and how I agree or disagree with what you wrote.


I'll freely admit that the last sentence in my post wasn't appropriate. Though it's no excuse, I suspect my catch 22 is very closely connected with one of the examples of 'bad' extremists you used. Or perhaps it's a combination of lazyness & being slightly fed up with being called an amoral suicidal murderor by a lot of fundies on this very board. But it's no excuse. So sorry, both of you.

I'll just sum up what I meant: I pose that only extremists (anormally religious people) base their morality predominantly on what they feel is religious moral standards.

That admission is all that was ever needed rather than your initial attempt to defend it. It's too bad if you've got a problem with -- would it be Mother Theresa? As I said, these were incidental. I'd have rather talked about someone I know really, really well, but who lived an almost completely anonymous life, but it would have been pointless. As for the fundies on the board, well, we need them for someone to talk about/blame, don't we? ;)

Again, you owe me no apology, since you didn't attack me. Whether you owe Letila one is for Letila to decide.

As for what you meant originally, I've already said as much about that as is likely to be any use.

Shall we put this behind us then, and debate the topic at hand instead?

I'll drink to that!

How does religion or God really impact your ethics? Not much I wager, unless you're very extreme about it.

In most of the western world, we share both similar cultural background & similar ethical standards. We even pride ourselves in maintaining the most humane societies (at least internally). Yet we also have the highest concentrations of heathens. I don't just mean folowers of a minority religion, I mean people like humanists & materialists, who doesn't even recognise the possibility of there being anything supernatural, let alone divine.

I think you're perfectly capable of answering your own question. All you have to do is ask yourself who defines your ethics. Do you? Your upbringing? The standards the sorrounding society imposes on you? Your knowledge/education? Your ability to empathise with others? Your religion?

I bet the answer is 'All of the above', and I seriously doubt religion is the predominant factor - unless you're a raving religious maniac trying to convert people at gunpoint.
Ideally, identification with god should supply the answer, "All of the above." God (however one conceives of it) works through the individual by means of the individual identifying themselves with the god, so that both answers are correct at the same time: what the individual or society chooses as ethical is what God would choose as ethical. In that sense, God defines the ethics created by Man.

Of course, that relies on a healthy, natural relationship with the god.

Don't worry, I've always thought of you as a religious extremist. I'm sure you wouldn't want it any other way ;)
sure, as long as your realize I am not out trying to convert people by force or anything.

You're lightyears from the Avalon II's of this world, though. Thank Dog for that.
I think that if God gave people free will then it's not really my job to try to take it away. I may not like everything that they do, but it's not really any of my business, I am not the one that has the right to judge, God is, I don't want to try to take away God's authority.

It makes things a helluva lot more interesting, for one.

In what way?

For most people? Yes. Just ask them.

Hell, at least 75% of Christians will tell you that there is no reason to be moral outside of wanting to get into heaven and avoid going to hell. And, in America, that's like half the population right there. Reward and punishment is the force behind their lives.

Is that "right" or "wrong"? Meh.

I like to say this line alot "Those who fear death fear life".
As for Americans.... well, what can i say? They're Americans! :p

Have you ever wondered why animals never search for something higher? I think the very fact that 99% of people throughout history have believed in a higher purpose of some kind is evidence that we were created by God for a higher purpose. The philosophers themselves only became nihilists after hundreds of years showed them they couldn't prove there was any ultimate meaning unless they used faith, which went against their "rational" methods. It turns out you can't even prove that you exist through reason alone. So much for the glory of mankind!

It's true that i haven't witnessed my pet cat to be praying or looking for a meaning to her life, but when i watch & observe her, i sometimes wonder who has the best life.

She, because she's living in total ignorance of the possibility of a deity or meaning of life, and just goes on living because her instinct tells her to, or Us, humans, who spend most of their life doing repetitive shores, living lives in self imposed laws & morals and a great majority also imposes religion upon themselves.

If you accept that there is no god, no afterlife & no meaning (other then "living") you are freed of alot of worries if you ask me, and you tend to see life for what it really is, something short that should be savoured & enjoyed for asmuch as possible

Really, it's been puzzling me for some time now. Why is it so utterly and majorly important for some people to see a meaning and a purpose not only in their own life, but also in the universe on the whole?
And further, why won't it just do to find a purpose for themselves, or an explanation that suits their own life and view of the world, why do they consider it necessary to claim to have an absolute truth?

Personally, I know that in a greater sense, my life has no meaning whatsoever. I live in a radom univers, on a random planet and am a random occurence in a timeframe so large my conscious mind is unable to grasp it. I'm not immortal, nor do I strife to become immortal, not even in part. My life has meaning through what I think and do, and I may be lucky enough to be meaningful to others. And that's about it.

Why would there have to be more?


Why not?

:cool:

Originally Posted by philosophy 101


Because searching for that meaning is causing a lot of trouble and pain for a lot of people...

We do have a purpose, in a random, material universe (like the one we live in, duh) the purpose is for humanity as a whole to gain as much material in the universe as humanly possible, in other words, EMPIRE OR BUST, BABY!!!

We do have a purpose, in a random, material universe (like the one we live in, duh) the purpose is for humanity as a whole to gain as much material in the universe as humanly possible, in other words, EMPIRE OR BUST, BABY!!!
ill just have the bust please... a real big pair attached to a femail who is both highly attractive an wealthy and of a very giving and taking nature(an we all know what i mean by that mwhahahah!!!):rolleyes:

What is the meaning of life, you ask?
Forty-two!