Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:26 am
godelian wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:30 am
As far as I am concerned, all morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. I will never disavow the holy principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Period!
But note, morality by default mean 'to promote good and avoid evil' on an universal basis and if with reference to the almighty it has to be eternal.

If this 'holy' principle [re reciprocation] must be universal and eternal, then, it will lead to the eventual extermination of the human species or a reality of eternal evilness.
Philosophically [re wisdom] an almighty that condones "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is inherently evil in contradiction to an omni-benevolent god.
In this case, the almighty of Islam which condones "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" cannot be a default god, thus a false god.
By the way, why do you think that they build these F16 fighter jets in the first place? Because they intend to love their enemies by dropping chocolate cakes from these fighter jets?
As I had stated, the constitution of Christianity is overridingly pacifist which must be independent from the Christians-as-humans, i.e. still evolving as beasts relative to evolutionary times.
It is not the fault of Christianity per se, if SOME or even many Christians do not comply with the terms of the Gospels they are contracted to, e.g. killings of humans, building F16 or WMDs [biological or nuclear] which has nothing to do with Christianity per se.
According to the terms of their contract with God and Christ, the sinners will have to face God with their sins and be punished accordingly.

You don't seem to be able to differentiate the 'contractual terms' of a contract and the non-compliance of the terms?
All respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals. That is why a man must always be ready to attack and destroy enemy targets. Otherwise, you are merely a feminized simp who does not even deserve respect. So, according to the laws of nature, if you refuse to defend yourself, nobody else is supposed to lift a finger for you.
Agree to the above because the majority are relatively beasts and living in a dogs eat dogs world since humans first emerge and at the present. I foresee the majority of humans will be beastly [in various degrees] for some time into the future. You seem to be stuck only with the present with no hope of change for the better in the future.
On the contrary, at that point, I recommend to simply let the laws of nature take their course.
NOPE! not on the above.
According the laws of nature, all living things are embedded with the potential to progress and for humans the moral potentiality to more competent morally.

Somehow your thinking is so static and dogmatic.

If you do a thorough research into human nature since humans emerged >200,000 years ago, there is a trend of progress [of pros and cons] but there is also the unfoldment of the moral potentials within humanity.
Even when humanity has evolved and progress to the state with WMDs to exterminate the human species, there is a net-progress.
This is so evident, for example there is not a legal ban in all sovereign nations of Chattel Slavery [not 'chattel'] in comparison to say >5000 -10,000 years ago. Surely you cannot deny this is related to a 'moral' progress albeit still insufficient.
There are trends of moral progress in other types of evil.

Thus instead of accepting the past and status quo to be fixed for the future, we need to find [or at least discuss possible] strategies to expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within all humans such that in the future [note 'future'] there will only be rare events of evil acts.
You seem to be stuck with the present only.
In 1521, Luther replied during his trial: If you can show me through scripture and reason that I have erred, I will retract what I have written.
I only deal with moral theorems that are axiomatic from scripture. I am blind and deaf to arguments from other sources.
So why are relying on Luther's argument which is not a trial by God in heaven?

Note we are dealing with Philosophy of Theology here.
My points;
Based solely on the words directly from god;

Islam is inherently evil because its constitutional scripture the Quran and its ideology is evil laden which [as indicated with numbers of verses] is more evil than the Main Kempf in terms of Semitism.

Christianity itself is overridingly pacifist as stipulated in its constitutional scripture in the Gospels ONLY which is from Christ representing God.

The Constitution of a religion must be differentiated from the acts of the believers which are not constitutional of the religion.
godelian
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am So why are relying on Luther's argument which is not a trial by God in heaven?
I do not rely on Luther. I merely happen to think the same as he did.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am Note we are dealing with Philosophy of Theology here.
Concerning the epistemology of religious jurisprudence, I believe that all theorems in moral theory must entail from the scriptural first principles.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am Islam is inherently evil because its constitutional scripture the Quran ...
According to the following Quranic verses, the Quran is bi-interpretable with the Torah+Gospel:
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. (5:46)

Nothing is said to you, [O Muhammad], except what was already said to the messengers before you. Indeed, your Lord is a possessor of forgiveness and a possessor of painful penalty. (41:43)
Therefore, it is meant to be the same moral theory.

Furthermore, the definition itself of good and evil, i.e. the scripture, cannot be good or evil. Instead, it is consistent or inconsistent.

Asking me to choose between Quran and Torah+Gospel makes as little sense to me as asking me to choose between arithmetic theory and set theory, given the fact that these two theories happen to be bi-interpretable.

I end up much more often with an Islamic advisory, mostly because it is more often available than one based on Jewish Law. The Islamic ulema (religious scholars) simply produce more sound scriptural guidance.

With the term "sound", I literally apply the theorem of soundness. If an advisory necessarily entails from scripture, it is semantically true in all its interpretations.

I need to remark here that the notion of truth in religion is abstract Platonic and in line with Aristotelian foundationalism as it rests on blind faith in first principles.

Furthermore, if you really prefer a particular scripture, then use that one exclusively. There is nothing wrong with that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am Christianity itself is overridingly pacifist ...
Some Christians may indeed refuse to defend themselves when attacked, but I do not believe that this is generally the case.

Besides that, if Christians use another moral theory than the one committed to paper in the Torah+Gospel, I consider them to be in error with regards to their own default choice of scriptures.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am The Constitution of a religion must be differentiated from the acts of the believers which are not constitutional of the religion.
Agreed.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Astro Cat »

I abhor retribution theory of justice, and it is the very concept of Hell that proved the early impetus to drive me from my early Christianity.

I couldn't fathom witnessing an infinite punishment for a finite crime and calling that monstrous travesty "justice," whatever the religion it stems from might be. Any God that uses such a thing is literally the worst sort of monster: you can't get worse than doing something monstrous infinitely.
Last edited by Astro Cat on Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am So why are relying on Luther's argument which is not a trial by God in heaven?
I do not rely on Luther. I merely happen to think the same as he did.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am Note we are dealing with Philosophy of Theology here.
Concerning the epistemology of religious jurisprudence, I believe that all theorems in moral theory must entail from the scriptural first principles.
Agree.
As I had stated it must complied with the Constitution of the Specific religions and nothing else.
The constitution of Christianity are the Gospels [not OT, Acts nor Epistles and Islam is the Quran [not the Ahadith]. You got to get this principle right.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am Islam is inherently evil because its constitutional scripture the Quran ...
According to the following Quranic verses, the Quran is bi-interpretable with the Torah+Gospel:
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. (5:46)

Nothing is said to you, [O Muhammad], except what was already said to the messengers before you. Indeed, your Lord is a possessor of forgiveness and a possessor of painful penalty. (41:43)
Therefore, it is meant to be the same moral theory.
Note the following;
  • Q 2:75 Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly.

    Q 2:79 Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby
There are other verses that reflect the same accusations of corruption.

Point is the current OT and Gospel in the hands of believers [on 2022] are the corrupted versions.
This is why appx 1.5 billion Muslims do not adopt the current OT and Gospels as their scripture or a part of it.
Furthermore, the definition itself of good and evil, i.e. the scripture, cannot be good or evil. Instead, it is consistent or inconsistent.
Note again, we are dealing with the Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Morality which the latter is about good over evil.
Asking me to choose between Quran and Torah+Gospel makes as little sense to me as asking me to choose between arithmetic theory and set theory, given the fact that these two theories happen to be bi-interpretable.

I end up much more often with an Islamic advisory, mostly because it is more often available than one based on Jewish Law. The Islamic ulema (religious scholars) simply produce more sound scriptural guidance.

With the term "sound", I literally apply the theorem of soundness. If an advisory necessarily entails from scripture, it is semantically true in all its interpretations.

I need to remark here that the notion of truth in religion is abstract Platonic and in line with Aristotelian foundationalism as it rests on blind faith in first principles.

Furthermore, if you really prefer a particular scripture, then use that one exclusively. There is nothing wrong with that.
As stated a Christian or Muslim has to enter into a contract with their God with respect to their specific terms of contracts i.e. the Gospels and Quran respectively.
As argued above they are not bi-interpretable.
Show me evidence this has even been practiced?
  • 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
There is an implied 'contract' in the above 'offer & acceptance' conditions. And the terms of the contract are what Christ had stated and taught.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am Christianity itself is overridingly pacifist ...
Some Christians may indeed refuse to defend themselves when attacked, but I do not believe that this is generally the case.

Besides that, if Christians use another moral theory than the one committed to paper in the Torah+Gospel, I consider them to be in error with regards to their own default choice of scriptures.
Christianity itself is overridingly pacifist, period!
It is logical, the intrinsic quality and principle of Christianity per se.

But I don't think Christians need to complied with it absolutely.
Christians can kill humans if they are cornered and in self-defense and if done without premediated intentions [they are taking their own risks], but they are likely to be forgiven.

In principle, there is no way a contractual [covenanted] Christian can choose to be a Jew in obeying the Torah.
The OT for Christians contracted to Christianity is merely a guide where only doctrines are in alignment with the Gospels.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:38 am
godelian wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am So why are relying on Luther's argument which is not a trial by God in heaven?
I do not rely on Luther. I merely happen to think the same as he did.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am Note we are dealing with Philosophy of Theology here.
Concerning the epistemology of religious jurisprudence, I believe that all theorems in moral theory must entail from the scriptural first principles.
Agree.
As I had stated it must complied with the Constitution of the Specific religions and nothing else.
The constitution of Christianity are the Gospels [not OT, Acts nor Epistles and Islam is the Quran [not the Ahadith]. You got to get this principle right.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am Islam is inherently evil because its constitutional scripture the Quran ...
According to the following Quranic verses, the Quran is bi-interpretable with the Torah+Gospel:
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. (5:46)

Nothing is said to you, [O Muhammad], except what was already said to the messengers before you. Indeed, your Lord is a possessor of forgiveness and a possessor of painful penalty. (41:43)
Therefore, it is meant to be the same moral theory.
Note the following;
  • Q 2:75 Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly.

    Q 2:79 Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby
There are other verses that reflect the same accusations of corruption.

Point is the current OT and Gospel in the hands of believers are the corrupted versions.
But YOUR 'versions' "veritas aequitas" are NEVER 'corrupted' NOR 'wrong', correct?

'you' INTERPRET ALL writings and religions EXACTLY how they are MEANT TO BE, right?

And, 'you' WILL NOT ANSWER these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS Honestly because 'you' KNOW what that Truth WILL REVEAL about 'you'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:38 am This is why appx 1.5 billion Muslims do not adopt the current OT and Gospels as their scripture.
Furthermore, the definition itself of good and evil, i.e. the scripture, cannot be good or evil. Instead, it is consistent or inconsistent.
Note again, we are dealing with the Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Morality which the latter is about good over evil.
Asking me to choose between Quran and Torah+Gospel makes as little sense to me as asking me to choose between arithmetic theory and set theory, given the fact that these two theories happen to be bi-interpretable.

I end up much more often with an Islamic advisory, mostly because it is more often available than one based on Jewish Law. The Islamic ulema (religious scholars) simply produce more sound scriptural guidance.

With the term "sound", I literally apply the theorem of soundness. If an advisory necessarily entails from scripture, it is semantically true in all its interpretations.

I need to remark here that the notion of truth in religion is abstract Platonic and in line with Aristotelian foundationalism as it rests on blind faith in first principles.

Furthermore, if you really prefer a particular scripture, then use that one exclusively. There is nothing wrong with that.
As stated a Christian or Muslim has to enter into a contract with their God with respect to their specific terms of contracts i.e. the Gospels and Quran respectively.
As argued above they are not bi-interpretable.
Show me evidence this has even been practiced?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:00 am Christianity itself is overridingly pacifist ...
Some Christians may indeed refuse to defend themselves when attacked, but I do not believe that this is generally the case.

Besides that, if Christians use another moral theory than the one committed to paper in the Torah+Gospel, I consider them to be in error with regards to their own default choice of scriptures.
Christianity itself is overridingly pacifist, period!
It is logical, the intrinsic quality and principle of Christianity per se.

But I don't think Christians need to complied with it absolutely.
Christians can kill humans if they are cornered and in self-defense and if done without premediated intentions [they are taking their own risks], but they are likely to be forgiven.

In principle, there is no way a contractual [covenanted] Christian can choose to be a Jew in obeying the Torah.
The OT for Christians contracted to Christianity is merely a guide where only doctrines are in alignment with the Gospels.
godelian
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:38 am Note again, we are dealing with the Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Morality which the latter is about good over evil.
In my opinion the philosophy of religion is about two questions:

- Ontology: What is religion?
- Epistemology: How does religion justify its conclusions?

I consider morality to be one of the two pillars of religion:

- spirituality, i.e. liturgy and prayer, i.e. the transcendental pillar or religion.
- jurisprudence, i.e. moral theory or morality, i.e. the scriptural first principles defining good and evil from which moral theorems can be concluded.

In terms of epistemology, conclusions about spirituality are justified by tradition while conclusions about jurisprudence are justified by pure reason from scriptural first principles.

I do not accept any moral theorem that does not entail from religious scripture. I reject free-standing claims about good or evil. As far as I am concerned, conclusions about good and evil require pure reasoning within religion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:38 am Note again, we are dealing with the Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Morality which the latter is about good over evil.
In my opinion the philosophy of religion is about two questions:

- Ontology: What is religion?
- Epistemology: How does religion justify its conclusions?
Your above is too limited.
Note,
Philosophy of Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion

The most critical element of religion is its ontological ultimate reality;
Different religions have different ideas about ultimate reality, its source or ground (or lack thereof) and also about what is the "Maximal Greatness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion
godelian wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:28 amI consider morality to be one of the two pillars of religion:

- spirituality, i.e. liturgy and prayer, i.e. the transcendental pillar or religion.
- jurisprudence, i.e. moral theory or morality, i.e. the scriptural first principles defining good and evil from which moral theorems can be concluded.
Morality is one important aspect of religions but to be effective we need study its subjective morality outside the religion under the general Philosophy of Morality under the sub-topic of;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory
In terms of epistemology, conclusions about spirituality are justified by tradition while conclusions about jurisprudence are justified by pure reason from scriptural first principles.

I do not accept any moral theorem that does not entail from religious scripture. I reject free-standing claims about good or evil. As far as I am concerned, conclusions about good and evil require pure reasoning within religion.
That is too crude, subjective and narrow.

As I had stated, morality within religions must be questioned within the Philosophy of Morality in general.

We will refer to the scriptures for matter related to morality of a specific religions but ultimately must subject them to the standards of the generic Philosophy of Morality where universal 'good' and 'evil' are the critical elements.
Obviously we must define what is good and what is evil on a universal basis, not on a subjective basis.
godelian
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:44 am As I had stated, morality within religions must be questioned within the Philosophy of Morality in general.
I do not question religious morality. I do not see the need for that.
There is no theory governing moral theories.
The "morality of moralities" is a thing that does not exist.
Where would such "morality of moralities" be documented anyway?
Furthermore, in foundationalism you either trust the foundations or else you don't.
Why would anybody trust an otherwise undocumented "morality of moralities"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:44 am We will refer to the scriptures for matter related to morality of a specific religions but ultimately must subject them to the standards of the generic Philosophy of Morality where universal 'good' and 'evil' are the critical elements.
There are no higher standards for morality besides the ones set by religion.
There is no "morality of moralities".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:44 am Obviously we must define what is good and what is evil on a universal basis, not on a subjective basis.
Good and evil are defined in a foundationalist manner by the scriptures of a religion.
There is no context-free definition for good and evil.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:44 am As I had stated, morality within religions must be questioned within the Philosophy of Morality in general.
I do not question religious morality. I do not see the need for that.
There is no theory governing moral theories.
The "morality of moralities" is a thing that does not exist.
Where would such "morality of moralities" be documented anyway?
Furthermore, in foundationalism you either trust the foundations or else you don't.
Why would anybody trust an otherwise undocumented "morality of moralities"?
I did not mention "morality of moralities" rather I stated the Philosophy of Morality in general. There are principles of Morality.

First we need to define what is morality-proper.
Note;
What is Morality? [Philosophy]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

We need Philosophy-proper to establish what is morality-proper rather than arbitrary 'morality' from an illusory God, traditions, culture, customs, politics, etc.
Most of the moral claims at present are very arbitrary, each will claim their morality is objective, e.g. Hitler will insist his morality is the true morality, should any just accept it? It is the same with the morality of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. How do we establish any of these morality are the proper one that will serve humanity?
This is why we need Philosophy [wisdom] of Morality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:44 am We will refer to the scriptures for matter related to morality of a specific religions but ultimately must subject them to the standards of the generic Philosophy of Morality where universal 'good' and 'evil' are the critical elements.
There are no higher standards for morality besides the ones set by religion.
There is no "morality of moralities".
You need to do more research on what is morality and how do we establish the credibility of any moral ideology.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:44 am Obviously we must define what is good and what is evil on a universal basis, not on a subjective basis.
Good and evil are defined in a foundationalist manner by the scriptures of a religion.
There is no context-free definition for good and evil.
By your argument, then you are allowing for the POSSIBILE extermination of the human species, i.e. which is inherent in the scriptures of the religion of Islam.
That is on the principle all Muslims are duty bound to comply with Allah's command.
How can you accept that?

In contrast Christianity's morality is 100% certain and assurance in theory there is no extermination of the human species, i.e. based on its overriding pacifist maxim 'love all even enemies', give the other cheeks, etc.
That is on the principle all Christians are duty bound to comply with Jesus Christ and God's command.
Whilst Christianity's morality has that advantage it is at best merely pseudo-morality because it is based on fears and threats, thus not on freedom and voluntariness.

You need to research on 'what is good' and 'what is evil' and how the apply to morality.
For a start;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

I noted [based on your postings and arguments] you lack depth in Philosophy-proper. If so, you need to increase your knowledge on that.
godelian
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:02 am We need Philosophy-proper to establish what is morality-proper rather than arbitrary 'morality' from an illusory God, traditions, culture, customs, politics, etc.
Most of the moral claims at present are very arbitrary, each will claim their morality is objective, e.g. Hitler will insist his morality is the true morality, should any just accept it? It is the same with the morality of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. How do we establish any of these morality are the proper one that will serve humanity?
This is why we need Philosophy [wisdom] of Morality.

You need to do more research on what is morality and how do we establish the credibility of any moral ideology.

You need to research on 'what is good' and 'what is evil' and how the apply to morality.
For a start;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

I noted [based on your postings and arguments] you lack depth in Philosophy-proper. If so, you need to increase your knowledge on that.
It is absolutely not that I would not be aware of the existence of purported non-scriptural sources of morality.

it is simply that I reject, repudiate, reprobate, and utterly condemn all non-scriptural sources of morality.

Furthermore, if you can show me through scripture and reason that I would be wrong, I will retract what I have written.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:02 am We need Philosophy-proper to establish what is morality-proper rather than arbitrary 'morality' from an illusory God, traditions, culture, customs, politics, etc.
Most of the moral claims at present are very arbitrary, each will claim their morality is objective, e.g. Hitler will insist his morality is the true morality, should any just accept it? It is the same with the morality of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. How do we establish any of these morality are the proper one that will serve humanity?
This is why we need Philosophy [wisdom] of Morality.

You need to do more research on what is morality and how do we establish the credibility of any moral ideology.

You need to research on 'what is good' and 'what is evil' and how the apply to morality.
For a start;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

I noted [based on your postings and arguments] you lack depth in Philosophy-proper. If so, you need to increase your knowledge on that.
It is absolutely not that I would not be aware of the existence of purported non-scriptural sources of morality.

it is simply that I reject, repudiate, reprobate, and utterly condemn all non-scriptural sources of morality.

Furthermore, if you can show me through scripture and reason that I would be wrong, I will retract what I have written.
As I had mentioned you need to do more research with 'what is morality' with a more 'open mind'.

Note the general definition of 'what is morality';
Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1]

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Morality is inherent in all humans from the beginning of humanity;
The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom:
It [morality] is something we are all born with.
At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Since the popular Scriptures of Christianity and Islam came about >2000 or 1400 years ago, respectively, and the oldest scripture is only > 3700 years ago
The Rigveda, a scripture of Hinduism, is dated 1500 BCE. It is one of the oldest known complete religious texts that has survived into the modern age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text
then, morality [inherent within humanity ->200,000 years ago] CANNOT be imperatively grounded on scriptures only.

Thus the early primitive tribes must have some sort of proto-morality in place and these has evolved to various moral system [religious and secular] to the present.
There are many non-religious cultural groups that adopt say the Golden Rule and other moral principles within their moral system.
At present many of the moral elements are incorporated into criminal laws and NGOs [UN] which are non-theistic and non-religious.
Non-theists and the non-religious rely on various consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontological, etc. moral systems.

So your claim that morality is imperatively grounded on the religious is a bankrupt idea and thus must be withdrawn.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:44 am
godelian wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:38 am Note again, we are dealing with the Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Morality which the latter is about good over evil.
In my opinion the philosophy of religion is about two questions:

- Ontology: What is religion?
- Epistemology: How does religion justify its conclusions?
Your above is too limited.
Note,
Philosophy of Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion
'your' self-worth is UNLIMITED "veritas aequitas", and some might even say, UNBELIEVABLE.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:44 am The most critical element of religion is its ontological ultimate reality;
Different religions have different ideas about ultimate reality, its source or ground (or lack thereof) and also about what is the "Maximal Greatness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion
godelian wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:28 amI consider morality to be one of the two pillars of religion:

- spirituality, i.e. liturgy and prayer, i.e. the transcendental pillar or religion.
- jurisprudence, i.e. moral theory or morality, i.e. the scriptural first principles defining good and evil from which moral theorems can be concluded.
Morality is one important aspect of religions but to be effective we need study its subjective morality outside the religion under the general Philosophy of Morality under the sub-topic of;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory
In terms of epistemology, conclusions about spirituality are justified by tradition while conclusions about jurisprudence are justified by pure reason from scriptural first principles.

I do not accept any moral theorem that does not entail from religious scripture. I reject free-standing claims about good or evil. As far as I am concerned, conclusions about good and evil require pure reasoning within religion.
That is too crude, subjective and narrow.

As I had stated, morality within religions must be questioned within the Philosophy of Morality in general.

We will refer to the scriptures for matter related to morality of a specific religions but ultimately must subject them to the standards of the generic Philosophy of Morality where universal 'good' and 'evil' are the critical elements.
Obviously we must define what is good and what is evil on a universal basis, not on a subjective basis.
godelian
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:37 am As I had mentioned you need to do more research with 'what is morality' with a more 'open mind'.
Why should I be open-minded to heresies?
Of course, I am not!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:37 am As I had mentioned you need to do more research with 'what is morality' with a more 'open mind'.
Why should I be open-minded to heresies?
Of course, I am not!
Your thinking seem to be stuck with the idea that morality is strictly related to religion.

Note 'what is morality'
Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

The Definition of Morality
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

I have a flowchart of "what is morality" and 'religion related morality' is merely on of the more than 50 separate sub-topics.

Don't insult your own intelligence with the above dogmatism.
Btw, surely you know how to do basic research without bias?
Post Reply