Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Descan]

I just did this topic in ethics so I've already been thinking about this a lot

I feel like certain morals are objectively true. For example, killing is wrong, so is stealing, breaking promises, etc.

No matter how you stretch it, these things are never right. Even if you must kill someone in self-defense, the murder is not morally correct. Even if you have to steal to survive, the theft is not morally correct.

From these, less fundamental morals come around, i.e. ideas on homosexuality, abortion, what have you.

Basically the true answer lies somewhere inbetween Objective and Subjective truth

_{i know i probably fucked this up somehow}

Personally, I go with the idea that the fundamental morals you talked about are... "objective," in a way. Not like, set in stone somewhere in the Crab Nebula or something, but well, the Prisoner Dilemma was run through computer simulation of many different strategies, some "evil" (lots of defection) and some "good" (like Tit for Tat, where you are never the first to defect, you just do the same play as your opponent did last time. They defect last, you defect now. They cooperate, you cooperate)

The result was something akin to the top ten had all good strategies? Or at least a 9/10 majority.

So my view is that that idea, where cooperation is mathematically/statistically/computationally(?) shown to be better than selfish behavior, it follows (for me) that the evolution of social creatures like humans, canines, elephants, etc. encouraged cooperation within certain parameters. Like the idea that people tend to treat their in-group better than strangers is also shown in those simulations: When it was a consistent "opponent" (i.e. you play the same person over and over again) cooperation was better, as in family and your tribe, but if it was a one-off play, then the "evil" strategies had a one up (after all, if you only play one time, if your first play is to defect and you're playing against a Tit for Tat, they'll cooperate and you'll come out very far ahead. It's only if you play them again that you get into poor scenarios.)

So uh. That was a long read. Hopefully it made sense?

[Bohandas]

Yeah, it did.

[MonkeyHead]

To me, certain morals seeming "objective" is nothing more than an emergent phenomena beneficial to creatures such as ourselves that are social. It is hardly advantageous for any individuals acting as part of a group to exhibit actions that are at that time self destructive to them of their "tribe". Such groupings would be out-competed by more effective "teams", and such individuals shunned. Over time, nearly everyone tends to the same attitudes that fit the current demands of their environment. Socialization is a powerful feedback tool.

In any case, can someone point out a moral which seems universally objective? There are plenty of historical precedents that to me show that humans can have a very different notion of right and wrong depending on time, location, context, and so on...

[Frumple]

... don't kill the in-group is pretty bloody universal, yes. Even in cultures that had the occasional exception (human sacrifice or mercy killing, ferex), they had exceptions to a general rule that held steady. Hell, even with asocial animals that general rule (don't kill own kind... more generally, don't kill when unnecessary) holds (if only due to energy expenditure reasons). Don't know enough about microscopic ecologies and whatnot to say if it's significantly-more-true-than-not there, too, but for most everything else it is.

We're really getting kinda' far off base here, though. Most major religions straight up hold to either an objective morality or a singular source of morality (conceptually, the divine, more practically the holy texts and religious organizations), which makes the question of whether there's an objective morality in reality kinda' pointless if you're looking to better understand religious beliefs. As a rule, they believe so, and all that's really left to discuss there is the particulars...

[Rolan7]

I miss this thread 

So I'm going to ask something I've wondered about for a while, but haven't yet researched properly:  Is Hell a Jewish concept, or introduced entirely by the New Testament?

I will say that it *seems* to be introduced by Jesus.  The hypertext Bible I use has a list of references to Hell.  They're all in the New Testament except for Daniel 12:2, which isn't explicitly about Hell:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Though it does seem to describe at least an unpleasant afterlife.

But rather, most of the Old Testament describes heathens as being destroyed.  Losing out on eternal life, but not suffering eternal punishment either.  A particular clear verse is Obadiah 16:

For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.

So...  I'm curious about:
Whether Jewish people believe that heathens stop existing after death (which I'm totally cool with)
What Jews believe *their* afterlife is like
Why the two Testaments seem to contradict on this very important question:  "What happens to most people after death?"

Here's the list of references I referred to: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/hell.html
As usual they're very generous about including passages in these contradiction-comparisons.  It's convenient to have a comprehensive list like this, but some of the individual passages included are *very* weak evidence of contradiction by themselves.

[Orange Wizard]

It's hard to say if fiery-torment Hell is a real thing (assuming you believe in Jesus, etc.) or if the Roman Catholic church made it up to get money.

I've heard several interpretations on how to explain the apparent contradiction. My church says that the word "destroyed" refers to being defeated and stripped of power, rather than cessation of existence. A couple of Baptist churches 'round here say that the fiery torment is temporary, and afterwards you cease to exist.
Other people believe Hell is totally made up, and sinners are either not punished (and every individual goes to heaven) or they cease to exist after death.

Personally, I have no sodding clue. I believe that it won't be pleasant for unbelievers after they die, which is sad, but there's also nothing I can do about it (other than telling them they should go to church and ask forgiveness, but you know how that goes). Other than "pleasant/not pleasant" I have no idea what the afterlife entails for anyone.
Which is why I'm scared of it, I guess.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I believe that non believers that were never given a chance to convert and made no attempt at figuring out if there is some sort of great being that made them go to help but only suffer desperation from god and others that have heard of god but don't convert get a bit of eternal suffering and then those that attempt to kill off Christians and destroy the religion and all that get a terrible eternal sufferings
Though I have no proof to back this up, it's just personal thought

[Leafsnail]

I love the idea of "a bit of eternal suffering"

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Well I needed some way of separating 'the of constant feeling of near death' and 'you are riped apart, mangled and thrown into fire only to be pulled out and done again for eternity'

[Rolan7]

I believe that non believers that were never given a chance to convert and made no attempt at figuring out if there is some sort of great being that made them go to help but only suffer desperation from god and others that have heard of god but don't convert get a bit of eternal suffering and then those that attempt to kill off Christians and destroy the religion and all that get a terrible eternal sufferings
Though I have no proof to back this up, it's just personal thought

Not to be too judgmental, but this position disturbs me.  Like many Christians, you apparently don't believe in eternal hellfire for all nonbelievers.  This is a fairly reasonable position that can be reached by interpreting the many Hell-related passages as figurative rather than literal.

But your position is different.  Hell still exists, and most nonbelievers still go there... temporarily...  and anyone who actually opposes Christianity goes there forever.

It's one thing to be indoctrinated into the belief that all nonbelievers are going to Hell forever.  I think it's fair to say most Christians who believe that find it unthinkably tragic, which is one reason why they work so desperately and generously to save people.

But to come up with and believe the unique idea that some people will burn eternally and others will burn temporarily, suggests - correct me if I'm wrong - that you think it would be fair that way.  That anyone who works against Christianity, an aggressively evangelical faith which 60% of the world believes to be false, *deserves* to be punished literally forever.  And that someone who hears the word but isn't convinced deserves a period of agony.

But maybe I'm over-analyzing a mere theory, and you don't actually think it would be fair.

[Leafsnail]

He's not saying that hell is temporary for non-believers, just slightly less bad.  So over 2/3rds of people will go to hell forever.

[Descan]

+/- a couple tens of billions, since compared to human history, Christianity as a world religion (as in, not just in Europe/the Mid-East) is fairly new.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

No I meant that all non believers will suffer eternaly just ones who didn't believe to with the seperation from god, those who heard but disbelieved go and feel torment eternaly (maybe four end knowing they are seperated and the first group doesn't even realize and just feel in limbo eternaly) and the last group of radicals who seek the destruction of Christianity and god.

60% of the world might not be Christian but I doubt even a good majority of that want every Christian dead, out of the way, forgotten, and their beliefs destroyed forever.
I know what I believe probably isn't true but eh. I don't have to worry a of hellfire but I fear it for the rest of you, my IRL friends too.

[Rolan7]

I know what I believe probably isn't true but eh.

You know, of course this *sounds* crazy, but I actually think I understand.  I just believe in weather and forest spirits, and possibly fey.  Completely ridiculous, but it feels true and is kinda fun.

Though my comfortable untrue thing doesn't judge other people, or hinder me from accepting reality.  It's fully outside of reality, where all it can do is comfort.  Ironically I think Christianity for most people these days is in a similar state.  Fundamentalists and religious "leaders" *hate* that, and are constantly trying to re-radicalize these dormant followers. 

And when bad times arrive...  people listen.  That's why I'm against Christianity as a whole, even though most people use it for good right now.  I worry that it's just waiting to come back.

Anyway, back to Hell...  I pressed some Jehovah's Witnesses about the fate of nonbelievers, and they said nonbelievers would only eternally regret missing their chance to be with God.  Not burn or anything.  Then again, I've heard that Jehovah's Witnesses use the "pearls before swine" verse to lie in the interest of attracting converts.  But personally I think that'd be a reasonably just outcome.  Having to live with the guilt of our own mistakes and missing an opportunity of eternal happiness... would suck... but it's not exactly a punishment, and maybe we'd come to terms with our failings in time.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

You would have an eternity to sit in isolation and think