P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6515
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:05 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:03 am
I am not a Buddhist but I adopt one of the Boddhisattva Vow to be compassionate to all human beings and thus is against evil acts.
If according to your belief, there is no God..or higher truth.

Then who are you to be against acts of evil, who are you to judge what is evil or not, is it evil if one chooses to murder another person?
Animals deliberately kill other animals everyday in order to survive..are they evil?
If there is no ''higher self'' ..then we are all like animals and will do what ever it takes to survive.

If there is no higher truth, then why is it not okay for humans to kill for what ever reason they choose to justify that killing?

If there is no God, then people can do what they like.

Who is going to judge them for their actions?

Who can morally judge what is evil or not?

How can there be a favor of one action over another, reject one action over a preferred other action, is that fair? ..is it totally justified to act one way ..but unjustified to act another way?

There is a problem with that, don't you see? ...it gives humans the power to judge every life situation ...and that includes the right to be compassionate. Those who justify themself with the right to be compassionate, cannot then turn around and deny anothers persons self justified right to kill another.

Can life for a human operate fairly to this double standard of one rule for one and another rule for someone else?

There is no such thing as a human ''moral objective'' without a ''higher self'' knowing the difference between any right and wrong action...it doesn't work like that...otherwise people are just free to do what the heck they want in life, including robbing banks, and beating up old ladies on the street, without any fear of repercussion, consequence, or worry about getting punished over immoral behavior, since there is nothing to know the difference between moral or immoral behavior.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:51 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:03 am
I am not a Buddhist but I adopt one of the Boddhisattva Vow to be compassionate to all human beings and thus is against evil acts.
If according to your belief, there is no God..or higher truth.

Then who are you to be against acts of evil, who are you to judge what is evil or not, is it evil if one chooses to murder another person?
Animals deliberately kill other animals everyday in order to survive..are they evil?
If there is no ''higher self'' ..then we are all like animals and will do what ever it takes to survive.

If there is no higher truth, then why is it not okay for humans to kill for what ever reason they choose to justify that killing?

If there is no God, then people can do what they like.

Who is going to judge them for their actions?

Who can morally judge what is evil or not?

How can there be a favor of one action over another, reject one action over a preferred other action, is that fair? ..is it totally justified to act one way ..but unjustified to act another way?

There is a problem with that, don't you see? ...it gives humans the power to judge every life situation ...and that includes the right to be compassionate. Those who justify themself with the right to be compassionate, cannot then turn around and deny anothers persons self justified right to kill another.

Can life for a human operate fairly to this double standard of one rule for one and another rule for someone else?

There is no such thing as a human ''moral objective'' without a ''higher self'' knowing the difference between any right and wrong action...it doesn't work like that...otherwise people are just free to do what the heck they want in life, including robbing banks, and beating up old ladies on the street, without any fear of repercussion, consequence, or worry about getting punished over immoral behavior, since there is nothing to know the difference between moral or immoral behavior.
Note I have posted extensively on how humans can implement the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics effective via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24813
and various posts with the Ethics Section.

The Framework and System of Morality and Ethics must be based on and guided by grounded Absolute Moral Values based on reason [not from a god]. This is a long discussion.

Note, it is immoral in a way to condone and promote a belief in God [illusory and an impossibility] which only serves selfish interests but which enable and beholden SOME believers to commit the most terrible evil acts and violence in the name of God.
Theistic moral systems do have some utility but that is very limited.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6074
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:03 am
'Religion' is a very loose word
This is true. So is "Theism." We'd be best to avoid both, by speaking more explicitly of one or another ideology, not of such an ineffective collective noun.
what not just defined 'atheist' and atheism for what it typically understood.
I would disagree. I think the fact that so many Atheists don't regard themselves as "religious" is a self-deception, and we do them a favour by clarifying their epistemological situation for them, even if it's a favour they don't instantly appreciate. It's still the truth, whether they like it or not. And the truth is always better than a deception, as I'm sure you'd agree.
I did not say all religions pose an evil threat to humanity in the same degree.
Then hadn't you best distinguish between varieties of Theism, instead of attributing to all of them equally all the evils done by one particular branch -- that is, by Islam?

Fair's fair, after all.
I am progressing as a human being.
"Progressing" is a concept you need to fill out, if I'm going to understand you aright.

From what are you coming, and to what are you going, by what process?
It is immoral to rely on absolute commands from a God which is illusory and an illusion.
Nothing is "immoral" if there is no God. Consensus now is that Kant did not achieve a formalist solution to ethics (i.e. a theoretical system requiring no substantive commitments -- a formulaic, neutral basis for discerning values). Instead, as you said earlier, he used an arbitrary personal teleology to guide his thinking, though it's possible he was unaware of having done so. Alan Wood shows this very well.

So if there is no objective source of values, in what sense do you call believing in the illusory "immoral," even if God were "illusory"? There is no objective basis for such an assessment. You must mean, "I personally don't like it," which is not a strong moral condemnation of anything. So it's not really wrong, if somebody wants to delude themselves. That would have to be your conclusion.
...non-theistic related evil acts are off topic within this section...
I disagree. How can we decide if we should become non-theists if we do not evaluate Non-Theism? And how can we decide if it is better than what you call "religions" if we don't compare?

In fact, this is the very comparison you've invited by bringing Non-Theism to the table here.
In terms of numbers, note it is claimed Islamist killed over 80 million Hindus over a 1000 years in India. Islam has continued to kill non-believers up to 2018.
So the number is large enough to warrant serious attention.
I absolutely agree. But it's absurd to indict the Quakers and Zoroastrians for doing what only Islam did. There is no evidence in the latter belief systems of any propensity at all to go where Islam has gone. So one would have to say that there are good and bad, or violent and non-violent religions...and that they deserve separate consideration, as a result.

As I say, fair is fair. You can't make somebody responsible for something they have simply not done.
There are no leading evil laden texts within the main sutras to exhort Buddhists to kill non-believers in the name of Buddhism nor the Buddha.
True; but maybe you can explain why that Myanmar, an 87.9% Buddhist country, is one of the worst human-rights violators on the planet, and has been accused by the UN of ethnic cleansing.
Christ did not exhort Christians to kill non-believers but rather to love their enemies.
That is so. So how can you indict all forms of Theism with Islam? There are clearly forms of Theism that actively teach pacifism, regardless of the ideology of another. And Islam teaches the killing of "infidels," among which "non-theists" like yourself are classified.

We really need to stop grouping them together. Fair's fair.

uwot
Posts: 4369
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by uwot » Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:13 pm
Atheism IS a religion.
Oh? And what makes it a religion, Mr Can?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:13 pm
Its a gratuitous creed, the whole focus of which is the question of God's existence. And like the most blind of religions, It takes complete faith to believe it at all. So I'd say it qualifies here.
I see. So that's how you define your religion is it, Mr Can?

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Reflex » Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:05 pm

VA, can you please explain to your fans the doctrine of divine simplicity, what it entails, and why it is necessarily wrong?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:03 am
'Religion' is a very loose word
This is true. So is "Theism." We'd be best to avoid both, by speaking more explicitly of one or another ideology, not of such an ineffective collective noun.
Theism is more specific than 'religion'.
  • Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
what [why] not just defined 'atheist' and atheism for what it typically understood.
I would disagree. I think the fact that so many Atheists don't regard themselves as "religious" is a self-deception, and we do them a favour by clarifying their epistemological situation for them, even if it's a favour they don't instantly appreciate. It's still the truth, whether they like it or not. And the truth is always better than a deception, as I'm sure you'd agree.
To force atheism-in-general as a religion-in-general is definitely rhetorical.
I did not say all religions pose an evil threat to humanity in the same degree.
Then hadn't you best distinguish between varieties of Theism, instead of attributing to all of them equally all the evils done by one particular branch -- that is, by Islam?

Fair's fair, after all.
Where did I claim all varieties of Theism are the same.
Note this thread which I argued for,

Hinduism is far superior to Christianity and Islam in its teachings
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24814

Where I claim theism is overall negative is when theists [God exists] as a collective provide the moral support for the extremists to commit the terrible evil acts and violence in the name of God.
I am progressing as a human being.
"Progressing" is a concept you need to fill out, if I'm going to understand you aright.

From what are you coming, and to what are you going, by what process?
"Progress" refer to net-positive increment [within moral standards optimally within constraints] from one's current status.
I won't go into the details as that is off topic.
It is immoral to rely on absolute commands from a God which is illusory and an illusion.
Nothing is "immoral" if there is no God. Consensus now is that Kant did not achieve a formalist solution to ethics (i.e. a theoretical system requiring no substantive commitments -- a formulaic, neutral basis for discerning values). Instead, as you said earlier, he used an arbitrary personal teleology to guide his thinking, though it's possible he was unaware of having done so. Alan Wood shows this very well.
Btw, it's Allen Wood, or Allen William Wood.

No morality if no God?
You don't seem to understand the conventional meaning of morality?
Morality (from Latin: mōrālis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[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".
-wiki
Note God is not even mentioned in the above.
Religion can be theistic or non-theistic.
So if there is no objective source of values, in what sense do you call believing in the illusory "immoral," even if God were "illusory"? There is no objective basis for such an assessment. You must mean, "I personally don't like it," which is not a strong moral condemnation of anything. So it's not really wrong, if somebody wants to delude themselves. That would have to be your conclusion.
As I have mentioned effective Morality and Ethics is dependent on an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [mainly Kantian] that is grounded on absolute moral laws as guides.
How the absolutes are grounded require detail discussion which I am not getting into.
...non-theistic related evil acts are off topic within this section...
I disagree. How can we decide if we should become non-theists if we do not evaluate Non-Theism? And how can we decide if it is better than what you call "religions" if we don't compare?

In fact, this is the very comparison you've invited by bringing Non-Theism to the table here.
This OP is about whether God exists or not.
Theistic related evil is already a subset of the OP.
To bring in non-theistic related evil acts is going astray.
In terms of numbers, note it is claimed Islamist killed over 80 million Hindus over a 1000 years in India. Islam has continued to kill non-believers up to 2018.
So the number is large enough to warrant serious attention.
I absolutely agree. But it's absurd to indict the Quakers and Zoroastrians for doing what only Islam did. There is no evidence in the latter belief systems of any propensity at all to go where Islam has gone. So one would have to say that there are good and bad, or violent and non-violent religions...and that they deserve separate consideration, as a result.

As I say, fair is fair. You can't make somebody responsible for something they have simply not done.
I have explained above theistic religions are not the same in terms of the obvious evil but the same in another finer perspective of evil.
It is like a piece of pure carbon is different from a diamond gem at the obvious conventional levels.
But the finer levels of consideration both are pure carbon.
There are no leading evil laden texts within the main sutras to exhort Buddhists to kill non-believers in the name of Buddhism nor the Buddha.
True; but maybe you can explain why that Myanmar, an 87.9% Buddhist country, is one of the worst human-rights violators on the planet, and has been accused by the UN of ethnic cleansing.
Here is the argument;
  • Note the Principles of the Normal Distribution for human nature.
    e.g. the height of all human range from 3 feet to 8 feet tall with an average.

    DNA [& RNA] wise all humans has the potential for evil acts.
    A natural percentile [re normal distribution] (20% conservatively) are born with an active tendency to commit evil, e.g. psychopaths and the full range of evil prone doers.
    The above are principles of human nature - not religious doctrines.

    Myanmar is a 87.9% Buddhist country culturally and traditionally, thus most in Myanmar are born automatically as 'Buddhists' or pseudo-Buddhists who are not seriously into Buddhism-proper. Thus psychopaths or evil perverts born in Myanmar are 97% likely to be regarded as a Buddhists by birth.

    Re the Principles of the Normal Distribution, naturally by human nature, 20% of Burmese (not Myamarians) are born with evil prone tendencies.
    Since these 20% of evil prone are forced as Buddhists culturally, they will not be influenced by Buddhism proper to be good citizens.

    The Burmese who commit terrible evils and violence in Myanmar are thus not Buddhist-proper and their acts has nothing to do with Buddhism-proper.
    Buddhism proper do not have any leading[nb] evil laden element in their main Sutra texts.

    Therefore it is wrong to blame Buddhism for the evil acts of Buddhists [pseudo -].

    Note this thread of mine;
    Do Not Blame Muslims!
    viewforum.php?f=11

]
Christ did not exhort Christians to kill non-believers but rather to love their enemies.
That is so. So how can you indict all forms of Theism with Islam? There are clearly forms of Theism that actively teach pacifism, regardless of the ideology of another. And Islam teaches the killing of "infidels," among which "non-theists" like yourself are classified.

We really need to stop grouping them together. Fair's fair.
I have explained above, I have never claimed ALL forms of theism in every perspective is evil laden and inspire SOME evil prone believers to kill non-believers in the name of religion or the founder.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:20 am

Reflex wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:05 pm
VA, can you please explain to your fans the doctrine of divine simplicity, what it entails, and why it is necessarily wrong?
Not too sure of your point, hopefully this is on target.
  • DNA wise ALL humans has the potential of suffering an existential crisis.

    This existential crisis will compel [subliminally] the majority into divinity [simple] and the minority into other ways to seek relief.

    Theism is not necessarily wrong but a critical necessity to maintain sanity and avoid one from being paralyzed with existential dreads.

    What goes wrong is when the theistic doctrines* are loaded with evil elements that inspire SOME [critical minority] evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence as a divine duty to fulfil their contract in exchange for divine favors from their God.
* Islam has tons of active and malignant evil elements, OT is also loaded but somehow defanged, while there are minimal evil elements within Christianity and some Hindu sects.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Reflex » Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:12 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:20 am
Reflex wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:05 pm
VA, can you please explain to your fans the doctrine of divine simplicity, what it entails, and why it is necessarily wrong?
Not too sure of your point, hopefully this is on target.
  • DNA wise ALL humans has the potential of suffering an existential crisis.

    This existential crisis will compel [subliminally] the majority into divinity [simple] and the minority into other ways to seek relief.

    Theism is not necessarily wrong but a critical necessity to maintain sanity and avoid one from being paralyzed with existential dreads.

    What goes wrong is when the theistic doctrines* are loaded with evil elements that inspire SOME [critical minority] evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence as a divine duty to fulfil their contract in exchange for divine favors from their God.
* Islam has tons of active and malignant evil elements, OT is also loaded but somehow defanged, while there are minimal evil elements within Christianity and some Hindu sects.
Wow. :roll:

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6074
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:35 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:41 am
Theism is more specific than 'religion'.
Not much. And not nearly enough to be informative when used as a collective noun, for anything but the broadest and most unreflective kinds of statements.
To force atheism-in-general as a religion-in-general is definitely rhetorical.
I disagree. You accused Theism of relying on blind faith. I denied this. But if you accept that characterization, then where it is of limited application in regard to Theism, it is of absolutely justified application to Atheism.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Hinduism is far superior to Christianity and Islam in its teachings
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24814
Yeah, I saw that. But honestly, I just thought the very statement was too empirically and theoretically absurd to deserve any rebuttal.
I am progressing as a human being.
"Progressing" is a concept you need to fill out, if I'm going to understand you aright.

From what are you coming, and to what are you going, by what process?
"Progress" refer to net-positive increment [within moral standards optimally within constraints] from one's current status.
I won't go into the details as that is off topic.
It's certainly not off topic. If you claim to be "progressing," you need to show what "progress" consists of. And you certainly have made the claim, repeatedly, that "progress" morally is evident in the human race. So you do need to fill that out, and I absolutely want the details. They're crucial.
No morality if no God?
You don't seem to understand the conventional meaning of morality?
Please enlighten me.
Morality (from Latin: mōrālis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[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".
-wiki
Note God is not even mentioned in the above.
You've avoided the problem. The problem is not that people can't say what a "moral" might be: it's that they have absolutely nothing upon which to ground "morality." They've no authority for it, no universality, no way of demonstrating obligation to it, and no way to say it ultimately exists as anything but a delusion in the individual mind or collective mythology. They can't legitimize it.

Look, I can define "unicorn." But I can't produce one, or give you reason to believe any such beast exists. So showing a definition proves squat.
Religion can be theistic or non-theistic.
Or Atheistic.
...absolute moral laws as guides.
How the absolutes are grounded require detail discussion which I am not getting into.
I know why...you could no more do it than Kant could, or Mill, or Singer, or Aristotle, or MacIntyre, or Rand, or Kohlberg, or Noddings...or any ethicist, in fact. But it's the only discussion worth anything. No grounding, and morality is just unicorns.

So I'd say we should get into it.
This OP is about whether God exists or not.
Theistic related evil is already a subset of the OP.
Then by being its opposite, so is Atheism.

If Theism is indictable as sponsoring evil, then we would need to investigate whether Atheism was more, less or equally guilty...or there would be no way to recommend one over the other.
I have explained above theistic religions are not the same in terms of the obvious evil but the same in another finer perspective of evil.
Explain, please, this "finer perspective."
A natural percentile [re normal distribution] (20% conservatively) are born with an active tendency to commit evil, e.g. psychopaths and the full range of evil prone doers.
The above are principles of human nature - not religious doctrines.
Now you're arguing that Theism is NOT the essential cause of evil. A percentage of people are NATURALLY evildoers, you are now saying.
Myanmar is a 87.9% Buddhist country culturally and traditionally, thus most in Myanmar are born automatically as 'Buddhists' or pseudo-Buddhists who are not seriously into Buddhism-proper. Thus psychopaths or evil perverts born in Myanmar are 97% likely to be regarded as a Buddhists by birth.
But the same excuse would work for any religion or any ideology at all. For example, one might say, "People born in Syria are likely to be regarded as Muslims, so Islam is not indictable for the evil done by the Syrians."

So I'm not clear: do you believe that evil is a religious issue, or that it's a human one?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:35 pm
...absolute moral laws as guides.
How the absolutes are grounded require detail discussion which I am not getting into.
I know why...you could no more do it than Kant could, or Mill, or Singer, or Aristotle, or MacIntyre, or Rand, or Kohlberg, or Noddings...or any ethicist, in fact. But it's the only discussion worth anything. No grounding, and morality is just unicorns.

So I'd say we should get into it.
Yes, I would refer to Kant and other field of knowledge.
I am not getting into the details here and you can qualify that limitation for my views re morality.
I have explained above theistic religions are not the same in terms of the obvious evil but the same in another finer perspective of evil.
Explain, please, this "finer perspective."
I have explained this elsewhere on a collective basis.
A natural percentile [re normal distribution] (20% conservatively) are born with an active tendency to commit evil, e.g. psychopaths and the full range of evil prone doers.
The above are principles of human nature - not religious doctrines.
Now you're arguing that Theism is NOT the essential cause of evil. A percentage of people are NATURALLY evildoers, you are now saying.
Note there are two perspective here, i.e. the individual theistic religion and theism collectively.

Not all theistic religions are evil laden.
It is obvious TROP [the religion of peace] is very evil as evident in the verses of the Quran. But there are much lesser evil elements within Christianity and Hinduism [re certain schools]. Some other Hindu school promote the concept of Ahimsa, i.e. absolute non-violence, e.g. Ghandi.

I had argued collectively theism in general provide the umbrella and moral support for evil laden religions to inspire their believers to commit terrible evils and violence.
Therefore if we can wean off theistic religions and theism there will be no more theistic-inspired evil acts and violence.

We cannot say the same for non-theists who do not have a belief in a God.
Babies are non-theist which in a way are 'atheists' and you want to get rid of babies?
The approach to non-theists is to refer to their specific beliefs e.g. communism, humanism, and other secular ideology.
Myanmar is a 87.9% Buddhist country culturally and traditionally, thus most in Myanmar are born automatically as 'Buddhists' or pseudo-Buddhists who are not seriously into Buddhism-proper. Thus psychopaths or evil perverts born in Myanmar are 97% likely to be regarded as a Buddhists by birth.
But the same excuse would work for any religion or any ideology at all. For example, one might say, "People born in Syria are likely to be regarded as Muslims, so Islam is not indictable for the evil done by the Syrians."

So I'm not clear: do you believe that evil is a religious issue, or that it's a human one?
You missed my point.

What I am asserting is we must focus primarily on the ideology and not on the evil behaviors of believers.
Therefore if we observed any evil acts from believers we should not hastily blame the religion. This is bad logic.
Instead we should study the main texts of each religions to find out whether it is the ideology of the religion that inspire believers to commit terrible evil.

For example, the evil acts by SOME Muslims are traceable to the verses in the Quran and this is evident by Muslims quoting from the Quran to justify their evil acts and violence.

There are Buddhists who commit terrible evils but they do not quote from their Buddhist sutras to justify their evil acts.

Thus the focus must be one the respectively ideology and it is bad logic to jump to conclusion to link killing by Buddhist to Buddhism.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6515
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:51 am

The Framework and System of Morality and Ethics must be based on and guided by grounded Absolute Moral Values based on reason [not from a god].
God and Reason are different words for the same principle.

This is a short disccusion.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:03 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:51 am

The Framework and System of Morality and Ethics must be based on and guided by grounded Absolute Moral Values based on reason [not from a god].
God and Reason are different words for the same principle.

This is a short disccusion.
Nope, a belief in God is based on faith, i.e. belief without proof nor justifiable rational reasons.
So God and Reason cannot be based on the same principle.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6515
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:03 am
Nope, a belief in God is based on faith, i.e. belief without proof nor justifiable rational reasons.
Do you exist?

.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6074
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:18 am
Yes, I would refer to Kant and other field of knowledge.
That's a rather vague reference. "Kant" is a big subject, and "other field of knowledge" is so broad as to specify nothing in particular at all.
I am not getting into the details here and you can qualify that limitation for my views re morality.
You should get into the details. We need them here, if I'm to understand you.
Explain, please, this "finer perspective."
I have explained this elsewhere on a collective basis.
I would like to understand your claim. So then, please point me to where you have done that.
Not all theistic religions are evil laden.
Quite so. Just as not all Atheists are evil people. Agreed. But then, why bunch all "Theisms" or "religions" together, when we know that such generalizations about them are untrue?
Some other Hindu school promote the concept of Ahimsa, i.e. absolute non-violence, e.g. Ghandi.
How's that working out for the so-called "Untouchables"? Hinduism is inextricably bound up with the caste-system view of the world, because of reincarnation and karma. So "non-violence," for them, amounts to "Let all the excrement-carriers die in a ditch."

That means that Hinduism sponsors the treating of 160 million people as sub-human. That's not actually a ringing moral endorsement, is it?
We cannot say the same for non-theists who do not have a belief in a God.
148 million dead in the secular wars of the last century alone would argue against that -- if they could. Again, not a ringing endorsement, is it?
The approach to non-theists is to refer to their specific beliefs e.g. communism, humanism, and other secular ideology.
Then why not give the same courtesy to Theists? If you expect us to differentiate shades of Non-Theism, then is it not perfectly reasonable for people to expect you to differentiate versions of Theism as well?

I would say so.
So I'm not clear: do you believe that evil is a religious issue, or that it's a human one?
You missed my point.
What I am asserting is we must focus primarily on the ideology and not on the evil behaviors of believers.

Therefore if we observed any evil acts from believers we should not hastily blame the religion. This is bad logic.
Instead we should study the main texts of each religions to find out whether it is the ideology of the religion that inspire believers to commit terrible evil.
Absolutely. I agree.
For example, the evil acts by SOME Muslims are traceable to the verses in the Quran and this is evident by Muslims quoting from the Quran to justify their evil acts and violence.
To be fair, I would check to see if they're "quoting" or merely "misquoting" and playing tricks using the text to justify what they know it forbids. But in the case of the Koran, I agree with you: it clearly advocates the subjugation of rivals and the killing of infidels, so Islamists don't have to abuse their text -- they can just do what it says, and they will perform evil acts and violence, as you say.
There are Buddhists who commit terrible evils but they do not quote from their Buddhist sutras to justify their evil acts.
A good distinction. And as you have already pointed out, Christ taught, "Love your enemies," and "Do good to those who abuse you." That also would not rationalize any violence.
Thus the focus must be one the respectively ideology and it is bad logic to jump to conclusion to link killing by Buddhist to Buddhism.
There we agree. But if so, then must we not say that the same is true for Christians; that we must judge them by those that have followed the teachings of Christ, not by anyone who did not?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:10 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:18 am
Yes, I would refer to Kant and other field of knowledge.
That's a rather vague reference. "Kant" is a big subject, and "other field of knowledge" is so broad as to specify nothing in particular at all.
The point is on the 'grounding of morality' thus I will refer to Kant and other field of knowledge in relation to the grounding of morality.

Actually the whole of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason is one deductive argument culminating in the conclusion of the grounding for absolute moral laws.
I am not getting into the details here and you can qualify that limitation for my views re morality.
You should get into the details. We need them here, if I'm to understand you.
This is a complex issue and the discussion will get frayed and split into off topic side issues like the one on chattel slavery.
Explain, please, this "finer perspective."
I have explained this elsewhere on a collective basis.
I would like to understand your claim. So then, please point me to where you have done that.
Note I mentioned on the conventional perspective a piece of charcoal [pure carbon] is distinctively different from a diamond gem.
But if we shift to a finer perspective, the both the charcoal and diamond are exactly the same in terms of elements. If we use an electronic microscope to view both, they will have the same atomic properties except the atoms are closer together.
Your problem is you are too stuck in the conventional to be flexible to shift perspective where the situation need it.
Not all theistic religions are evil laden.
Quite so. Just as not all Atheists are evil people. Agreed. But then, why bunch all "Theisms" or "religions" together, when we know that such generalizations about them are untrue?
Note the point 'not all theistic religions are evil' is in one perspective, but in another finer perspective, there are issues of evil potential. The existence and acceptance of the illusory idea of God collectively provide the indirect support for some theists to commit their evil acts in the name of God.
Some other Hindu school promote the concept of Ahimsa, i.e. absolute non-violence, e.g. Ghandi.
How's that working out for the so-called "Untouchables"? Hinduism is inextricably bound up with the caste-system view of the world, because of reincarnation and karma. So "non-violence," for them, amounts to "Let all the excrement-carriers die in a ditch."

That means that Hinduism sponsors the treating of 160 million people as sub-human. That's not actually a ringing moral endorsement, is it?
This is another problem of your inability to shift perspective.
There is a point where we can generalize Hinduism as one religion, but where necessary we need to shift perspective to the fact that Hinduism is a 'placeholder' for many mainstream Hindu religions that probably have hundreds [could be 1000+] of sects.
I agree the caste system is a part of Hinduism but not all Hindu sects adopt the caste system and in modern times the caste system is made illegal.
We cannot say the same for non-theists who do not have a belief in a God.
148 million dead in the secular wars of the last century alone would argue against that -- if they could. Again, not a ringing endorsement, is it?
Again, you are not able to shift perspective and look at the point more critically.

Theism entails a positive belief of a God.
It is very shallow to lump up non-theists which is related to a negative.
It would be stupid to insist non-theists killed because they are not involved in theism.
Your number aside, I agree many are killed in secular wars but in this case we effectively must trace to the respective individual positive root ideology that trigger the killing, e.g. communism, fascism, Nazism, tribal/clan wars, drug wars, gang wars, etc.
The approach to non-theists is to refer to their specific beliefs e.g. communism, humanism, and other secular ideology.
Then why not give the same courtesy to Theists? If you expect us to differentiate shades of Non-Theism, then is it not perfectly reasonable for people to expect you to differentiate versions of Theism as well?

I would say so.
Note my point above.
For example, the evil acts by SOME Muslims are traceable to the verses in the Quran and this is evident by Muslims quoting from the Quran to justify their evil acts and violence.
To be fair, I would check to see if they're "quoting" or merely "misquoting" and playing tricks using the text to justify what they know it forbids. But in the case of the Koran, I agree with you: it clearly advocates the subjugation of rivals and the killing of infidels, so Islamists don't have to abuse their text -- they can just do what it says, and they will perform evil acts and violence, as you say.
Agree.
I know they are complying with what their Allah command - I have studied the Quran for 3 years full time.
In addition, a truer Muslim must enter into a covenant with God to comply with all the terms of the contract as stipulated in the Quran in exchange for eternal life in Paradise or burnt in Hell if they failed to comply [to the best of their abilities].
Thus the focus must be one the respectively ideology and it is bad logic to jump to conclusion to link killing by Buddhist to Buddhism.
There we agree. But if so, then must we not say that the same is true for Christians; that we must judge them by those that have followed the teachings of Christ, not by anyone who did not?
My point as I had raised the OP re 'Do not Blame Muslims' is to focus on the ideology. So I will not blame Christians or any Christians. However the NT and ideology of Christianity in general has shades of lesser evils like hatred for Jews and the condoning of creationism against the theory of evolution, aggressive proselytization, arrogance/superiority of their religion, etc.
I read of zealous Christians destroying Taoist and Buddhist temples in Korea and elsewhere because Christ did it.
Seoul, South Korea -- Vandalism and arson of Buddhist temples and treasures, and important cultural properties relating to Buddhism by the Korean Christian and Protestant communities continue.
Although many legislative laws have changed to protect cultural properties and national treasure after the tragic arson of the Namdaemun gate, national treasure No.1, vandalism to Buddhist temples and Buddhist treasures continue in Korea.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 4S8x-gzbIU

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests