I don't "know" theat they don't exist, but I have certainly never in my life seen or had evidence of a perfect thing. Have you? So based on empirical evidence, I'd say it is unlikely to find one.
As a concept, it is fine, just as is the concept of infinity. Do either perfection or infinity exist in reality? In reality, you cannot be "nearly perfect" any more than you can be "nearly to infinity".

And no, my intellect and reason are not even that good relative to very smart humans. But I believe it is a called an "ad hominem" when you are discussing the merits of the person making them (in this case, my imperfection) rather than the arguments themselves.
I agree with you here. Morality is quite subjective. But I have the right to try to ensure that my version of morality becomes more widespread than other versions. Indeed, that is what each of us does when we take moral positions on any issue. However, I find it wise to try to at least understand the other persons' positions, even if I don't agree with them.

For example, in some versions of Christianity, it is perfectly acceptable to use all of the resources of the Earth just as rapidly as possible, because the Rapture is coming, and God gave us the Earth to use. Are they wrong? According to my moral code, they are, and I will work towards preserving the earth in direct opposition to their moral code. But according to their moral code, it is good and right to, as you say, burn the rain forests.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to demonize Christians. That is just an example. I can think of others, like the way some oriental cultures have driven animals to extinction in order to get their "herbal remedies".
I belive you have taken just the opposite message that I was intending to convey. I was saying that it would seem obvious that shooting down a plane of innocent people was wrong (universally). But that circumstances can always be such that what was wrong in one case is right in another.
Here's the entire paragraph, with both scenarios.I have not made it as fact. I have shown how it is subject to interpretation and that "right" and "wrong" are not universal.
Now you've got it. But I still have the right, and in my opinion, the responsibility to fight for the things that I think are right. This does not negate the possibility that I might be wrong. But what we would be striving for is to make our own ideas of right and wrong more accepted than other ones. Think of it as a battle of competing memes.
Exactly. Would you tell a starving peasant that he had no right to clear land in the forest to grow food because we were "protecting" that rain forest? In his own narrow view of the world, his need to eat outweighs the need to protect the planet. I think I am right, because my "morality" protects many people, whereas his only protects one family, and I will work to preserve rain forests because of my beliefs. It does not mean that I cannot empathize with the starving peasant.
It is logic. Think of a progression.
Who rates the contestants? The judges. But are the judges perfect? No, but they are better than the contestants. Who rates the judges. The judges' panel. Is the panel perfect? No, but it is better that the judges. Who rates the judges panel? The world judging organization. Is the world judging organization perfect? No...

As you can see, there is no person or group of persons capable of perfect judgment. Only a perfect judge could do that. Who could tell if there were a perfect judge? Only another perfect judge.

Do you see my logic?
It is quite possible to find flaws in imperfect things relative to other imperfect things. I have never contested this. However, the point I have always been making is that it is pointless to try to compare the flaws to a perfect thing, because no imperfect thing could ever judge perfection.

So if I judge Iacchy's reasoning, it is because I feel that my reasoning is better than his. But it's not perfect Okay, that was out of line. I apologize. I should not have implied that Iacchy or anyone else does not have class and dignity. I am truly sorry.
I know you do, but you cannot say what they are.

Here's a fun game. Give me a situation in which you think something is absolutely or universally right (or wrong).

So we will always be at odds with each other then?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I'm not sure I feel compelled to do this myself. I also find it fascinating that you are using the words "moral" and "morality".

You know, this is interesting, because I'm not sure what a "Christian" is--as the word is viewed or defined these days....however I still call myself one, simply meaning that I believe in the teachings of Christ. Other than that, the variety of beliefs, interpretations, perspectives and practices, as well as the number of individuals that are an embarrassment to so-called Christianity is astounding, and for that reason I cannot identify with most of them. I have distanced myself from organized religion entirely. As DC pointed out, in claiming to know a perfect God, it is possible to be mistaken, which I think many religions are.

No, I understood you completely. You first made the statement that shooting down a plane of innocent people would "of course" be wrong...at that time you did not say "seem wrong", so I was addressing your statement as you made it. I was aware that you had included a modification of the situation to include a gray area in which it might not be considered wrong, but that didn't change the meaning of the first statement. If you want to change it to "seem" now, then that does indeed change the meaning of the statement and perhaps that is what you originally meant.


Thank you gb! Forgiven.


I'll think about it, but I know all of the arguments already. Besides, I love a good mystery, don't you? ...oh come on now, not even sometimes? I'm talking about the mystery of what I think...not what is right and wrong.

Really? You would not step up to defend your own moral code? I not only find that surprising, I'm a little skeptical. Was it not you who took me to task for being abusive with Iacchy?They seem to be the correct words to describe a set of personal beliefs for determining behavior. I have heard some argue that atheists cannot have morality, because there is no source of morality. I tend to take issue with those who make such statements.
So do I. Some of them. Some interpretations of them. But I don't believe in Christ, at least not as the Son of God, and there is a strong possibility that he never existed, but is an amalgamation of various influential people of that time. Certainly some of his mythology was taken from other religions. You have to wonder how much else was "borrowed".

Still, if something is a good source of morality (by my personal judgment ) then I don't care who it was written by.
LOL, well, I think all of them are mistaken about some things, and some of the things they are mistaken about are more important than others.

Still, I think I prefer your "disorganized religion".

Speaking of disorganized religion, I have a lot of good friends who are Pagans. In my mind, they have the best moral codes of all, like "take care of the Earth" and "do what you like as long as you aren't harming anyone else." But their practices of praying to the Goddess and casting "spells" (which don't work) I find to be extremely silly. They are also suckers for anybody selling "new age" snake oil, like crystal healing or ear candling.
That is sort of the problem with the written word. You can't necessarily convey that a question was ironic or rhetorical. My point was to try to lure the reader into agreeing that shooting down a plane full of (mostly) innocent people was wrong, then turn the tables on them to show that what they agreed to was wrong might not be wrong in certain situations.

But now you see what I was getting at, so we're cool.
I do get carried away sometimes. I'd like to think that I am capable of recognizing this flaw in my "morality" and take steps to fix it.
I didn't think I'd catch you. However, I find it odd that you can realize that any "good" can be turned to "not good" by the situation or by the point of view, and at the same time believe there is a universal good. It sounds to me like wishful thinking to insist that something exists even though there are no examples of it.

And yes, I like mysteries. That's why I'm a scientist. I spend much of my life solving mysteries.

I'm not much of a fan of murder mysteries though. They seem to treat murder in such a trivial fashion.

Nope, it is not a given. Agreed, 100%. It is an unknown, which was my point.LOL...So I am not to interpret what Iacchus says into what his motives are, but you can do this for me? Fine...tell me my motivation.

I am comfortable assuming Iaccus is afraid. Why? Not because there are absolutes, but because there is a language communtity, immersed in which we all have learned the practical meanings of the words we use. So...do I know exactly what Iacchus means? (frankly, I don't think he does.) Am I part of the language community which defines the words he has learned? I think I am...if I am not, he should be able to demonstrate that fairly quickly. The way he uses this vocabulary...it looks very much like fear. Could I be wrong? Of course! Could I be right? It appears, from context, that Gooze and I have seen the same thing. (fear, that is.) When we recognise that there are no absolutes to compare to, only the consensus of opinon of a language community, the support of another individual may be statistically meaningful, although we do not here have enough data to calculate that. So again..could I be right? The data are not conclusive, but they are consistent. With this sample sixe, conclusivity is impossible.LOL...so we cannot decide which is and is not good (which was my point)...you do recognise that Iacchus is choosing "extremes" and talking about our "egotistical, selfish natures.". Nice to see he makes no value judgments.

As GB asks (and you decline), feel free to suggest some universal rights or wrongs. Don't worry -- I won't hold my breath.

Excuse me, but didn't I say that I "believed" there were universal right and wrongs? Better read it again. That is my "belief". I'm not going to suggest a damn thing to you. It is simply my belief. Find yourself another argument. Bye...

That's merely because it's a matter of intent, and not everybody's intentions are alike. But, to imply that there's no such thing as intent, indeed, is where the falsity lies. There's only one sun in the sky by the way, and yet that doesn't preclude a whole diversity of life to come into being, each with its own specific intent about why it's here.

Yes, it does seem to be speaking of some universal sense of justice here now doesn't it?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

But almost everbody's intentions are good. Somtimes they feel it is better to be good to one set of people than to another, but I cannot think of a single sane person who does something with the intention of harming everybody and everything. Go ahead. Give me an example.Nothing of that sort has been implied. But you have heard the expression, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", have you not? It is not intent which makes a thing good or bad, it is outcome. I can give you numerous examples where basicly good people have done horrible things when their intent was just the opposite.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Even if I accepted the Bible as a source of authority on these things, I would have to say that particular passage actually suggest that there is no justice. "for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust," says to me that everybody gets treated the same on Earth, be they good or evil, just or unjust.

I find this one of the most honest and clear passages in the Bible. It acknowledges that God will mete no punishment to the evil while on Earth, but rather they will be treated exactly like everyone else. In this I think it summarizes one of the major reasons for religion: Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people and we can't do much about it, so it is comforting to invent a supernatural entity and a supernatural place where they get what they deserve.

Are you saying people don't conspire to rob and steal, and do harm to others?

I think the word you might be looking for here is "delusion." Yes, people can be deluded into thinking what they're doing is good.

The world is a very diverse place. Which is to say we act according to our intent. So it's our intent that determines the outcome of things and ultimately how things appear. Indeed, the world is a very diverse place.

This isn't exactly true, because people pay for doing "unjust" things by going to jail.

It merely suggests that God's love is unconditional, and that He passes judgment on no one and, that this is the nature of The Good.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I am not saying that at all. But by their value system, their own comfort and well-being is more important that the comfort and well-being of their victims. Do you not agree that by some standards, Robin Hood is a hero, even though he conspired to rob and steal?
No, deluded is not the word I am looking for. Misguided, perhaps, but sometimes it is impossible to tell that you were misguided until you see the results. Would you like an example? Kudzu was intentionally brought to the US to help stabilize the soil. It is now a major problem, as it completely takes over areas, driving out the natural vegetation. But the intentions were purely good.

Another saying you may have heard: "When you're up to your a$$ in alligators, it's easy to forget that your intention was to drain the swamp."
That is incorrect. Intent only determines the outcome if we are knowledgable enough to know all the ramifications of our intentional actions. Sometimes ignorance determines the outcome. I gave you the Kudzu example. I can give you many many others.
Ah, but that is human judgment, is it not? And is it not true that depending on your culture, the same action, (for example, beating your wife) might result in going to jail, or might have no consequences for you whatsoever. Pretty obviously, this is not God making the decisions.

Sometimes men use moral codes that include a reference to some God when choosing which behavior to punish, but not always.
LOL! God's love is unconditional? That's a laugh. Perhaps you've heard of the concept of Hell.

But you now seem to suggest that it is wrong for humans to judge the rightness or wrongness of anything since that is God's job and he passes it to no one. That would mean that we should not have jails, since God and only God is allowed to do the punishing. This is yet another internal contradiction of Christianity.

Was he merely doing this for the sake of his own comfort and well being? Actually, it sounds more like a spiritual quest if you ask me.

Naive is a better choice of words, and it's not the same thing as good.

Again, naive is a better choice of words.

People can still intentionally do something and be naive about it or, ignorant as you say. Nonetheless, without intent, nothing would ever happen, good or bad.

So, it's okay to beat your wife then, depending on where you live? What exactly are you saying?

Usually when the bad are punished it involves being segregated from the rest of the public, so they don't infect anyone else. Does that sound like such a terrible thing to do, especially when they would probably be better off in jail?

And have you heard of the concept ruling love? ... or, that "birds of a feather flock together?"

This is called segregation.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

He was robbing. Intentionally. Some people thought it was good. Your point about intentions is in shambles.
I would say "ignorant" is more apt, but I know you have problems with that word. But it shows again that the goodness of a thing is not determined by intentions. Strike two.
It makes no difference if they were naive or ignorant or what, according to your statement about how intentions determine the goodness of a thing. Strike three. You're out.
Oh really? Have you never heard of an accident? Did the driver intend to have his brakes fail get into an accident killing other people? I would still call that "bad", thought there was absolutely no intent. Strike four.
Yes I am. In some cultures, it is okay to beat your wife. People who do it are not punished. No, its not good to me and I would work to change that culture. This is very much like the work that amnesty international does. They try to bring about changes in morality. I approve of their work.
I think that is a very naive way to look at punishment. I believe it is an attempt to change their behavior by making the consequences of certain types of behavior very uncomfortable. If the prisoners actually felt that they were "better off in jail", then jail would be no deterrant to crime.
Yes, I remember that thread. You wouldn't answer questions there either.

Now, see if you can answer this direct question:
How can God's love be called "unconditional" when he punishes people for their behavior and, even worse, for their beliefs.

No, this is called "Iacchy trying to misdirect when he has directly contradicted himself."

What do you mean? Am I going to have to go back and read this again?

Yes it is about intent -- in other words the reason why we do things -- otherwise there would be no way of determining what it is. Which of course becomes a convenient excuse for those who don't wish to examine it.

Either that, or you're just terribly naive, or ignorant, and don't understand what good is ... besides being purely vain in your own thinking perhaps?

Yeah, and maybe it was their intent to get in the car and drive to the store before they got into the accident?

But according to you this is just your opinion. So what?

And yet all you're doing is restricting them from going out and harming others. Taking away their idea of fun? Oh well ... Of course they can get just as cruel and mean and nasty to each other prison, so in that sense you're really not taking anything away from them.

Or, maybe you're just not accustomed to having somebody disagree with you?

The Lord casts no one into hell ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

This kind of takes us back to the subject of free will again, doesn't it?

Yes, it all pretty much boils down to the same thing. In fact, this is where we find freedom, in the equilibrium which exists between heaven and hell.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

These links explore the subject of free will:

Did God Create Evil?

Why Did God Let September 11th Happen?

Which is what I have been saying all along. Even religious people admit that we cannot know the mind of God. Is it not pretetious then, to assume that we know what God wishes? Oh, the Bible tells us? Well the bible left some pretty big gaps. It left some glaring ambiguities and unresolvable contradictions. Are we supposed to figure out what God meant? And will we be punished if we fail the test when we were not allowed to know all the rules?

Question: How can you tell the difference between a God which we are incapable of understanding and no God at all:

And how will we "find out" later what the purpose was? Isn't what we "find out" still an incomplete understanding of this "infinite God"? It could still be wrong.

Another bit:Even if He didn't create it, if God has the power to stop evil but refuses to do so, then God is evil, by every definition of "evil" that I have ever heard. He may also be good too, but he is guilty of being an accessory to Satan.

---


Question: How is a person to know whether there is a God which could prevent evil but has forbidden himself to do so, versus a God which has no power over evil versus a God which has no interest in evil or good, versus the complete absence of God? They would all have the exact same appearance to the observer, would they not?

But in to respond to the article, I say this. If God created man with even the capacity to choose to do evil, then that evil ultimately comes from God.

Oh, and by the way. According to the bible God has occasionally intervened on the behalf of good and/or against evil (Daniel in the Lions Den, Hebrew children in the fiery furnace etc.) So this argument that He refuses to interfere with free will is contradicted by his occasional behavior. According to the Bible he can and did "descend to dominating control".

Well, perhaps we could then take into account the words of a mystic on the matter, since the whole idea seems to be up for grabs anyway? In which case the words of a mystic which, according to you are neither here nor there, might prove to be equally as valid? ... The Lord casts no one into hell ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

God is good. Man can only aspire to do good.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

You're probably tired of my responding with yet another link but I'm going to do it anyway:

Evil in the World