If God Is A Contradiction Then He Does Not Exist

Good point---but see how I just treated this in the other thread---Does Gods Exist?

 

What's normal? And where are you getting your data from?

People kill each other every single day. Sometimes over morals.

Or religion.

 

once you are attacked and get hurt , then what ? have you
the power of peace that proves uncontradictable ?

 

Well of course there is this contradiction. The journalist is informed where the food is being distributed for ration; at the same time a citizen with a hungry family is informed about the distribution of food from the warehouse. :sunny:

 

be it resolved that the informer is mysterious and of an eccentric and
particular disposition ?

 

some ppl treat ppl like shit because they have dissociated themselves from the world so to speak. nothing you could say to them would really hurt them cuz they just dont give a shit basically.

i kno me personally, i try not to let other ppls opinions affect my own opinion of myself. ive noticed that most ppl will have a better opinion of you if you like yourself .. at least thats what your gonna see. not everyone likes everyone, we shouldnt care about the opinions or thoughts of those who dislike us.

someone very close to that that im emotionally involved w/ would be able to hurt me emotionally .. you can try to dissociate yourself but it only works for so long, there's no way to get that close to someone and be emotionally involved without putting your feelings out there and being fully involved.

with guns and gats you can twist my cap, but what you say won't bring me pain

 

That's true. I guess we should strive to eradicate all morals :mickey:

 

Nah, let's just blast the fanatics.

 

That's already more nuanced than Airyfox's approach :biggrin:

 

te he

 

What "nuance" is Airy Fox's analysis missing? I think he has a simplistic view of the relationship of empathy to morality.

As I understand Airy, he's saying that empathy is a sufficient basis for human morality. The obvious problem with that is that empathy has been around since the dawn of human evolution--possibly before. And so have violence and immorality. Even Steven Pinker, rock star of evolutionary psychology, thinks empathy is "overhyped" (Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature). Empathy has a role to play in human morality, but the way in which empathy is expressed depends on a number of other variables: "The parts of our brain that restrain our darker impulses were also standard equipment in our ancestors who kept slaves, burned witches, and beat children, so they clearly don't make people good by default." Empathy can be inverted to counter-empathy, as in revenge, sadism, and cutthroat competition. Empathy evolved along with reciprocal altruism, as a mechanism for inducing self-sacrifice; but biologically, it extended only to kin who were part of the moral actor's gene pool. The challenge to civilization has been to extend the "circle of empathy" (to use Peter Singer's phrase) to actors who are biologically unrelated to us. This, it seems, is possible if the objects of our attention are cute, tied to us in communal relationships, have similar values, or are bound to us in common alliances. How we expand the circle further to include strangers who lack these characteristics is problematic. Pinker emphasizes technologies that expand human contacts and communication, like the internet, and what he calls the "escalator of reason", meaning advancements in abstract thought. Also, the prevalence of non-zero-sum games and the need to appeal to objective principles in moral discourse helps in expanding the circle.

In The Better Angels, Pinker argues that we can't expect an "age of empathy" alone to solve our moral problems. According to Pinker, empathy has to be tempered by norms of fairness and self-control in order to play a part in keeping us from violence. In his article "The Moral Instinct", he utilizes a framework based on the research of anthropologists Scweder and Fiske, and social psychologist Johnathan Haidt to relate five universal categories of moral concern to their evolutionary roots: (1) harm avoidance; (2) respect for authority; (3)purity/cleanliness; (4) fairness (reciprocal altruism); and (5) community. Different cultures and ideological groups within cultures assign different emphases to these and elaborate different norms connected with each of them. For example, purity/cleanliness is taken to an extreme in orthodox Jewish culture, while fairness and authority are given different takes by liberals and conservatives. Empathy faces the challenge of bridging the cultural divides on these various fronts. For example, the famous Milgram experiment showed how authority can override empathy. Subjects experienced great stress when they thought they were hurting other subjects by administering electric shock, but they continued to do so because the man in the white lab coat told them to. Changing cultural values isn't easy, especially when there are so many dimensions to consider. Many of these categories are interconnected with religious or spiritual beliefs. According to City University of New York Professor Jesse Prinz, recent research suggests that "empathy is not a major player when it comes to moral motivation. Its contribution is negligible in children, modest in adults, and nonexistent when costs are significant.”

For additional views on the limits of empathy, see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/brooks-the-limits-of-empathy.html?_r=0

And what has been the role of religion in promoting human misery and violence? Pinker believes that "Religion plays no single role in the history of violence, because religion has not been a single force in the history of anything." The diverse set of movements we call religions respond to the intellectual and social currents of the times and social context.

 

Okiefreak:

LOL Multifarious roles then! Tell it like it is Pinky!

thedope:

:-D The moralists can always try to spell out my good for me if they want!

It's your hypothetical.

In what? My writing here you mean?

 

We should let pinky know that territorial devotion does play a singular role in violent behavior. No matter theistic, atheistic, or just plain animal.

Am I a moralist? Your only truth is you, you say. That which you call upon is your kingdom and your power and your glory most definitely. Unless you are lying.

No my statement was your invocation is the only arbitrator of good for you,
if everyone else's verdict is guilty and that doesn't change your mind then you are not waiting on any kind of critical mass.

Is your hypothetical.
That would depend then whether you confess or not. You are your only truth you say.

For the past nine days no one is responding to you but me in this thread, although I am certain no one is being inconsiderate of you.

 

Territorial devotion:

Principality and Power

 

all of which remain entirely up to us, while the existence of whatever non-physical things do, is entirely not.

'belief' having nothing what so ever to do with either one.

IF belief encourages us to WANT to avoid causing harm, that is a fine and wonderful thing. but that is ALL that it is.

 

Yeah, I'm not going to church today. I'll be full of beliefs. --- about things I know; I'm telling ya'. So far I may resort to the apologized for bible, but that was a holy shit Being just for keying that in NEXT.:2thumbsup:

 

Actually that would be the definition of essential to our efforts.

 

And nobody would know the difference anyway.

 

How singular? You want a piece of me? :-D

Yes, my only truth is me, whether I say so or not. You remind me of the moralists. You say god exists for me, yet you're not god. Speak with your natural generosity thedope! Have the good grace to speak for the self! You'll command my full attention!

I like your faith, however misplaced. But no, minds, even if they can't be changed, can still be extinguished. You'll have to forgive me that I am a warrior if you can't thank me I suppose! :-D

You mean my involvement in it. Being yours, I'm giving you the chance to more clearly define its terms. Since you haven't, your 'critical mass' is still dependent on who was being found guilty.

Huh? The only one who hasn't responded to me in this thread when I thought they might have is Okiefreak! :-D

 

And empiricism, materialistic empiricism is the truth. Ontology may now be moody.