a question for religious affiliates

said the entire human race, save 0.005% of the population

 

What do you mean by "to a rational extent"?

 

slinklikegroove,

I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me and explain more about what I was asking you about.

Is it healthy if someone is believing a lie, something that will harm themselves or others?

If we can go against Tao then I would think that means we have choice, in which case nature couldn't be random(how can we have choice if it's all random). Nature couldn't have intent if it was random. So what is nature?

 

of course believing in something that harms the individual or others would be unhealthy.

i don't exactly see where you are trying to take this question so my apologies if i respond in a different direction than where you wanted to take it... yes, we can go agains tthe current of the Tao and we are very capible of making choices. how is 'guided randomness'? would that be better than random? check this as an example...

-
toss 1 person into a field and give him/her a soccer ball. now this person can kick the soccer ball where they may please. after each kick the lone kicker will have to run to the ball and kick it again. where the ball ends up isn't as random as we think because they are facing a certain direction. at the same time it is very random because they could have chosen a different direction, a different amount of force to exert onto the ball, the technique used to kick the ball, the weather/wind could have come into effect, the ground conditions can change where the ball lies, etc... there are many factors which go into everything.

now... sprinkle 50 people onto the field. think how chaotic that might be. what if everyone just wants to kick the ball? we'd have a swarm of 50 people following the path of the ball from kick to kick, the kicker being the one who gets there first. lets think of a different scenario with these 50 people on the field -- how bout they all have their own designated place on the field. in this area they are free to do as they choose. if the ball comes their way then they can choose to kick it anywhere or they can move out of the way and let the ball go on its course. the path of the ball now may seem very random... some people will strike it, some will let it by. just as it is random, there may or may not be intent behind each strike of the ball, either way the ball is being guided by the participants.
-

hopefully you can see where i am trying to go with this. i am obviously by no means eloquent and i don't want to really spend 20 hours on this making it seem as if i am i know that was long winded but it was my best attemp to attempt to say that i don't believe that nature is completely random. we may see it from a certain angle but if we are only looking at it in one way we blind ourselves to what may be the real reasons for the actions.

nature just is(a manifestation of the subtle truth of the universe).

don't ask what is is

 

I think "guided randomness" is a contradiction in terms.

 

i don't mean that in a literal sense, obviously... or not so obviously

 

im tired of explaining everything i say......its all their in black and white....and im posotive its clear......you just have to read it

 

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be annoying. You say humans determine what is good and bad but then qualify it with "to a rational extent of coarse". I just wanted to know what that means.

 

uncertain but sensible....

 

slinklikegroove,

So nature is thinking and has intent. It has a way that it wants us to live and we are all nature, we are all one?

 

Is it sensible? If slavery became acceptable to the majority again in America would it be right or wrong? Can ultimate morality be changed by man at his whim? Was there nothing wrong with what the nazi war criminals did? They were just following orders, what their government decided was right.

 

i don't know whether or not i should be speaking in terms of the Tao or not?

nature does not think. nature has no intent. nature exists. nature does not tell you how to act. you have many choices in this life. you can either live in harmony or in dissonance in your relationship to nature.

i believe we are all one with the Tao. some may act against the Tao and others may act in accordance; we have a conscious choice and are capable of making our own decisions. us, particles, grass, water, rock, celestial bodies, etc... are all part of the Tao. the Tao encompasses the largest of objects and the building blocks which make each object what they are. cells are nothing without carbon, grass is nothing without cells, a field is nothing without the grass, a plain is nothing without the fields, and so on. the smaller entities are just as important as the larger ones are. everything is connected, we are of the same essence.

 

both....according to different opinions amongst the enslaved and slave owners....

history says yes....

of coarse it was wrong....but do you think people would think that if germany won WWII?

 

So you think as long as you were not on the bad end of slavery, the one enslaved, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Whether Germany had won or not, the nazis were just following what their government had deemed was right. If all good and bad is ultimately based on popular opinion and culture, how can they be charged?

How about child molestation. If we could get a law passed by popular vote that made it permissible, would that be alright with you? Nothing inside of you would tell you it is still wrong, even if it was denied by everyone?

 

i didnt say that....i said if someone permits slavery and owns slaves then they obviously dont beleive their is something wrong with it....and who am i to say that my idea contredicting theirs is a better one....i hope youd all agree that it is but neither tips the scale either way.....

someone with a bigger army defeats the one they work for and forces them to accept their philosophical ideas(as in WWII)....otherwise, they cant

no, it wouldnt, and i would be outraged if that happened....im just saying scince philosophy doesnt define or provide evidence of proper moral structure theirs no logical idea or philosophy that says child molestation is wrong, and yet....it is illegal....and some people would refur to illegal activity as wrong....
the rest are idiots....

 

So you have no right to tell that slave owner he's doing wrong. It's all just a matter of personal opinion. There was nothing inherently wrong with the slavery that went on in America?

Do you also have no right to tell the guy who's mugging the old woman on the street that he's wrong? I guess you couldn't intervene because it's all a matter of personal opinion and if the mugger thinks his actions are justified...
Nobody's any more right than anyone else is.

This is what I'm trying to say. It can't be explained scientifically. It's something intuitive, something on the inside that tells us it's wrong. We have a moral conscience. How can this be explained in a purely material existence? It points to a Law Giver. The same with logic. The laws of logic themselves cannot be reduced to matter. They are universal in nature. They are a reflection of God's own thinking, in whose image we are made.

Morality can however be explained logically using the Bible.

If this is a random, chance universe there is no good and evil. It's just matter and energy. There is no concrete source for fundamental human rights. They are dependent on the whims of our rulers. If they originate from man, man can take them away.

Christianity says that moral law is rooted in the unchanging character and nature of God. He is the standard and we are created in His image.

 

of coarse i could intervene....but what argument other than "its aginst the law" wich btw is completely man made could i use to justify my actions....

EXACTLY!!

hence slavery and civil wars over religious beleifs.....we change and create laws all the time.....but the only thing that makes it right or wrong is us....
the oppressor and or the oppressed

ie: skin political america vs black panther party, martin luther king jr....
axis powers vs the alliance (wwii)....ect ect.....

and i say a giant banana shit out what we now call the earth and everything in it........and my suggestion is just as valid as yours

 

So then, if all morality, right and wrong, is determined by man and what the government says is right and wrong is the only way you can justify your actions from a moral standpoint, why would you be outraged if child molestation was made permissible?

How can you claim there was anything wrong with what the nazi's did? That was their law, what they decided was right.

After all, there is nothing else you can offer as a reason to defend a defenseless old woman from being violently attacked other than it is against the country's law.

 

and what if orange soda is made from chicken sperm.....or what if the human race was biogenetically engioneerd by aliens.....or what if the sky is blue because blue is the color the sky turns when a planet is about to explode.....or what if i keep asking these what if questions that anyone can pose......

enough with the hypothetical questions please.....im not going to speculate on what "could have happened" or what a possible outcome is.....

1)because our laws contredict theirs in cirtain areas
2)because their law has no more juristiction
3)because ours does

well....thats the only reasons cops intervene isnt it?

 

how the hell did we get so off topic....