My Beliefs- GDR

But why on earth would anyone say such a general abstract thing to people in such situations? The fact is nobody does. Christians try to rescue such people if they can, and if they say anything to them about God it would be something like how they can find help and comfort and strength to deal with their plight if they will turn to Him.

This is just preaching. Er, yes, but as has been explained to you over and over again, god is not required for morality. You just imagine it is in your story.

I thought this part was a separate issue, so I decided to use a separate post to reply to it. Yup. I do it because I want to, I think it's important. Because that can hurt other people and I don't want to hurt other people. It could hurt other people and I don't want to do that.Have you ever made a decision based on what you want instead of what you think others (even Tom) might want you to do?
That's what I've done. I just made a decision because it's what I want based on my own ideas about what's best. For everyone? Nobody.
For me? Me.
For you? You. ...close enough.
I've given up on trying to figure out which label I seem to fit into. There are so many of them these days I don't know how you know it.
I know it because they hurt other people.
(Actually, I'm guessing here on Clifford Olson... I'm not very well read ) One thing I've learned about people is that nothing is ever "universal" about us.Think everyone dislikes pain? See some masochists.
Think everyone wants friends and/or family? See some hermits.
Think everyone is pushed to do good? See some evil people. Honour.
I think it's better to care about morality when there is no ultimate purpose or destination pointing you in that direction.
I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. Because then they have to try harder to be moral than other people. That seems to be the very definition of "unfair" to me. We're talking about things being fair.
If someone with a weak moral spark is getting more pleasure out of life by being immoral than someone who has a strong moral spark and is behaving morally... then we've proven my point... life isn't fair and therefore Tom is not fair or just or all-powerful.As for me without Tom:
I think that someone getting pleasure is a lower priority than someone getting hurt.
Therefore, if someone gets pleasure out of hurting other people... it is morally wrong and they should be restricted. Not really.
My experience doesn't tell me this, it's only something that I want. I desire for it to matter how moral we are. Nothing about my experiences show me that this actually matters, though. Right.
Step 1: Show that it actually does matter... Right. But you're on Step 3 now... you still haven't done Step 1.

I think perhaps a more explanatory way of saying this would be:The Universe doesn't care. In the end we are nothing but a collection of particles. We don't matter to the Universe at large - there is no love or hate or justice or sin outside of the mind.But we care about each other. The great moral imperative does not come from the Universe, it comes from us, our ability to care for each other, to empathize and sympathize with others, to recognize the feelings of others as feelings we might have in similar situations, and the extrapolation of that ability into moral action.

Yes, you're right. That's a much nicer more in-depth response.I also like to stress the personal choice part of it though (and by extension, this stresses the personal responsibility portion as well).
I don't think being moral is important because other people care... I think it's important because it's my personal choice to do so.But, as you say, many people do choose to do this.
Some for similar reasons, some for other reasons.And, in the end, we care about each other and the Universe doesn't care. Mostly 'cause it doesn't have a brain and all. Poor Universe and it's non-consciousness

Certainly it is harder for some to achieve any particular level of moral behaviour but I’m not convinced that it is necessarily harder for some than others, (except possibly for mental illness), to be able to improve their moral outlook as opposed to their moral behaviour. I think that quality of life is more dependent on a child’s socialization than their DNA. Being highly intelligent does not mean that one will have a higher quality of life than someone with a low IQ. I think though that outside of mental illness we can pretty safely assume that someone brought up in a loving home has a far greater chance of having positive quality of life as opposed to someone brought up in an abusive unloving environment. In addition to that I’m sure that we would agree that some kids brought up in third world huts are far happier than many western kids brought up in affluence. Just look at that Millard guy in Ontario recently. Brought up in wealth, is personally wealthy and goes out murdering. Look at Colonel Williams again in Ontario. I can’t give a definite answer but here is how I see it, realizing that this is simply my rationalization for a very difficult complex question which you have framed extremely well.Our existence is limited by the fact that we have only one dimension of time. If something has gone wrong we aren’t able to go backwards in time and provide a fix so that it would be as if what has gone wrong never happened. My understanding of Tom is that he also relates to us in time, and so that he is no more able to go back and fix the problem before it happens than we can.When we look at the evolution of life we can see that obviously time is a factor in it. It has required millions of years for us to evolve to the point that we have and presumably life continues to evolve. We aren’t the result of instant creation. It was a process.It is my suggestion that we are in process towards an existence that will sorrow and death will no longer exist presumably in a world with more than just our one dimension of time. Just as Tom couldn’t puff us into existence physically he can’t puff perfect morality into us either. As I mentioned earlier it is the journey that is our life that matters and I think this holds true for the world as well. It would seem to me that if Tom was capable of providing everyone with an equal spark that he will be able to provide everyone with a perfect spark. It seems to be necessary for it to be done by process. I don’t know why that is and hopefully I’ll have a better answer for you in the next life. I do still contend though as mankind is, painfully slowly from our perspective, becoming on average more kind and more just, that the nature of Tom if he exists is kind and just. This being the case then there is every reason to be hopeful that in the end there will be a justice that is far more perfect than what mankind can accomplish on its own.

You asked a question and I gave you my answer. As I have said previously we understand morality and that seems natural to us. It looks the same whether it exists independent of Tom or as a result of Tom. We come to our own conclusions and obviously we have come to very different conclusions.

Yes, it was YOUR aswer and to be fair, the thread is about your beliefs. But can you accept that in order to give an answer you had to make one up? Can you also accept that the two positions do not have equal standing as explanations? You simply believe something to be true without evidence whilst I accept the scientific concensus based on evidence.

You've noted several times, actually, that you're not positive or sure that Tom is actually all-powerful or not.My point of contention only reaches so far as to say Tom is not good, kind and just and all-powerful. Otherwise, things in this life would not be the way they are.Once we assume Tom exists, I do not see a logical inconsistency of him being good, kind and just (and giving us our free will) as long as he isn't all-powerful as well.
Of course, if Tom actually existed, there's nothing forcing him to be logically consistent...
And even if it is logical, that doesn't necessarily make it true or pop Tom into reality.I still see no reason to assume Tom (or any god) actually exists in the first place... but you've gone over that part many times in this thread already

This is the thing that I find amazing about discussions with atheists. Both of us look at exactly the same ideas and we come to such diametrically different conclusions. I know that it seems clear to you that you can provide those answers and see nothing but natural processes involved and yet I look at them and it is clear to me that there is something more at work here other than a chance combination of mindless particles evolving over time.I go back to what I said earlier in this thread. People want to leave their mark on the world. Most of us want to leave the world better for us having been here. We want to leave a legacy. We do that by having children, we do it by building places of employment that we want to carry on, we do it by improving the lot of the unfortunates, we even like to have gravestones with our names on it. It is like we have this inner sense that we are building something. We aren’t sure what it is but we have this sense that there is a direction that we are heading that has a destination and that we are teleogenic beings.You think it is important to be moral and that we shouldn’t hurt people. I’m sure that you would agree that it is important to be kind to people and I’m sure that you would agree that the Golden Rule has considerable merit. I frankly just can’t understand that when you hold those views you can’t see how strongly that points to the concept that there is something more to us that just the physical materials that make us up.There is that bumper sticker I’ve seen a number of times that says He who dies with the most toys win. If we are simply the product of mindless particles and mindless evolution then I see no reason for us to choose any other path than to gain maximum selfish pleasure in life. But you don’t believe that and neither does society. When people go down the path of personal gain at the expense of others we lock them up. Society looks down on selfishness in most cases, and particularly when it is at the expense of others. Even people who choose selfishness generally will rationalize it, by making excuses and saying that what they did was an exception to the rule. And again — why do you care that they hurt people when it doesn’t affect you? Most people just do but not all people. Some people enjoy the pain and suffering of others, and that used to be more the case than it is now. How many people who the majority of societies would actually enjoy going to the arena and watching people being eaten and killed by wild animals or watching people fight to the death? There would be some but it wouldn’t be mainstream as it was in our not too distant past. We are evolving morally and it seems to me obvious that is happening because there is more at work than simply mindless evolutionary processes.Tom is my way of attempting to understand the mind and the purposes for what it is that precipitates our choice to desire that our lives reflect the golden Rule and our desire that our lives have mattered in the sense that we have in some way left the world a better place for our being here.

You probably have trouble understanding, then, that "morality exists, therefore human beings are more than biology" is a massive non sequitur.You don;t have any kind of logical link between "morality" and "nonphysical component." You can point to no mechnaism by which "nonphysical components" would cause morality, or that they would be the only cause for morality.In order for morality to be strong evidence, as you are claiming, for the existence of nonphysical elements of human beings, you need to show that moral behavior is more likely to be caused by nonphysical elements than by biology and evolution; another way of saying that is that you have to show that moral behavior is extremely unlikely without the introduction of nonphysical elements, and you have to show why nonphysical elements would be expected to result in morality.But what we actually observe in the real world is that moral behavior is simply a trait of social animals, of which humans are a subset. Many social animals exhibit forms of morality, of no greater difference than the variety of human moral systems that have existed. Chimpanzees, wolves, and many other species have been shown to reciprocate, to share food, to help member of the group, and so on. It's the same reason my dog will rush to defend me even at the cost of his own life if he thinks I'm in danger.You;re making an unfounded logical leap, and worse, your conclusion is contraindicated by real-world observation, unless you also claim that social animals as a whole, not only humans, contain these mysterious nonphysical components.

What do you mean by make it up? It is my opinion. It is the conclusion that I have come to, which in my view best represents the world that I live in. I’m not presenting it as an indisputable fact. Is that making it up? What evidence is that?

I think I largely covered this in post 741. I'll try it a little differently.I think that all-powerful is a meaningless term from a human perspective. To define it is something like asking how many digits there are in infinity. My view is that Tom is powerful, intelligent and moral enough to be responsible for the existence of life in the world as we perceive it. Beyond that I have no idea how powerful or intelligent he is. For that matter, He doesn't have to be a first cause for the universe itself. He only has to be responsible for life on this planet.(Actually as an aside that after a discussion with Straggler earlier in this thread, I have come to the belief that the universe didn't require a first cause in that it has always existed as part of a greater reality and that we just perceive our particular part of the whole of reality. I do agree that is highly speculative but it makes sense to me. )Again, as it is obvious that we have evolved physically, it seems likely that we would have to evolve morally as well.

I see it like this:I think I'm moral because I can be, all it takes is me.
You think you're moral because Tom allows you to be that way (or sets it up...), all it takes is you and Tom.I don't see any reason for adding Tom.We can do the same thing with 'throwing a baseball'.
I cannot explain in written form all the twists and detailed motions our arms go through in order to throw a baseball.I think I can throw a baseball because I can do it, all it takes is me.
You think you can throw a baseball because Tom allows you to be that way (or sets it up...), all it takes is you and Tom.I don't see any reason for adding Tom.
(And maybe, in the case of the baseball, you don't see the need to add Tom either?)What's so different about throwing a ball (a process controlled by chemicals and organic compounds) and morality (another process controlled by chemicals and organic compounds).So, why add Tom?What is there that indicates any additional external input is necessary?
What about this additional external input indicates Tom as opposed to limitless other equally possible options? I agree.
I just think that the "something more" is entirely natural.It's like describing the universe and saying "it seems to be that there's something more than just a bunch of energy and matter."
Well... yes, there is. That energy and matter combines and works in amazingly complicated ways to create/destroy/evolve trillions of different "things" which can all interact physically whether "alive" or not. ...but those things are also all natural.What makes it "clear" that this "something more" goes beyond what is natural? What is natural, after all, goes far and beyond anything you and I can imagine. Even all the geniuses that have ever existed do not understand all the natural things that occur in this universe. If all you want is something "so complex" that no one understands it yet... you already have it, but it's still natural.You've listed many things that could be of a result of a Tom-like sentience:-many people want to leave a mark on this world
-many people have a sense of morality
-many people seem to be driving towards some sort of destination
-many people don't know why they go on, but they just doI admit that none of these "work against" the idea of Tom.
But how do they "work for" the idea of Tom? What about these things cannot be explained by anything but Tom? What makes it "clear" that these are indications of Tom? Why not something else that isn't a god in anyway? It seems very unclear, to me. Again, I agree with this statement. You are seriously underestimating the capabilities of natural "physical materials." There is "something more" to the natural, physical materials that make us up. It's how they interact with each other that leads to all sorts of unimaginable consequences. But, those interactions are still natural.There's more to a computer than a screen, a keyboard and a bunch of silicone chips. It's the way those things interact with each other than can allow us to write all sorts of previously unimaginable software. And there's still more software that hasn't even been imagined yet.
...but every part of a computer is natural. What? I absolutely believe that. In fact, if you told me you have "the better path for me" and don't show me the information so I can decide about that for myself, I'd bop you right in the nose for being an arrogant prick.
So would the rest of society. Right.
Why? Because people with similar interests of "not wanting to hurt other people" have gotten together to make societies.
That's even how America was formed. People got together with similar interests... and different interests from those in England... and made a society. Right.
People make their own decisions and end up in groups with similar interests.
Those that didn't care about others and hurt or killed to get what they want... killed off their society rather quickly.
Those that did care about others and helped each other and restricted those that hurt others... grew larger.I don't understand your issue with this. It seems rather basic and simple. Because I've made a personal decision to do so.
Why is this answer not good enough for you?
If I make a personal decision to get McDonalds for dinner tonight... do you think it's valid to say this reason comes from "me"?
Why can't I make a personal decision to care about other people getting hurt even when it doesn't affect me in the same way?There are many reasons why it could be..
-selfishness
-selflessness
-fear
-a desire to be liked by others
-I made a pact with my Grandpa
-a friend told me I should
-I just decided on my ownThere are many other possible reasons, too many to list here... but my reason is simply the last one I listed there... I just decided on my own.You seem to think it's surprisingly unimaginable that I have the ability to make decisions without outside influence.
You can do this too, I'm sure of it. Yes, I understand that.
I also guess that you don't really understand everything about how a computer exactly works to get from chips and wires to different software applications flashing away on your screen.
One you call "technology" (a bunch of natural stuff you don't understand), the other you call "Tom" (a bunch of natural stuff you don't understand... but also add in a god for too).Why the extra Tom?

Yes, that's making it up. You have an unsupported opinion. You insert a deity - a fix-all story - to explain what you see. That is making it up - just as people have done throughout the ages. Again? Ok.Morality is an emotion like fear, love, excitement anger. We can see the parts of the brain that are active when people are making what we call moral decisions - it happens in the pre-frontal cortex. We know that when those regions are damaged, a person's sense of morality is obliterated. We know of people with mental illnesses that affect their ability to make these decisions. It's a normal brain activity.There is no supernatural involvement in any of these processes - they are all natural. You do not find anything exceptional in any of our other emotions why invoke god for this one?You ascribe our sense of morality as special to humans, but we see it in ALL social animals from bees to chimps, we know that it is an evolved trait like all others with obvious evolutionary advantages.It is simply not necessary to put god into this system - it works fine without supernatural intervention and it's natural origins are understood.You can, of course, just say that you believe that god made it work that way and yet again all we can say in return is that you have no evidence to support it and that it's superfluous.Ockham, however, requires you to remove that extraneous hypothesis.