Church people...

again, noone can give proof that there is an effect, but care to give proof that there isnt?
Atropine

Actually, there have been scientific experiments that showed prayer does have an effect.
One in Korea showed that pregnant women who were prayed for (without their knowledge), had less complications and healthier babies, than the control group, who were not prayed for.

 

yeah exactly.. i did remember hearing that, although, obviously people who dont believe will say its bullshit.. myself am skeptical of it but obviously could be entirely correct. if not a spiritual reason behind it maybe even a psychological placebo.. if that made sense

 

Way i see it...is that if someone's felt and are telling you it has effects...it happens...simple as!

Roly.xxx

 

It was done without the women's knowledge, in order to rule out the placebo effect.

 

Very refreshing. A believer, I love it.
Too many are skeptics these days.

 

Clear, yes, but you haven't addressed the question. Let me go at this a different way. You said "because the act of eating a person is very critically determined to be acceptable or not on the basis of context." I'll grant you that acceptability is influenced by context greatly, but what about other things like murder, rape, theft, etc. Let's do some substitutions: "because the act of murder is very critically determined to be acceptable or not on the basis of context;" "because the act of rape is very critically determined to be acceptable or not on the basis of context;" "because the act of incest is very critically determined to be acceptable or not on the basis of context."

Now, you may agree with all the above statements, you may disagree with all, you may only disagree with some. If you agree (or disagree) with all, then you are being consistent (which is good). If you agree with some, but not with all, then you are being inconsistent (which is bad). Either way, you still haven't offered a reason as to why "because X is very critically determined to be acceptable or not on the basis of context" is true versus "because X is very critically determined to be acceptable or not on the basis of X's relation to an absolute moral." Do you understand what I am getting at? You seem to be begging the question. You assume the truth of the thing you are trying to prove. In the above example, just because you felt you needed to eat a dead body in order to survive, doesn't make it right. Understandable, yes, but in no way does it imply that your actions would be morally sound. Let me try this:

"If I was starving, and had a dead body beside me, but I was isolated and could not get back to civilization, I would then decide for myself what was right."

Okay. How can you, without assuming that morals are relative, decide what is right and wrong? You can decide what to do, what actions you take, but how do you judge the rightness or wrongness of an action?

From dictionary.com:
mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.

1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

eth·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thk)
n.

1. 1. A set of principles of right conduct.
   2. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

Ethics are simply moral theories. You cannot really say that morals are subjective but ethics aren't. To do so is to create a logical contradiction.

Now, you keep coming back to the idea of realtive truths. Okay, let's look at it this way:
"I stand by my statement, my truths are not yours."

Is that a true statement? Is it universally and absolutely true? If it isn't, then I can say that my truth IS your truth and that my truths are universally true for all beings in the universe. And we are BOTH stating the truth? If you say yes, then you just threw all of logic (and by extension, most of science and mathematics) out the window. If you say that I cannot say that, then you are being self contradictory. The idea that truth is relative is self-contradictory. It cannot be factual that there is no absolute truth. Truth, by its definition, has nothing to do with the person speaking or thinking. The actual world determines the truth or falsity of the statement. For example:

If you say that there are no absolute morals and there acutally ARE universal absolute morals as real as gravity, then you are wrong. Period. No exceptions. When you say that there are no absolute morals, you are speaking a false statement.

We are not experiencing different realities. The sun is the same temperature, the winter is still cold, the earth still rotates, gravity still exists. We live in the same reality, we simply have differing experiences and perceptions. That doesn't equate to different realities.

Nor does a five-year old need to justify his beliefs. He just believes. What I am trying to point out is that your idea of morals leads to a very dangerous logical conclusion. The logical conclusion of your ideas is that "the theoretical concept of there being no difference between good and evil" is not something for me to decide, but is an actual fact which applies to everyone's life (even yours) whether we wish it or not (like gravity).

 

We are not experiencing different realities. The sun is the same temperature, the winter is still cold, the earth still rotates, gravity still exists. We live in the same reality, we simply have differing experiences and perceptions. That doesn't equate to different realities.


Quote:
I feel no need or desire to justify my beliefs. My friends do not need justification, and my enemies won't accept them anyway. I believe based on my 40 years of life. And, if you feel that the theoretical concept of there being no difference between good and evil applies in your life, that is for you to decide. In my life, there is a clear and distinct difference that a five year old child could tell you about.
Nor does a five-year old need to justify his beliefs. He just believes. What I am trying to point out is that your idea of morals leads to a very dangerous logical conclusion. The logical conclusion of your ideas is that "the theoretical concept of there being no difference between good and evil" is not something for me to decide, but is an actual fact which applies to everyone's life (even yours) whether we wish it or not (like gravity). Alsharad

Just because the sun is the same temperature does not mean you and I are experiencing the same temperature. It is a different temperature for everyone. I am not experiencing your reality, please do not assume you are experiencing mine. Have you ever had a dream that showed you an exact, detailed scene which you then saw at some future time? I have. I have no clue what your reality is, and you have no clue what mine is.
Sure there are some things the same, that does not mean everything is the same, does it?
I do not follow your final comment. I said that I feel there IS a difference between good and evil in my life. You said that there was not, and I agreed that maybe in theory you are right, but in practice, it is not applicable. That is just my belief. You are obviously free to live your life as though there is no difference. BG13

 

Why thank you!!
Roly.xxx

 

Thats a generalization... those are church people.... But I tell you that there are some true Christians that go to church although sometimes they are difficult to pick out of the crowd of church people....

 

but for example, if you were to pray, and it had no actual effect, but you thought praying did, wouldnt that create a placebo effect? hehe im tired

 

The study was done so that the women who were pregnant had no knowledge of it. The results speak for themselves. If the hundred plus who were prayed for had statistically significant differences (which they did), in baby health, easier births and less complications, it could not be due to any placebo effect.

 

oooh oops prayed for, i thought it was the women praying for themselves

 

No worries


I knew that it must be something like that.


I someday hope to see NZ, I would love to climb some of the mountains. In the south it looks very much like here.

 

"Everything" contains a lot. So you need to qualify when you say that "everything" is the same. Of course not EVERYTHING is IDENTICAL, but there is an objective reality that exists from which we draw experience. We don't know everything there is to know about that objective reality, but we know that it is NOT subjective. Here, from dictionary.com:

re·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties

1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.

Idiom:
in reality In fact; actually.


When you qualify your statements with MY reality versus YOUR reality, you are creating a logical contradiction. A fact is a fact for everyone. So, when you say that you have your own reality, you are effectively saying that there are things which are factual for you but not for others. This is rediculous. A fact is the same for everyone (that is what makes it a "fact") because it exists COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF PERCEPTION. Even if you are blind, the sun exists (even though you cannot sense it directly). So saying that we share the same reality doesn't mean that everything is the same. It is simply saying that the facts are the same and our experiences and perceptions are based on those facts. However, our experiences and perceptions do not SHAPE those facts (which is what the idea of differing realities presupposes).

I believe that there is a BIG difference between good and evil, but it isn't an arbitrary belief. I believe that goodness is in anything that reflects the character and essence of God. Anything which is contrary to His nature is evil. As such, moral statutes ARE absolute because God's nature is absolute. You seem to believe "just because." The problem with "just because" is that opposing or contradictory moral systems are just as justifiable. As such, it becomes completely irrational for you to judge anyone or anything else, be it my words, the actions of J.W. Gacy, the actions of Mother Theresa, or any action by any other person. That means that you cannot EVER say that any actions are horrible, or charitable or good or bad. Why? Because you can only judge yourself. That, IMHO, is completely impractical (so I agree with you there).

However, basing a moral system on simple practicality can be equally devastating and can lead to strange moral dilemmas.

 

Reality exists in itself. Reality is objective. Reality exists without me, you, or blackguard to percieve it. But our perceptions of such reality are completely subjective, merely because of the nature of the organs by which we are given the ability to percieve. There exist varieties in DNA, any number of things could have affected the development of sense organs or the brain by which the information is put into some working sensical concept.

Strictly speaking, the sun's rays have a constant temperature(an objective state that can be measured), however, at which point that energy reaches your nerves, and the neural information is transmitted to your brain and then interpretted, it is completely subjective.

Alsharad is correct in saying reality is objective, however, nothing can exist to the consciousness without perception. It would exist only as neural energy, undefined, unorganized, and even without awareness.

A human being cannot experience his objective reality subjectively. But we have standards that we agree upon so as to make it appear we have some objective agreement of fact. And to any extent that is necessary in this reality these facts pass and are accepted. Because these facts function conducively with reality and therefore arise little confrontation.

But it is impossible to truely experience anything objectively. To do that you would lose what is to be human, perception. That is not to say humans have some great gift. For a cat to observe objectively would make it no longer a cat.

Perhaps a computer can observe objectively, but only to the extent of the programing created by humans that was concluded upon subjectively.

----

It is interesting that you defend so adamantly your right to judge when (assuming you are christian) your God's messanger directly condemns such an action.

While I cannot say for the sake of judgement that I believe your actions are wrong if they go against the ethics of the societal structure by which you participate, I can judge you to the extent that you are breaking the ethical code by which the participants of this society abide.

Outside of this 'created' Absolute I cannot judge you to say what you are doing is necessarily wrong. But if you beliefs and subsequent actions are based on fallacy, I feel obligated to prefer what is true, and judge you and you actions accordingly, if I felt the need.

 

In one sense, yes, if you feel hot and the rays also feel hot you may feel uncomfortably warm. So in a sense, the warmth of the sun is subjective, but in another, the rays will stimulate the nerves to a measurable extent, that stimulation is also objective, it then travels in a predetermined path to the brain which then interprets the information. What happens to that information (i.e. "does it feed into the soul?") is up for metaphysical debate. However, until the brain recieves the information (and possibly even after), the amount of stimulus is objectively measurable. Any, I think that we agree in spirit on this point. There are some things that are subjective (like favorite colors and best tasting ice creams).

Not true. We do not percieve our own perceptions. We percieve the objects of our perceptions, but we never percieve the perceptions as objects in and of themselves. Yet they exist in our conciousness but are purely non-physical in essense.

Okay, you lost me. What are you talking about?

Ahh.. I think I see what you are saying. All our objective observations will be skewed by subjectivity (be it a worldview, preconception, or even something as simple as wearing rose-colored glasses). Is that what you mean?

----

At the risk of throwing this thread off topic, let me give you the most popular quote in context (I will use the KJV for copyright's sake):

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
​

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

This isn't about judging in the same sense that people currently mean "judging" as in saying that some actions are right and which are wrong. When we do that, we read current meanings into ancient documents, which is poor interpretation. We don't read the above and say that Christ was saying that we should abolish the legal system (Judges judge all the time... it's their job). If He was talking about simple moral judgements, then verse five wouldn't make much sense since He states that once you have removed the beam (log) from your own eye you may see clearly enough to remove the mote (splinter). Judgement is directly stated when He says that we are to remove the mote from our brother's eye after we can see clearly. So, judgement in verse one would be simply judgement that is reserved for God. Namely, the determination of someones eternal destination (also in this realm would be those who never directly recieved the scripture). So, we CAN make moral judgements and feel justified in doing so. Christ Himself did it (read what He said about the Pharisees). What we cannot determine is someone's eternal destination. That judgement is reserved for God alone.

But you see, that breaks down. Which society? And how many people does it take to make a society which is capable of setting up it's own moral code? And if societal moral codes differ, then can we judge other societies? Are you prepared to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with excision (aka female genital mutilation)?

You start by talking about an objective universe and then end with subjective morals. If there are absolutes in the universe (and in an objective universe, there are), then why do you say there are no moral absolutes? How does it follow that they are subjective?

 

When you qualify your statements with MY reality versus YOUR reality, you are creating a logical contradiction. A fact is a fact for everyone. So, when you say that you have your own reality, you are effectively saying that there are things which are factual for you but not for others. This is rediculous. A fact is the same for everyone (that is what makes it a "fact") because it exists COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF PERCEPTION. Even if you are blind, the sun exists (even though you cannot sense it directly). So saying that we share the same reality doesn't mean that everything is the same. It is simply saying that the facts are the same and our experiences and perceptions are based on those facts. However, our experiences and perceptions do not SHAPE those facts (which is what the idea of differing realities presupposes). Alsharad

I agree, it does go against generally accepted logic. That is true, still, I stand by my statement. I agree that a fact is a fact for us all, the challenge lies in getting us all to agree what is and is not a fact. A fact of my life is the occasional precognitive dream, though most scoff at the possibility. So, in practice, we all have a different set of 'facts'. BG13

I believe that there is a BIG difference between good and evil, but it isn't an arbitrary belief. I believe that goodness is in anything that reflects the character and essence of God. Anything which is contrary to His nature is evil. As such, moral statutes ARE absolute because God's nature is absolute. You seem to believe "just because." The problem with "just because" is that opposing or contradictory moral systems are just as justifiable. As such, it becomes completely irrational for you to judge anyone or anything else, be it my words, the actions of J.W. Gacy, the actions of Mother Theresa, or any action by any other person. That means that you cannot EVER say that any actions are horrible, or charitable or good or bad. Why? Because you can only judge yourself. That, IMHO, is completely impractical (so I agree with you there).

However, basing a moral system on simple practicality can be equally devastating and can lead to strange moral dilemmas. Alsharad

I would agree, if I knew the character and essence of God, which I do not. So I go by whether an action is harmful or helpful. Rabbi Hillel's golden rule is not a bad expression of it.
'Do not do unto others that which you would not wish done unto you.'
You lost me on the 'just becuz' quote, I never said anything of the kind. I agree that it is not for us to judge others, but I can still use my definitions of good and evil to judge actions of others. BG13

 

prayer will only hav effect if u hav faith in it