posted
edit: I will delete this thread if a threshold of animosity is passed here. I am not interested in being part of what was going on at the end of the Christian Polytheism thread.
Mr S:
I noticed that while I was at work/school the polytheism thread went and got itself locked.
I'm sorry that the thread took the almost violent tone that it did. I cannot say whether others are justified in being angry with you, as I do not have the same dispositions as them. I do know that it is possible, and in fact probable to converse with you without either of us hating the other. As I've said before I have no ill will towards you, though we disagree on a great many things. I am puzzled by some of the animosity others give you on the forums, but again I won't say if all or even part of it is justified. Other's can make their case with you and I hope you will listen to them.
If we end up conversing, and others join in on this thread I'll rename it something related to the subject as I just wanted to get your attention. I felt somewhat ashamed that you were getting so much animosity, and it almost seemed that you in turn were getting angry. I dislike negative conversations of all origins.
But enough of that, firstly,
quote:BB, It seemed to me that you were claiming that followers of your religion have it harder than people who don't follow it, and specifically, non-religious people. Is that not accurate?
If so, then I clearly misread you. Sorry about that.
Seems like you you got me turned around. I kept thinking to say this earlier but kept distracting myself with your other points, sorry about that I could have probably staved off alot of headaches by posting more efficiently. But no worries on my end.
quote:Were God to have completely cut off humanity from Himself at the beginning, we would have all sunk into darkness and killed each other off.
We've had this discussion before, but I don't know if it was ever resolved. This seems to me to suggest that God must not only bring morality, but perception and the ability to reason as well and that human beings are, by default, programmed to destroy.
I believe you are correct we did have this discussion before. I think we disagreed on just how much influence from God equals a violation of free will. IIRC I felt that God simply illuminating our basic understanding of morality was not compulsion and you disagreed. If I am wrong feel free to clarify your position. I am not sure if you want to continue discussing this topic, personally I found the question of whether illuminating the truth imposes on free will quite interesting.
quote: It's pretty easy to reason out how being totally, unreservedly evil is going to destroy any chance of living. To a certain extent, that's the basis of the Social Contract. In your postulation, either man without God can't perceive this or is incapable of reasoning that, therefore, in order to serve his own interests, he can't be all kinds of evil.
Also, even if we remove reasoning ability, there is still the matter of him being programmed to destroy. Animals, in general, don't wipe themselves out right away. If man were just an animal, he would have to be differ from all other animals in your proposed situation, in that he actively works towards his species destruction.
I do think our ability to reason is something given to us from God. We can kill that ability to reason however, look at anybody who plunges into vice and excess and pursues only temporary pleasures. Look at somebody on the edge of despair or starvation. They often do completely unreasonable things for rational reasons. By that I mean what they do makes sense to them from their perspective but objectively it is not the correct course of action. We don't have to redefine rationality and reason.
Animals do extinguish each other. We in our exalted state have completely killed off many species. But I'm reasonably certain that through a mix of factors plenty of animals go extinct. Wolves hunt moose, and the only reason they don't cause the moose to go extinct is that it becomes harder and harder to find them and wolves start dying thus restoring balance. It's still possible for predatory species A to hunt B to the brink of extinction and for the remnants of species B to end up extinct.
Perhaps human beings would not completely kill each other off, I still think it's possible. Or perhaps those who survive would simply sink into their animalistic state, perhaps to regain civilization down the road, perhaps eternal darkness.
quote: Honestly, why would people want to be all evil? Building communities and relationships both feel good and make long-term sense. You'd have to take both these elements away over and above the "Be good" manipulation God put on people in order for your scenario to be true.
That's your God given reason talking. The road to absolute evil is always a process. I don't think anybody is born evil, in the sense they crave evil. I do think people are born in a close to neutral state where they start off very selfish. They of course have other attributes, but babies are extremely selfish. If that attribute is not dealt with, it remains until they die. Selfishness untreated can quickly turn into all out apathy for others, and people who reach that state start are well on their way to absolute evil. The more we live for impulse and pleasure the more we abandon what would make use happy.
The social contract is situation men reasoned out that allows for people to stop worrying about survival and to focus at least in part on happiness.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, No worries. I don't really get angry on Hatrack.
I'm expecting that Pap Moose is going to unlock the thread, so I'd prefer to wait and continue this there if and when he does. If he doesn't plan to unlock it, I've no objection to continuing the whole thread in this one.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
