This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
If There is No God... (debate)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Malgayne
Most good can be explained as such:
Humans are social animals.
Humans, as a form of life, generally want thier own species to continue for as long as possible. This is a basic, primal instinct that can be seen in any form of life.
Humans are generally "good", simply because if we were programmed by our inner workings to kill and murder each other all the time, we'd wipe ourselves out within a few years.
^ Yes
Four people run into a burning building to save a trapped child. In the process two of them die. Is this noble, or stupid and wasteful?
Another country has captured a hundred people from your country, and declares their intention to torture and kill these people. Do you go to war with the other country, knowing that hundreds or even thousands may die, to save them?
From the perspective of the survival of the species, these are both self-destructive behaviors. Why then, are they generally considered "good"?
To use a more topical example: Arthas arrives in Stratholme only to discover that it's already been infected with the plague. If he doesn't raze the town, all the villagers will become undead and will march on Lordaeron, killing many more in the process. Arthas chooses to kill every single innocent man, woman, and child in the city
before
they turn, to minimize and contain the infection. Uther Lightbringer insists there must be another way, a point of view that could potentially lead to far more destruction than just Stratholme.
Why is it that Arthas becomes the Lich King, and Uther leads the Knights of the Silver Hand?
Post by
Modibybob
http://lolgod.blogspot.com/
'Nuff said.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
http://lolgod.blogspot.com/
'Nuff said.
No...
Post by
Deepthought
Why then, are they generally considered "good"?
Firstly, "generally" is a very risky term to use here. But anyway;
1st: We have a natural instinct to protect our young. This instinct is present in basically all sentient life.
2nd: Preservation of the communitiy as a whole. As selfish as we are, we recognise the need for a larger working of humanity beyond ourselves. To not invade causes us too seem weak, and gives them a further foothold over us. At least, in our minds it does.
Why is it that Arthas becomes the Lich King
Because he gets Frostmourne? I hardly think that RL-equivalent decisions of his end up with the decision -maker becoming possessed.
Edit: Spelling errors. Dunno if I got all of them, but hey, it's 4 AM here.
Post by
ASHelmy
Not to sound like a bigot or something, but why does everyone think it a bad thing to claim that my morals are better then theirs? I mean, If I am driving a Mercedes, and you're on a bike, I can say that I am driving something better then you. So why not the same with morals? (I don't mean to offend by this..)
Post by
Deepthought
The benefits are the same but they are two different ways of living.
No, the benefits are
not
the same.
I mean, If I am driving a Mercedes, and you're on a bike, I can say that I am driving something better then you.
In your opinion, you are. I could say that the bike was better than the Mercedes and be as correct as you (in this case, both correct and incorrect).
Post by
TheMediator
Not to sound like a bigot or something, but why does everyone think it a bad thing to claim that my morals are better then theirs? I mean, If I am driving a Mercedes, and you're on a bike, I can say that I am driving something better then you. So why not the same with morals? (I don't mean to offend by this..)
Its getting dangerously close to saying "I'm better than you", which is just total flamebait.
Post by
Laihendi
Not to sound like a bigot or something, but why does everyone think it a bad thing to claim that my morals are better then theirs? I mean, If I am driving a Mercedes, and you're on a bike, I can say that I am driving something better then you. So why not the same with morals? (I don't mean to offend by this..)
Some people see the bike as better, because it doesn't cause pollution and it helps you stay physically fit.
Post by
TheMediator
Because he gets Frostmourne? I hardly think that RL-equivelent decisions of his end up with the decsion-maker becoming possessed.
Seriously. In almost every zombie anything its standard practice to destroy the infected area to prevent the spread of it.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
Okay maybe the bike thing was stupid, I can't really think of a good analogy, but sometimes you just know that your thing is better, is it wrong to say that it is (if you have evidence, of course)?
Post by
Interest
http://lolgod.blogspot.com/
'Nuff said.
=O.
Post by
Malgayne
You're fully entitled to disagree with them. But, in my personal opinion, Christianity makes the least sense of any religious doctrine I've seen. And I've seen plenty. I mean, they totally ripped off Hel(l) and the Armageddon concept from the Vikings. :l
Christianity vs. other religions is off-topic for this debate, unfortunately. But I encourage you to read an address by C.S. Lewis called "Is Theology Poetry?" It can be found in
The Weight of Glory
.
Unfortunately, I can't find the full text online, so I've quoted the relevant portion here:
"Supposing, for purposes of argument, that Christianity is true, then it could avoid all coincidence with other religions only on the supposition that all other religions are one hundred per cent erroneous...The truth is that the resemblances tell nothing either for or against the truth of Christian Theology.
If you start from the assumption that the Theology is false
, the resemblances are quite consistent with that assumption. One would expect creatures of the same sort, faced with the same universe, to make the same false guess more than once.
But if you start with the assumption that the Theology is true, the resemblances fit in equally well.
Theology, while saying that a special illumination has been vouchsafed to Christians and (earlier) to Jews, also says that there is some divine illumination vouchsafed to all men… We should, therefore, expect to find in the imagination of the great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic story."
1st: We have a natural instinct to protect our young. This instinct is present in basically all sentient life.
2nd: Preservation of the communitiy as a whole. As selfish as we are, we recognise the need for a larger working of humanity beyond ourselves. To not invade causes us too seem weak, and gives them a further foothold over us. At least, in our minds it does.
Why is it that Arthas becomes the Lich King
Because he gets Frostmourne? I hardly think that RL-equivelent decisions of his end up with the decsion-maker becoming possessed.
I can see the four people rushing into the building to save the child as being instinctual, but the situation doesn't change if the person in the building is an adult—or even an old man whose time is nearly done. When we hear a story like this in the news, our reaction is never to say "Well that was wasteful—they should have sent one person in at most. And firefighters contribute more to society than the guy he was going in there to save, so it would have been better for no one to go." Instead, we get misty-eyed about how noble the sacrifice was.
LIkewise, for the second example—these are not instinctual decisions. The decision to go to war is far too bureaucratic to be instinctual. Why should we bother to prevent them from gaining a "foothold" over us, if it means the continued preservation of the society as a whole, and prevents its destruction in a futile battle against a powerful enemy? I can't think of any reason except for the idea that it is a moral evil for a higher culture (the culture which fights to protect its people) to suppress a lower culture (the culture that kidnaps, tortures and kills for no reason), and that moral evils should be resisted.
And my intention with the Arthas example wasn't to cloud the issue with fiction. I suppose what I should have said was: Why is it so rarely questioned that Arthas' actions are portrayed as evil, while Uther's hesitance is portrayed is good? After all, Arthas' brutal slaughter
was
in the best interest of society as a whole.
Post by
Deepthought
You can live life happily and with fully either way. Happiness is defined by each individual,
I fail to see the relevancy of this. Are you attemping to read between the lines of my post? I don't see how this is really related to what I said at all.
maybe you see it this way and someone else doesn't
See above.
but don't assume that just because it happens to be what you believe.
Helping community != not helping community.
This is not a matter of belief.
but sometimes you just know that your thing is better, is it wrong to say that it is (if you have evidence, of course)?
That's just the thing. I don't think you've presented any evidence here, nor have you defined what "better" is.
Post by
Malgayne
Okay maybe the bike thing was stupid, I can't really think of a good analogy, but sometimes you just know that your thing is better, is it wrong to say that it is (if you have evidence, of course)?
It's not wrong.
If it is possible to legitimately say that
any
thing is better than any other thing—which is what this debate was about originally—then there's no reason why you logically can't say "my beliefs are better than yours."
You
shouldn't
say it, because even if you're right it's only going to get people mad at you. But there's nothing
inherently
false about that statement.
Post by
Jaspirac
,then is there a reason to live by any moral code? Are there even such things as morals? For what purpose? To whom?
If there is no God, and government were to collapse, then do YOU make the law for yourself? Who decides what is right and wrong? Is there such thing as right and wrong? If there is no wrong, and there is no right, then what reason is there to live?
It comes down to the 'self'- what you believe is right and moral. If you have a family then you will teach your 'morals' to them and base right and wrong on how they live. Abusing a child, for instance, would be 'bad' because it is not good for the child- also not good for the parent.
If governments collapse then we do indeed go back to laws governing ourselves and those around us. Since people have created the governments of the world and thus the laws of the world there is not reason that groups of people would not institute rules, laws or morals to live by to allow the growth and expansion of their people. In some forms these would result in 'laws' or morals that condone the killing of people from outside the group.
Take vengeance and the film Mad Max as an example of self based laws and morals. A man who is pushed from an outside group and has his family harmed KNOWS that what was done to him is wrong and thus creates his moral code to eliminate the guilty.
Yeah- I know, I used a film as an example.
I'll think about this some more and add to it.
But go ahead and pick me apart, MyTie.
Post by
ASHelmy
Okay maybe the bike thing was stupid, I can't really think of a good analogy, but sometimes you just know that your thing is better, is it wrong to say that it is (if you have evidence, of course)?
It's not wrong.
If it is possible to legitimately say that
any
thing is better than any other thing—which is what this debate was about originally—then there's no reason why you logically can't say "my beliefs are better than yours."
You
shouldn't
say it, because even if you're right it's only going to get people mad at you. But there's nothing
inherently
false about that statement.
Devs can edit posts without the whole "edited x seconds ago by x"? Anyway I just wish I could get atheists to just see Islam from my point of view, I never truly understood why atheists refuse the morals of Islam, what part do you not like?
Post by
Deepthought
I can see the four people rushing into the building to save the child as being instinctual, but the situation doesn't change if the person in the building is an adult—or even an old man whose time is nearly done. When we hear a story like this in the news, our reaction is never to say "Well that was wasteful—they should have sent one person in at most. And firefighters contribute more to society than the guy he was going in there to save, so it would have been better for no one to go." Instead, we get misty-eyed about how noble the sacrifice was.
Human instinct is very rarely logical, you know.
And I don't know about you, but I don't get misty-eyed over the nobility of it, I get depressed by the deaths in the first place.
Futhermore, to save a life gives a person a boost within society in a good majority of cases. A higher ranking in the heirachy of soicity increases ones chance of passing on their genes.
The decision to go to war is far too bureaucratic to be instinctual.
Hardly. The same action would be taken thousands of years ago, no doubt.
Why should we bother to prevent them from gaining a "foothold" over us, if it means the continued preservation of the society as a whole,
Because we believe our part of society is superior too theirs and humanity will become greater by ours enclosing thiers. As you said:
I can't think of any reason except for the idea that it is a moral evil for a higher culture (the culture which fights to protect its people) to suppress a lower culture (the culture that kidnaps, tortures and kills for no reason), and that moral evils should be resisted.
We do not like the idea of this happening within our society because we fear this will harm us, our ability and chances to procreate, and humanity as a whole.
Why is it so rarely questioned that Arthas' actions are portrayed as evil, while Uther's hesitance is portrayed is good? After all, Arthas' brutal slaughter was in the best interest of society as a whole.
Because he succumbs to the evil he killed those people to fight. Had he succeeded, most would see him as a brave hero, killing the few too protect the many.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.