First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Afterlife is pointless
1557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / SoCal
Offline
Posted 7/30/08
o_o An apology? Amazing! There is hope in the forums. :)

As for your question, homosexuality can be seen as a moral offense without the Bible. The way I see it, homosexuality is not natural in the sense that reproduction is impossible between the same sex. So you could say that it is morally wrong because it goes against nature? Bleh, maybe someone else could give a better explaination, but we should stay on topic.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/30/08

leviathan343 wrote:

...blah.

Can someone explain how homosexuality is a moral outrage besides the fact that it's mentioned in a book?


Do you understand, the basis upon which morality is ascertained? The society. That one book does play a hell of a part determining morality but essentially its the society in general that dictates morality.

A few decades ago, homosexuality was not only illegal but was considered to be immoral, because of the fact that its now been practiced more frequently and more openly, one can logically arrive at and comprehend the belief that their has been deterioration in moral fibre of society on a whole in regards to homosexuality, providing that one carries out the analysis from the standpoint that, what was previously accepted was considered, to be morally correct.

And is that sane breath that the phrase 'moral decay' can be used and has been used, that is because the society in general sees morality of the past essential exceeding morality currently.

Its not just a book, its the bible. Respect, please.

PS. Christianity is not the only religion in opposition to homosexuality. Most if not all other major religions find it erroneous
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/30/08

jestorebo wrote:

Narc: my dictonary gives no definition of "prorogation". Please, English is not my first language. In fact it is not even my second technically. Since you are forcing me: I am simply not an atheist. I accept both divinity and afterlife, but I just don't see any point in the second. What, because one is religious, one needs to see sense in every aspect of one's religion? I do not concur. I am not talking about realism at all, I just don't see why people long so for afterlife. That there is something divine can not be seen as anything but belief, not as "fact". A fact is observable, noted scientifically, or otherwise subject to real scientific study.

There is not one moral codec, there are perhaps thousands, or perhaps one for every human. Just because someone don't have yours don't mean they are immoral or amoral. As long as you have ethics and live by it, you can be deemed "morally heretic" or "deviant", but not immoral or amoral. Moral is subjective. So I don't "realize".
seeing morality as subjective, which is the only thing that makes sense for comparison and studies (anthropolgy, sociology, history, even religious studies, the list goes on) it does not matter WHAT moral rules people have, as long as they have some, they are not amoral. As long as they live by them, they are not immoral. My point is that people have seen this phenomenas and welcomed it: non-acceptance of child abuse, of domestic abuse, acceptance of homosexuality. And they are considered moral. If you went into a bar and bad-mouthed the gay you may be met by moral indignation by people that are not, but feel they have to make a moral stand.
Atheist societies has also been faster in developing a stand on issues like environmentalism and acceptance of homosexuality, as a moral stand. Preservation of the earth and tolerance. Religion has not worked as fast.


More fatuity.
Morality is subjective to a point. That is until it does not in any contradicts the general belief of a society and by extension is legal beliefs

Furthermore, it cannot be completely subjective, as their need for a standard form of morality to avoid social chaos and anarchy.

Now, do you 'realize'?
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/30/08 , edited 7/30/08

sorenku wrote:

o_o An apology? Amazing! There is hope in the forums. :)

As for your question, homosexuality can be seen as a moral offense without the Bible. The way I see it, homosexuality is not natural in the sense that reproduction is impossible between the same sex. So you could say that it is morally wrong because it goes against nature? Bleh, maybe someone else could give a better explaination, but we should stay on topic.


Well, that entire argument hinges on the assumption that no one is born a homosexual. And right now, there's evidence to suggest homosexuality is derived from many factors. Genetics being one of them. Other studies suggest that human beings in general are not as much a dichotomy (sexually) as we like to believe.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/30/08

leviathan343 wrote:


sorenku wrote:

o_o An apology? Amazing! There is hope in the forums. :)

As for your question, homosexuality can be seen as a moral offense without the Bible. The way I see it, homosexuality is not natural in the sense that reproduction is impossible between the same sex. So you could say that it is morally wrong because it goes against nature? Bleh, maybe someone else could give a better explaination, but we should stay on topic.


Well, that entire argument hinges on the assumption that no one is born a homosexual. And right now, there's evidence to suggest homosexuality is derived from many factors. Genetics being one of them. Other studies suggest that human beings in general are not as much a dichotomy (sexually) as we like to believe.


Provided that the first homosexual randomly suffered a genetic mutations that altered is perception of what sex is supposed to be like.
Seems fatuous

I'm not discounting the genotype, but the phenotype has a lot to do with it.
Its essentially a lifestyle choice.

1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 7/30/08
Narc: it is still subjective. It can be shown by the fact that people may oppose it with their own ethics, or other communities having different ethics. Morality is not legality, and legality not morality. A state may impose ethics on a people not willing to accept it, and the other way around. For instance some people demonstrate illegaly as a cause of their moral stand. Also society rules and legality are different. You are usually allowed to lie by the state, but society may frown. On the other hand society may allow you many things the state won't. Also there is the question of whether or not there is a The Society or only intertwining communitites. For instance, agrarian communities have a larger tendency to allow cousins marrying without ethical disgust, than urban. You have given me no realization.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/30/08
You misunderstand. I never morality and legality were the same, in fact I alluded to the existence of a nebulous line between the entities which cannot be crossed

Furthermore, A state cannot impose ethics the people are not willing to accept, because fundamentally a state is the people.

Societies rules are what evolve into legality, they are different yes but are not contradicting entities, as on numerous occasions it is illegal to lie e.g a court of law.

That is because in every large society, there are sub-societies i.e rural and urban, each with its own individual principles up to a point where a standard conformity is reached. The fact that the urban societies disdain a particular trait or custom does not essentially mean its disdained by the larger public.

You do not want to realize.
Please try harder.
PS. please quote when you are going to respond to me
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 7/30/08 , edited 7/30/08
Narc: a state CAN impose ethics on an unwilling society. The old class struggle lead to many such cases, as well as fascist dictatorships. That is, they can enforce it. A state is certainly not necessarily the people. Through many mechanisms, even in a democracy, the commoners may or will find their power diminished. One may note that some communities, especially extremist and nationalist groups may completely clash. This is not assuming an elite group, like one dominating nationality or political group. The rules may not evolve into legality. Also society may be uninformed of how their ethics are "suppressed" etc. This seldom get much attention. One instance is improper administration of mental facilities. People cared, a law was passed, but turned out to be the same as the old one, but people had lost interest or wasn't interested in analysis (Norway).
I forget what I didn't realize. I think it was that moral was declining. Which I still don't new ethics doesn't mean no morals.

OOps, too late.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 7/30/08

jestorebo wrote:

There are people who look to afterlife with joy. They sometimes start topics. As it is too hot to think for once (refers to geography, not my ability to think in hot weather), I thought I might start a thread.

It is not only the joy but punishment that interest me. Heaven, hell, purgatory, and reincarnation. My opinion that none of these makes much sense. Mind you, I am using the most common expressions. Hell also equals Hades and Underworld etc.

First off: reincarnation. Usually looked upon with joy. I don't get it. I can not see the desire to, for instance, experience school 1000000000 times. It makes experiencing it even once meaningless. Why? Because you've already done that. According to reincarnation you lose all knowledge when you die, otherwise you would be reborn with at least the ability to speak and have other memories of knowledge you must have possessed in a previous life. If you just have to continue experiencing things again and again, gain knowledge again and again, it loses its value. it just becomes tools, not cultivation.

Heaven: also pointless. Eternal bliss, perhaps meant at as an neverending euphoria, but it has no reason. There is no joy over getting children, helping others (not that I feel good helping others, but some do), striving together towards a goal, good work, etc. It is a pointless bliss. I do not get why people long for it.

Hell: certainly we care about it. However, the institution of hell is pointless. There is no reason to punish here. People are already dead. Even if they are rehabilitated, made to regret, it doesn't matter. All the reasons people are put in prison doesn't apply here. Unless it is the population's desire for punishment and gloating. But then people must know of and observe this. Also they must be given the chance to release the souls when they are satisfied, otherwise the punishment is obviously not done for the people.

Purgatory: leads to heaven.


having a bad day? in a suicidal mood, yet coming up with excuses not to drop the toaster in the bathwater? its okay....you'll feel better tomorrow.....no promises though.....
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/30/08
Do you even listen to me? PLEASE QUOTE so that I can know when you have responded.

Utter fatuity. You realized that there was a difference between ethics and laws and yet you still manage to use them interchangeably, equivocating and essentially confusing yourself.
A state is responsible for the legislratory aspect of a society of a society, the imposition of laws forcefully or otherwise, but not the ethical development of a society that can only be altered the constituents of the society, the people.

Furthermore, New ethics does not prove that there are NO morals but proves in most case to display some amount of moral decay.
Once again.
If one compares the standard of morality from a few decades to our current standard of morality one can logically arrive at the conclusion that morality as essentially declined.
16257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/30/08
Well, I think we or the first page that i read - i'm sorry if you think i should read through all 3 pages before answering; thats' too much of a hassle =_=;..... anyways----you guys all neglected one point; whats' the point in LIFE regardless even AFTER life?

What we have, we only have theories of after life, but while in the MOMENT--- this very moment-- we're living in LIFE. but if you're a person who have no religious belief, then whats' OUR point? ---- now this is all debatable, but there's REALLY no POINT in the first place; but what we CAN have is a BELIEF of a point. For some people, it could be religion, like wise---after life--- to live a good life is to have a good after life---- but we can have other beliefs, like our life is well, meaningless. Thats' a belief too. or likewise, that our point in life IS to find a point. ---- so on and so forth, it could be ANYTHING, but the very KEY word here is BELIEF --- it means no one KNOWS for sure.

I think if we have to argue that afterlife IS or IS NOT pointless, we'll have to FIRST look at life. Because we cannot answer that question; then what's the answer after wards? even more so, OUR belief of after life WILL BE based on what we know THIS life. ----- all we ever know, all we ever WILL know, is ALL in this world, in this life. like Jesus once said(not in exact words, I don't remember) 'if i use earthly words to tell you and teach you, and yet you don't understand; how will you understand my heavenly words?'--- what i'm telling you, is likewise, AFTERLIFE it don't necessarily have to be ANYTHING we know in THIS life. --- for all we know, it could just be a way of transportation, transporting us to another time, another place, or another 'planet'.

but keep in mind one thing

NO ONE have been EVER able to prove we're TRULY alive, or EXIST
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/08
Can't you verify your own existence? You know personally that you exist because you can feel, sense, and understand things. You are alive because you have a will, a mind, and are conscious of being alive.
1557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / SoCal
Offline
Posted 7/30/08

Omok wrote:

Well, I think we or the first page that i read - i'm sorry if you think i should read through all 3 pages before answering; thats' too much of a hassle =_=;..... anyways----you guys all neglected one point; whats' the point in LIFE regardless even AFTER life?

What we have, we only have theories of after life, but while in the MOMENT--- this very moment-- we're living in LIFE. but if you're a person who have no religious belief, then whats' OUR point? ---- now this is all debatable, but there's REALLY no POINT in the first place; but what we CAN have is a BELIEF of a point. For some people, it could be religion, like wise---after life--- to live a good life is to have a good after life---- but we can have other beliefs, like our life is well, meaningless. Thats' a belief too. or likewise, that our point in life IS to find a point. ---- so on and so forth, it could be ANYTHING, but the very KEY word here is BELIEF --- it means no one KNOWS for sure.

I think if we have to argue that afterlife IS or IS NOT pointless, we'll have to FIRST look at life. Because we cannot answer that question; then what's the answer after wards? even more so, OUR belief of after life WILL BE based on what we know THIS life. ----- all we ever know, all we ever WILL know, is ALL in this world, in this life. like Jesus once said(not in exact words, I don't remember) 'if i use earthly words to tell you and teach you, and yet you don't understand; how will you understand my heavenly words?'--- what i'm telling you, is likewise, AFTERLIFE it don't necessarily have to be ANYTHING we know in THIS life. --- for all we know, it could just be a way of transportation, transporting us to another time, another place, or another 'planet'.

but keep in mind one thing

NO ONE have been EVER able to prove we're TRULY alive, or EXIST


Um, are you trying to change the topic? I believe there is already a thread about what life is. It is fully possible to discuss the afterlife without discussing life seeing as how they are two different things. They may be related, but they are not interconnected. And digs stole what I was gonna say... :(

If you can provide evidence that we don't exist, then you may have an argument.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/30/08
More fatuity, great.
5159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / England, Berkshire.
Offline
Posted 7/31/08 , edited 7/31/08
Death is like a coma.
Time stops the second you lose contentiousness.
What becomes of you after that is your free will.

Perhaps something happens, perhaps nothing happens.
Either way there will always be something that will certainly happen...
An Idea.

An idea is what makes everything we see and believe in exist.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.