Opskrifter:
Forumtråde:
Profiler:

Hvad er der galt med ateisme?

 

Filosofi, Etik & Religion

Sider: << < 11 12 13 14 15 16 > >>
lucifer
Forum-indlæg: 1609
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 20/1 2013 11:25

ålgac
velkommen.
ja og jeg prøver også at være sød over for kødspiser, ellers ville jeg jo ikke være så meget bedre selv,
men det fjerner jo ikke helt den kendsgerning at kødspiser ikke er så søde mod deres omgivelser,
som john også viser med sin tekst.

vh lu
ÅlgaC
Forum-indlæg: 12
Område: KBH
Dato: 20/1 2013 13:42

så må i gøre dem til søde mennesker,i stedet for at skræmme dem
lucifer
Forum-indlæg: 1609
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 20/1 2013 14:35

ålgac

jo har du nogen tanker omkring hvordan man gør det.

vh lu

Veggieotakugirl
Forum-indlæg: 13
Område: Midtjylland
Dato: 20/1 2013 19:54

nej men altså venlig indenfor det perspektiv det ikke med vilje slår andre eller hader over ingenting og tja altså det jo ik fordi de mener det ondt og mener ikke man er ond medmindre man direkte tænker på gøre ondt mens mad udgør handlingen men derfor kan man godt gøre noget forkert men det en helt anden snak ^^ tehe håber i forstår hvad jeg mener
John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 20/1 2013 20:39

:) Not really...

Altså, tror du at der er nogen VOKSNE kødspisere derude der tror at kyllingeben vokser på kyllinge-træer...?
Veggieotakugirl
Forum-indlæg: 13
Område: Midtjylland
Dato: 20/1 2013 20:45

nej men tror ikke de onde altså mine forældre spiser kød og de ikke ondskabsfulde mennesker :) det de gør er forkert men de har måske ikke forstået hvor slemt det er jeg er selv meget ny i ikke spise kød mere.
Easy 4
Forum-indlæg: 33
Område: KBH
Dato: 20/1 2013 20:48

John: Du er lidt underlig nogen gange
John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 20/1 2013 21:44

Lol!

Sikkert. Men synes du ikke at det er et interessant spørgsmål, Easy 4?

Man taler meget om uvidenhed, især i buddhismen, som jeg også selv er ganske betaget af.
Men man må jo spørge - når en person handler ondt, hvad er det så de er uvidende OM?
Easy 4
Forum-indlæg: 33
Område: KBH
Dato: 20/1 2013 22:13 | Indlæg redigeret den: 20/1 2013 22:23

Sikkert. Men synes du ikke at det er et interessant spørgsmål, Easy 4?


Nej - det syntes jeg bestemt ikke -- noget kikset vil jeg mene
John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 20/1 2013 23:49 | Indlæg redigeret den: 20/1 2013 23:50

Så du mener at man kan være uvidende uden at være uvidende OM noget...?

Min pointe er at Uvidenhed bruges som en floskel i dag.

Det er rigtigt, at nogle gange, når en person skader en anden, så er det muligt at de ikke er bevidst om skaden de gør. De bringer eks. et emne op, som de ikke ved er MEGET ømt for den anden, eller de køber Nike sko, uvidende om at de bruger børnearbejdere. Fair nok. Folk er ikke alvidende.

Men der er grænser for hvad man kan være uvidende om. Hvis man tæver nogen, imens de græder, bløder og taber tænder, så er det ikke lige så nemt at bruge uvidenhed som undskyldning. Man var lige dér, og kunne se al den skade man forårsagede, og man var bare ligeglad.
Hvad der manglede var ikke viden, men moralsk karakter. Velvilje. Godhed.

Vi må kunne skelne imellem uvidenhed og ondskab. For det er hvad der konstituerer forskellen imellem en forbrydelse og en ulykke. Imellem uagtsomt drab og mord, og de signifikant forskellige reaktioner/straffe der følger.

Og et godt sted at starte er netop med spørgsmålet \"Hvad er de uvidende OM?\"

For at være uvidende betyder, rent faktisk, like it or not, at der er noget man ikke ved.
NOGET. Én eller anden ting.
Og hvad ER dét, for voksne mennesker med en IQ på 100, der gnaver på en afhugget arm eller ben?
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 21/1 2013 07:01 | Indlæg redigeret den: 21/1 2013 07:06

John, of course, once again, your point relies upon the existence of objective moral "truth".

What I am always missing here is some move to establish that - at least a sentence like "assuming that morality has to do with 'X', ...".

I personally feel that even then we must still address issues in neuropsychology (perceptions, processes) before settling on whether the kinds of judgments you point out can always be made reliably, but at least with a given framework for what we mean by morality in its most general and basic form, that is, what is at stake for what is right and wrong, then we can work on what it is that should be "reasonably" held to be good or evil, in a vacuum.

So, whereas I am with you part of the way, that there are certain red threads running through moral systems that should capture moral intuitions, it is also part of the work of moral systems to cultivate these and emphasize them. In a way, that is what "moral progress" is about, and, in my opinion, that is what the famous example of slavery and its eventual demise illustrates poignantly.


Lene N
Forum-indlæg: 1233
Opskrifter: 4
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 21/1 2013 07:35

Kødspisere kan jo ikke være uvidende om hvad det er de spiser, men de kan godt være uvidende om alt det forfærdelige der foregår i den industri. Jeg tror der er en hel masse benægtelse og selvbedrag i det, sådan var det for mig i næsten 46 år.
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 21/1 2013 11:32 | Indlæg redigeret den: 25/1 2013 11:36

Ow!, The thread has moved on and seems to becoming very general...

Jeff
Photo shop? Is that a veiled threat?! In any case, you can photo shop whatever you want, I don´t particularly care one way or the other. I actually don´t know what you´re getting at here when you say, "I find it absurd for you to reason anything that supposedly should be reliably true and simultaneously argue so strongly for the suspension of those very kinds of things". I don´t argue for the suspension of anything. I am talking about complementarity. I can´t help but suspect that you actually know this.

Let me give you a concrete example. Science, more particularly biology, tells us about the biological act of sexual intercourse. It tells us nothing about the right/wrong circumstances in which to engage in sexual intercourse, ie. rape, recreational sex, making love in committed relationships, etc. That is the place of morality. Neither biology nor morality exclude the transcendent. Neither do they exclude the possibility that God is the source and sustainer of both life and morality. Both biology and morality can be seen as signposts to greater realities and can open our minds and hearts to something greater than ourselves, ie. the possibility of God. The very act of making love: total, mutual self-giving open to the possibility of creating new life, is for many a transcedent experience which awakens their hearts to God. That is what I´m saying. Nothing more, nothing less. You are free to disagree.

With reference to your earlier comment, I don´t suggest that "logic can be set aside when it comes to questions about the nature of gods" (19/01). I actually believe that every claim about God or gods should be looked at, preferably in depth. In fact, many atheists have done just that, and came to the conclusion (sometimes very unwillingly) that there was a case for God, more specifically the Christian God. I am pretty sure you know this. I can give you any number of examples, arguments and links, should you wish.

I think you come with a very valid question when you ask which God, how do we know, etc, and I honestly appreciate the difficulty for some people in arriving at belief in God. However, the fact that some people have difficulty in believing does not mean there is no God,only that they have difficulty... I laid out elsewhere what I believe and why. Again, you are free to disagree.
Good Question, "Why Christianity?"!
http://vegetarkontakt.dk/?-good-question-why-christianity=98840
http://www.myspace.com/maria_franciscan/blog/544872580


Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 21/1 2013 11:37 | Indlæg redigeret den: 27/1 2013 09:16

John
I really don´t know where to start... A few short points in relation to the general discussion...

On the issue of slavery, the Israelites generally treated their slaves much better than the people around them. They were more like employees than slaves in the conventional sense. They were also subject to liberation during jubilee years (every seven years). Again, the whole story of the Israelites is actually about their liberation from slavery. This same theme is taken up by Jesus when he declares that his mission is to free the captives.

Within Christianity itself, Paul actually makes the suggestion that the slave in his care be liberated. St. Patrick, himself a former slave, spoke out strongly against slavery in the 5th. century. Popes were issuing strong letters of condemnation of slavery from 15th. century onwards, even if they went unheeded by some Christians. Many of the early abolitionists were Christians. Today, Christians are actively engaged in fighting bondage labour and human trafficking, both modern forms of slavery.


Regarding veganism and the Bible, ample reason for embracing a vegan lifestyle can be found in the first chapter of Genesis and in the Beatific Vision of Isaiah. Yes, animal sacrifice took place... That was already a step away from human sacrifice so prevalent in the nations around Israel. But even, animal sacrifice is condemned by prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Micah and in the Psalms when the Israelites are roundly condemned for their empty religious rituals and told, "What I want is MERCY, not sacrifice". Jesus too cleanses the temple of the money grabbers exploiting the poor and animals, and turning a house of prayer into a market place. He is recorded as eating fish, the food of the poor, and lamb, once a year for Passover. I suggest that it was a necessary part of his identification with all of humanity, even evolution. There are several arguments for veg(eteri)anism within a Christian framework. Again, I can post articles and links if you want them...


Regarding the Christian concept of marriage, the word "obey" actually means to listen. And of course, it is understood in the context of love and mutual self-giving.

Sex, Love and God
http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr-Barron-comments-on-Sex,-Love,-and-God.aspx


Ingen mirakler finder sted

I take it you haven´t checked out Lourdes yet. Or Fatima for that matter. Or the two people I suggested you visit several years ago...

at være et fornuftigt menneske betyder at man baserer sin virkelighedsopfattelse på beviser og logik alene

That being the case, perhaps you tell me why so many "fornuftigt menneske" are ignoring the evidence of science with regard to the unborn child, Natural Family Planning, Naprotechnology, alternatives to embryonic stem cell research; scientific studies showing the effects of abortion and family breakdown; swallowing pseudo-science such as Memes Theory and Multi-universe Theory like it´s scientific fact, and ignoring the latest historical evidence necessitating the revision of commonly held myths.


"Sola scriptura", for dem der ikke ved det, betyder "skriften alene"

The was something introduced by Martin Luther and as such is not even Biblical. It is not to be found in the Bible, and was never the practise of either the Israelites or the early Christians. Anyone one wants to know the alternative only need go to the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18-19, Acts 15, and the Early Church Fathers, starting with Polycarp and Ignatious of Antioch.


Jeg ville til gengæld være veganer og rationalist alligevel. Kultur er blot en samling dårlige vaner... Sandhed og retfærdighed er det eneste der betyder noget.

How can you know all that? This brings us back to the same point that Jeff makes above.

Fornuft er mulig for mennesker i alle tider og situationer.

Agree ;)


Religious people buckle their seatbelts, look both ways before crossing the road, go to hospitals when they are sick, and so on.

Religious people are actually running many hospitals. They developed the first hospices and hospitals. Florence Nightingale and the Sisters of Mercy were pioneers in the field. 26% of all medical care in the world is provided by Catholics to people of all faiths and none. Medical care is understood to be one of the Corporal Acts of Mercy and a very concrete way of living out "love of one´s neighbour" and of allowing God to work through us: “Christ has no body now but yours, no hands, no feet on earth but yours. You are the eyes through which he looks Compassion on this world, yours are the feet, the hands with which to do good. Christ has no body now, but yours”. The provision of medical care (as well as social care, education, science, the arts) are all seen as gifts of God and means of living one´s faith in action.

They merely allow themselves to take "breaks" from their reason on certain topics. That is what irrationality is. And that is all it is

See examples above of rationalists taking breaks from reality ;)

people who think they are Jesus or Napoleon

What has that got to do with anything? No one on this thread claims to be either Napolean or Jesus. The claim is about the nature of Jesus, not that I, Hunichie or anyone else might be Jesus! :D

There were animals that were unknown to the people who invented the term "animal" and its definition. Does that mean that those animals...aren't animals?
No, they ARE animals, because the definition INCLUDES them. You know, like..."logically". You know what I mean?
Likewise, Epicurus' argument refers to (and destroys) any and all beings/gods, who are defined as being all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good - whether he knew of them or not, or whether they were invented before, after or during his time.

Any specifics in the CONTENT of any myth, like is irrelevant, as it obviously didn't happen, as nothing changed in the world.

Your comparison is rather limited. When we talk about animals, we don´t talk simply in general, abstract terms. We look at types, characteristics, personalities, and we respond to each type accordingly. The same may be said about "gods" or God. Epicurus view of gods only defines and responds to a specific idea of gods. It takes no account of a God who comes in poverty and humility, who makes it possible to approach him, who walks with us, a God who respects our capacity to welcome him or refuse him, who suffers greatly through our rejection.

An all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being/god would fix that in a second, if such a being existed. It is NOT fixed, and thus, necessarily, such a being CANNOT exist.


You reveal your image of God (when it´s not one governed by fear!) here: a magician, a superman, a "fix-it" God, just like the Israelites expected when the Messiah came. God does not have to dance and hop to your tunes! We cannot claim to be "free-thinkers", rejecting God and doing things our own way, only to demand that God come in and clean-up the mess when we cock it up and get tired of playing god. Grow up! We have the tools and the resources to change this world. 50% fo all food produced goes to waste. Billions, literally billions, are being spent on arms, alcohol, drugs, pornography, cigarettes, which could easily be invested in food, medicine, clean water, housing and education put at the service of the common good. The problem isn´t our lack of resources, it´s how we use them. That is a problem in the heart of man. It requires conversion, a change of heart. And as far as I´m concerned, Jesus shows us the way: humility and service as opposed to power-grabbing; justice as opposed to manic possessing; and selfless love as opposed to unlicensed pleasure.

"Act justly, love tenderly, walk humbly with your God" - Micah

EDIT
Food for thought: Faith, Hope, and Love "...today massively misunderstod..."
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/01/26/faith_hope_and_love.html#.UQO--_9kq_8.facebook


it obviously didn't happen, as nothing changed in the world.

Oh, so the all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good John knows that for a fact! He was around 2,000 years ago. He knows that the testimonies of those who believe in this God are all lies and fabrications. He knows that all the developments inspired and initiated by men and women of faith would have happened without faith in God. He has a complete oversight of history which enables him to know how the world might have developed without the Incarnation. Wow! When do we start kissing your feet?! :D

No, the REAL tragedy is that people either can not or do not want to listen. The ugliness and evil of which you speak is a distortion and/or corruption of all that is good, beautiful and true in our world. That may occur either because of a distorted notion of God or the absence of God. Reason is what can help us distinguish. It, too, is a gift of God, as far as I´m concerned. You reject that out of hand. That is your privilege.

Oh, and by the way, I would rather be left alone in a dark room and be called an idiot, irrational and illogical by you than lie and sacrifice my integrity. Apart from which, being left alone in a room tells us nothing about the people who leave. They might be acting out of mass delusional projection or running away from inconvnient truths, or both! Your declared mission was, "I want to destroy your faith" (remember that?!). You failed. Get over it. The flame (Jn.1:5) is still burning :)



Jeff,
I actually agree – more or less- with your last comment to John :)


lucifer
Forum-indlæg: 1609
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 21/1 2013 17:24

respekt til dig lene

>
Kødspisere kan jo ikke være uvidende om hvad det er de spiser, men de kan godt være uvidende om alt det forfærdelige der foregår i den industri. Jeg tror der er en hel masse benægtelse og selvbedrag i det, sådan var det for mig i næsten 46 år.


jeg vil mene at de fleste af os kommer der fra .
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 22/1 2013 07:06 | Indlæg redigeret den: 22/1 2013 07:11

Earthling,

I am not sure what it means for you to agree with my comment, more or less.

Your beliefs already contain the assertion of "moral truth" and one that is not really amenable to any real evolution. The modus operandi of christian belief seems only to permit change in "perfecting" the interpretation of an otherwise "eternal" truth.

So, I am not sure how you agree with very much of what I said.

With that said, I really wasn't disagreeing with John on the notion that we can know "right" and "wrong" as individuals in a society nor even that most humans can quickly agree globally on some basics concerning "right" and "wrong".
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 22/1 2013 12:25

Jeff
Don´t know what is so hard for you to understand.

You said
John, of course, once again, your point relies upon the existence of objective moral "truth".

What I am always missing here is some move to establish that...

I agree.

Now you say,
I really wasn't disagreeing with John on the notion that we can know "right" and "wrong" as individuals in a society nor even that most humans can quickly agree globally on some basics concerning "right" and "wrong".

Neither am I.

I also agree with
... even then we must still address issues in neuropsychology (perceptions, processes)...


and
that there are certain red threads running through moral systems that should capture moral intuitions, it is also part of the work of moral systems to cultivate these and emphasize them.


Clearer now? Can´t honestly see how you failed to grasp it first time round. It seems like you are only looking to disagree with me at every turn these days... ;) :)



Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 22/1 2013 16:16 | Indlæg redigeret den: 22/1 2013 17:02

Hmm...

What I meant was that most religious belief, and certainly christianity, posits the existence of objective moral "truth", I am tacitly disagreeing with this point.

That is the work that the rest of my post is meant to do.

So, I am not sure how you can agree with the rest, since what humans reason is right or wrong is not what is at stake in christian morality.

I am afraid that I don't understand what kinds of claims Christianity wants to make about anything nowadays as it vacates all its more traditional provinces. It seems like it really just wants to get the privilege of arguing that there is a being that is personally interested in human lives without saying much more about that.
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 22/1 2013 23:34 | Indlæg redigeret den: 22/1 2013 23:40

I know what you meant. I know about your tacit disagreement ;)

I´m not sure it can be said "that most religious belief, and certainly christianity" posits the existence of objective moral truth... I frequently see people of every religious shade positing all shades of morality (including here on VK). I don´t say I think they´re right, but I see it. The thorny issues of abortion, gay marriage, commerce are all good examples.

So, I am not sure how you can agree with the rest, since what humans reason is right or wrong is not what is at stake in christian morality.

Come on, Jeff... what do you think people like Aquinas, Newman, Kant and many others are about?

I am afraid that I don't understand what kinds of claims Christianity wants to make about anything nowadays as it vacates all its more traditional provinces.

It is certainly evident to me that you don´t have the grasp of Christianity you think you have. It should also be evident to you by now that I do not believe in moral relativism. Neither does the Catholic Church. Whatever else might get thrown at us, moral relativism is not one of those things.

In fact, your statement that most humans can quickly agree globally on some basics concerning "right" and "wrong" reminds me of the basic premises of Natural Law Theory (with or without belief in God) and of Decalration for a Global Ethic which I posted earlier on this thread.


Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 22/1 2013 23:40

Um, I am saying exactly the opposite. Nowhere do I imply anything about moral relativism. Did you just randomly generate that sentence or something?

Sider: << < 11 12 13 14 15 16 > >>