Does God really matter? (philosophical discussion)

[Mr Ektion]

My answer to your question Sidekick: Yeah, God really does matter.

It matters because it affects me indirectly. Regardless of if I believe in God or not, or if he even exists or not, someone else may. If someone believes in God, and I don’t, than knowing more about ‘God’ will help me maneuver around in inter-personal situations and understand certain circumstances a little easier. Regardless of what God means to me, half of the world believes ‘God’ exists, so whatever ‘God’ is, it/he affects me politically, culturally, financially, and even more importantly, immediately. Hell, WORLD WARS have started over the idea of God when we don’t even know if he/it really exists!

I want to bring up Sidekick’s excellent angle of killing and the moral affect it would take if it became legal. Imagine if tomorrow they said in the law book killing is ok. Will everyone go apeshit and start killing one another looting pillaging and stealing just because it’s legal? Will God go out the window now that the immediate strong arm of the law is gone and the only punishment is hell (which is way in the future at the end of life) Well, no. Because no one wants that shit to happen to them. No one wants to die. It’s a common understanding that if you’re not posing a threat to me, and I’m not posing one to you… then let’s keep it that way. [Wasps don’t sting until you start swatting]

Ok, regardless of morality, if someone attacked you and tried to kill you, is it moral to kill that person in defense? Hand to hand combat, someone attacks you and you cold cock him in the temple and kill the person. Are you going to hell for that? Is God going to decide or is the Law going to decide? My answer is simple, think like the animals do. In the wild kingdom, if people step up to the plate, you have to face your shit or high tail. Otherwise you’re dead. Everything has to protect its own existence.

If killing became legal, then I bet there would be an some tyranny. But eventually, people will say that they don’t want to be killed anymore, some hero figure will lead the way and step forth from the ‘flock of sheep’ and lead ‘the masses’ against the tyrant. Through No one wants to get killed, but if killing protects your existence, then it’s a common understanding that death is the only way out sometimes. An even clearer example would be stacking a big ant against a bunch of little ones. If the big ant starts to eat a bunch of the little ants, the only way for the other little ants to survive is by killing the big ant. Unless of course the big ant doesn’t mess around and everyone can be happy. Even ants can learn to govern themselves regardless of if they know of morality or the existence of God.

This is my seg-way into how I would like to explain God from what I understand him to be. Someone told me that Religion is the Opium of the masses. To further explain the analogy, if you bundle all human kind together and call it ‘the masses’ then God is a set of rules that someone told someone else about. 10 rules were set with a bible full of stories to set president in case questions were to be asked (each story was meant to be taken metaphorically- and my only explanation for that is that you can’t judge an entire species through one book, so take what you can, and use your common sense by reading between the liens). The bible and God keeps us in order and from killing ourselves and one another

Here’s another cool quote. God is what keeps the poor from killing the rich. We all get envious. Some steal. It’s so easy. But no one wants to be stolen from, and no one can really know how desperate a person can get. So bam. A new rule! No killing, because we don’t want all our rich people being killed when all of their bundles of money are hidden away. Get it? Opium for the masses. Without the idea of God to support us and comfort us and make us feel that we are all playing on the same playing field, we would be lost and Darwinian evolution, my friends, will leave you in the dust.
I think that everyone is looking for hope because in truth, we are all insubstantial. Sorry to say it, but much like a spy or someone who wants to be forgotten, if you stay to yourself and hide away, people will forget about you. Because they have their lives to deal with too. What if religion is around to stop people from killing themselves?

My current MSN name is this: Thinking is evil because you only find time to think when you're unhappy; So, Don't believe every first thing you think.

What do you guys think? If you take out God, it’s not hard for someone who needs support from no where to feel like shit. So many people say you find God in everywhere, maybe it’s simply a matter of moral support. Happiness. Strength from nothing but a friendly smile or a hug from a friend. Anyways, I think God is a motivator. He causes wars and can inspire single persons to do the most incredible things by using God to motivate one’s self. Take that away, and what do so many people in the world have? How’s that for morality?

The only one real punishment for killing we can tell people is hell. Commit suicide, life’s over and you go to hell. That’s what stops me from killing myself; The idea that there’s an eternity of fire and brimstone. Is that enough for everyone else? It’s good to understand all angles of society because it directly translates peoples actions and responses towards certain stresses. Understanding allows you to act accordingly. Knowing more is being more powerful. Being able to dance to the music being played is an amazing ability, and knowing all forms of music next to godliness. Isn’t it?

I also want to set another point straight Sidekick. Don’t use an example, such as homosexuality, in your argument to justify what is right from what is wrong when there are people reading that are going through shit themselves and are torn between that issue also. It will confuse them. I think that the problem with modern technology is that people can learn too quickly and communicate too easily. In school, we are pipelined what we should learn. Imagine if someone didn’t go to school, and only read the news as it happened on web news, the radio or tv, where seconds are precious and the WHOLE story can’t be presented?

Damn, that’s a lot of ignorant people who don’t realize that there are a lot of other people in the world that are depending on one another. When you work hard, and spend your money hard, you’re adding to our circle of life. And when you cease to function in our society, we suffer as a whole and others will suffer and our dilemma festers. So maybe God was created to keep our chins above the water. And maybe lying to ourselves and explaining it to ourselves that way is better. I think whether he exists or not we should just accept his pseudo-existance for argument sake. HE’S ON THE AMERICAN DOLLAR BILL AND WE SWEAR ON IT IN COURT FOR GOD SAKE. You don’t go into someone’s house and call their carpet and wall color disgusting. Just like you wouldn’t call you wouldn’t walk into a church using God’s name in vein. Morally speaking.

As for world news and the US. Don’t blame 1 person for fucking an entire world. You’re letting the media turn Bush into a scape goat and we’ll blame Bush and not the US Government in the future when we’re looking for retribution. There’s gotta be more layers to this onion than CNN is telling us. We all know it. Just look at history, back then the people had no idea what was going on unless they were told (just like back in moses’ day) so we HAVE TO believe what we are told.

Whatever man. We’re all animals and we do what we do to exist. Whether it’s lying to ourselves to make us feel more confident and simply living. If something affects me, like someone thinking God exists, than I will believe he exists when I am around him so I know what set of rules we’re playing on. And I’ll respect his religion, and apologize for my not understanding. Sorry for the novel again.

[Veni*C]

holy begeesus lawrence!!!!

ur high arent u?..

haha me too. :p

[Belms]

^
care to summarize what he said cuz goddamn was that long.

[Veni*C]

everyone has their own moral beliefs what is moraly right to them... also... they are influence obviously to have some of the same morals as others... obviously not only one person is gonna think its not ok to kill people... its just a common moral that alot of people share... because reasonable to the majority of people.. it is not right to kill people...
so when someone like ted bundy comes along... it is unreasonable to the majority of people.(society).. so therefor he is just plain crazy! and he is trying to be all smart and blame his inanity by saying "its my morals!"

can u dig it

Originally Posted by Sidekick

if each person develops their own moral beliefs on what is right or wrong, then, just like in the case with the societies, we cannot judge them for anything that they do.

Ted Bundy the serial killer actually used the same theory that you did to explain his killings. he said that he believed it was moral and just to kill those woman. now, forget the law for a moment (because we're speaking philosophically). if we think that everyone develops their own individual values than it would be immoral for us to punish him for following something he deemed as a personal value to him. would you feel you were doing something immoral by stopping someone from killing someone if that's what they really believe to be their individual value.

so this really doesn't make sense. in this view Hitler was just as moral as Mother Theresa, since they both did things that they held as invidivdual values.

maybe there is some moral code that we all ought to adhere to, even if we don't already? like the no killing thing. perhaps not all societies adhere to this moral code, but they all ought to adhere to it. that would explain why we feel we can go in and stop killing and feel we are doing something moral. because we believe there is this moral code that everyone ought to adhere too, even if they don't already.

[Belms]

i can dig it. what i cant dig however is just missing meeting u the other night.

[Veni*C]

^^ hah a... u did miss it.. im like wheres belms?... i dunno i dont know where he is.... fransico shows up.... im like is that belms?.. no hes not coming....

hahaha.. oh well next time. :P

[Belms]

lol, well next time its gonna have to be. tell mercedes to give me a call whenever u do seomthing.

[Veni*C]

mad WERD

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by ~Veni_C~

obviously not only one person is gonna think its not ok to kill people... its just a common moral that alot of people share... because reasonable to the majority of people.. it is not right to kill people...

dude, you just agreed with what i've been saying all along. that there might be one common moral that we should all agree and adhere too, such as killing is wrong. :p

i never said that we shared ALL of the same morals and values as everyone, but for the world to make sense and us all still allowed to judge some of the actions of others and prove them moral or immoral we have to share some of the same morals with everyone else. otherwise the system doesn't work and everything turns chaotic.

[sidekick]

PS. Forwerd: i have class right now, but when i get home i'm going to read that and answer :)

[C_squared]

here's is the point i'm trying to get at. ted bundy fits into a small catergory of people that have, as you said skewed morals. these people if not insane, truely believe that killing is just and fair for what ever reason they derive (ie. those whored needed to die for their sins, etc.) unfortunetely for these people in western culture as a whole, object to murder as a form of reasoning and thus making it a crime to do so. ted bundy took matters into his own hands killing 36 women for reasons only "he" knew were just.

what a bout a man who kills his whoring wife? what does he feel inside? he's angry, frustrated, insecure, paranoid, etc... resilience equals survival. at what point does he decide to kill her? when considering something like murder to justify her actions?

god does matter. i believe man created god to explain his own existance. god is to zeus as jesus is to hercules. it's mythology. so why does god matter if he doesnt even exist? because with every good story there is a moral. we are mamals at the end of the day. we have needs and urges to fulfill. we have basic instinc: survival is one of them. humans mourn when someone dies, we are compassionate creatures -- elephants mourn the death of a member in their herd. if animals can understan the fear of death so can us humans. it is our instinc to survive. to few people self resilience is survival and murder equals just.

now back to ted bundy: Bundy will be judged for his actions because of the large number of women he killed. ted bundy killed wives, daughters, sisters, and grandaughters. this affected peoples families in a huge way. murder is a disrupts society, it affects dozens of people related to a victim. don't tell me that we "society" cant judge this individual for what he has done.

Originally Posted by Sidekick

ted bundy is a perfect example of someone who believed that he shouldn't be judged because he believed what he was doing was moral. mad man or not.

i was using this as an example to refute the idea that morals are just our own personal beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. if that's true, than we can all make up our own morals and they would all be just as moral as anyone elses. if you believe that all morals are just individual than ted bundy could believe that killing is moral, and even if you didn't you couldn't judge him for it because hey, that's his individual moral view. if you think individuals make up morals, then you have no basis for calling him a mad man, he could just as easily call you a mad man for thinking that killing is immoral.

there are a lot of serial killers out there that aren't insane, but just have skewed morals. to judge these poeple on whether what they're doing is moral or not we have to have some moral that binds all of humanity, otherwise it just becomes a matter of what the individual likes.

if morals are all individual than saying "i like the colour red" is the same as saying "i like killing". no one can tell you that you don't like the colour red because it is your individual view, and following this no one can say that you killing someone is wrong because it is your individual view.

that's why i brought up ted bundy. he used the argument of individual views and morals to try to defend his killings.

[khandydav3]

Originally Posted by Undecided

I tryed to read exctily what this thread was about then my A.D.D kicked in and it became a lost cause so here's my bit. If we were created in gods image and are true children of god why does he let us destroy ourselves and the home he created for us if god truly exestied and gave a shit about us he guide our decisions and help us to better ourselves and the world around us few parents in the world (excluding the ones hopped up on drugs) would let thier children destroy themselves in manner in which we are currently doing so. So what it comes down to is there is no god so screw him and whatever morals and what not he has to offer because he is not real. now I would like to apologise to anyone who's belives I may have damaged but thats the way I feel

hermmm...well, if God just fixed all our problems for us, and we just basically lived a happy, care-free life because nothing would ever go wrong because then we'd never have to make our own decisions (which goes back to the "living" as robots thing).....then wats the point of life if all decisions nad problems are made/fixed for us already?

[sidekick]

I was saying that if we all agreed that morals are totally individual value based THEN we can't judge someone else for their actions in morality, because if we all have our own moral codes than it would be the same as judging someone for saying "I like the colour red" just because you don't like the colour red. what colour you like is something based on just individual preference, but if morals were individual preference than everything would become chaotic and morals would cease to exist anymore.

Originally Posted by C_squared

unfortunetely for these people in western culture as a whole, object to murder as a form of reasoning and thus making it a crime to do so.

i was pointing out this fact as well. the fact that we feel we CAN judge murderers on the basis that their actions are immoral, means that we all agree on certain morals that EVERYONE should follow EVERYWHERE (even if they don't right now, we beleive that it would be better if everyone did follow these morals: like the no killing). this is how we justify condemning criminals on a moral level (forget the law for now).

see what i'm saying? i was disagreeing that society CAN'T judge murderers like Ted Bundy on a moral level, because I don't believe that ALL morals are individual value based (some are of course, more complex issues than murder) but there are certain morals that everyone seems to agree that everyone should follow all the time no matter where you are.

[khandydav3]

I don't know if you guys know this already......but a few hours before Ted Bundy's execution, Dr. James Dobson (a reknown christian counsellour...or something, i forget his actualy job, but he runs focus on the family) actually talked to Ted Bundy, and Ted actually "found God" and watever, and actually repented (i hate using that word, but i can't find a better one) for what he did, because he realized that killing all those people was wrong....and i believe he actually apologized, and actually felt terrible - i actually saw his confession, "conversion" (if i must use that word), and apology on tape....

Who has the world has the right to judge anyone for anything? no one can judge the person i am by the actions i do because indirectly (well, maybe directly) you are putting yourself in a higher position of superiority then the individual, and when you judge someone else, you're also saying that you are "Better" than the person (morally), which would therefore give you the right to judge them.....wat gives anyone the right to say that? IF you've ever done anything wrong, than you wouldn't have the right to judge anyone for their wrong doings.......and here's the **spiritual christian** answer to this, (in the bible) Jesus said this in John 8 (story of the woman who comitted adultery).......and since i have half an hour before class, i'll summarize the story!! Ok, so there's this woman who cheated on her husband...so the pharisees (religious leaders) took her outside to stone her. Jesus walks by and says, "if anyone of you has never done anything wrong, then throw the first stone" (not the exact words...i don't exactly have a bible in front of me, but u get the point)...and basically in about an hour, the crowd dissapates, and no one even threw anything at the woman. Conclusion? don't judge!

[khandydav3]

Dammit!!! sidekick answered it before i did....see, this is the problem with typing long posts...someone beats u to answering something!!! :P

nice novel lawrenceeeeeeeee!!! haha, j/p

[sidekick]

Forwerd: i think we got a little confused here.

perhaps i should have clarified in my heading about what i was referring to when i was speaking of God's importance or not. I understand that he has influence over humanity, hether he exists or not,in politics, wars and that stuff. i was speaking strictly on the issue of god's importance in relation to morality. what i was getting at was...if god doesn't CREATE morality, but adheres to a morality that is already in place, then we can just bypass god and look to the morality. i know that some people take comfort in god and that he's important in our society that way, but morally speaking he really isn't needed because those morals exist with or without him (take a look at an atheist who has the potential to be just as moral as a religious person who believes in god, so morals must come from somewhere else than god)

with my use of the homosexuality thing in the bible and whatnot to prove that god may be able to err, i'm confused as to why you say this: "I also want to set another point straight Sidekick. Don’t use an example, such as homosexuality, in your argument to justify what is right from what is wrong when there are people reading that are going through shit themselves and are torn between that issue also. It will confuse them." What point are you setting straight? people reading what? the bible or my post? and also: people going through what shit themselves? figuring out if the bible is wrong about homosexuality or actually figuring out if they are homosexual themselves?

[khandydav3]

^ oh dear i'm confused that you are confused because Forwerd says that you might have confused the even more confused Confused.

HAHAHA, i just confused myself
weeeeeeeeee, im baked

[phatisphat]

Rachels?

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by phatisphat

Rachels?

what we've read so far:

A Defense of Ethical Objectivism by Louis P. Pojman (an article taken from a journal i think, not sure when though, we just got photocopies)

and also Plato's Republic (we're only reading a selection of it in this class, but i took a class last year where we studied the whole book)

we've also read some selections of Homer's The Illiad, just comparing morality and justice now to morality and justice in those days and seeing if morality shifts and changes over time or if some moral principles seem to stand true for all time.

[-ff-]

nope.

Unless god is DJ Shadow.

In which case, yes.

[phatisphat]

I'm using The Elements of Moral Philosophy - James Rachels

Chapter 4 - Does Morality depend on Religion...is kinda like the subject your doing. Maybe I'll write something later on this...im lazy

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by phatisphat

I'm using The Elements of Moral Philosophy - James Rachels

Chapter 4 - Does Morality depend on Religion...is kinda like the subject your doing. Maybe I'll write something later on this...im lazy

sounds interesting :)