We already did - in fact, you did. Good is survival.
No No... I was playing the devil's advocate in response to his apprentice (parenthetically, I unfortunately called him my own apprentice by mistake, but he corrected me).
But thank you for confirming that for me. You do realize then, that Christians such as myself are a direct threat to the survival of humanity as defined by a naturalistic philosophical worldview, because we are stupid enough to believe in the ressurection of the dead and are therefore seeking survival not in the present but the next life?
So... what are you gonna do about it?
I only ask because we all know that morally superior, atheistic cultures and their leaders... are not capable of genocide for the sake of humanities true greatness and potential.
There's your proof that there's no absolute morality
I gave that up long ago. While there may be no absolute moral, there can be an absolute morality. This is precisely, doing the best we can at every moment given what we know now, and I do still believe that there are always better or even perfect things which we may attain to some day.
funny definition of absolute. most i've seen involve it being unchanging (which in some way yours is). but i digress. before you head off for the night, i've some new devepolements that I would like to talk about (if you don't mind).
In theory, a Utilitarian principle of gaining the most good for the most people would possibly result in some genocides that are not frowned upon. The reason they are so far is because of the innocence of the victims. Now, it is possible to distort things to the point that the innocent look guilty, or even to the point that we say 'they are using our resources, and therefore guilty of something'. When you start viewing people this way, rather than all as equal, that is the problem. But for the pure survival of the species, there could be times when we would have to view each other this way.
Ah, I still feel like I am distracted and missing something. Perhaps later I will try to head this puppy back to where I meant it to go.
The most basic definition is that moral behaviour is following of one's conscience
Consider the taped statement of Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the perpetrators of the bomb attacks in London in July, 2005:
Mohammad Sidique Khan writes:
I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger.
Or from one of the other conspirators:
Shehzad Tanweer writes:
For the non-Muslims in Britain, you may wonder what you have done to deserve this. You are those who have voted in your government who in turn have and still continue to this day continue to oppress our mothers and children, brothers and sisters from the east to the west in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya. Your government has openly supported the genocide of more than 150,000 innocent Muslims in Fallujah.
The consciences of Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer appear to be clean, since their acts are justified in religious and practical terms. By your view of morality, they are behaving in a moral way.
The description of morality you have described is not a very useful conception when we want to choose a moral course of action.
First of all, there are many contradictory visions of what is good. I think it is good to carry out stem cell research to help patients suffering from brain and nervous disorders; others think it is good to criminalize the practice in order to protect the embryo; still others think it is good to murder abortionist or stem cell researchers. Without any more objective account of what is good, how are we meant to apply our moral reasoning to such problems? The abortionist and the abortionists murderer are equally moral if all that matters is "following one's conscience".
Second, we can never have access to the conscience of another so we can never determine whether they are doing what they believe to be good. Hence it is impossible to state that somebody is behaving in a moral (or immoral) way.
Finally, I am not confident that we can trust in our own assessment of the morality of our behaviour on the basis of our conscience. Cognitive dissonance may allow us to interpret our immoral or amoral behaviour as moral behavior. For example, we may well feel that "I bought a small car because I want to help the environment" instead of "I bought a small car because I'm too poor for the SUV I really want". Or "I go to church because it really helps the world" instead of "I go to church because it improves my standing within my peer group and because I can meet my friends there". I'm sure we all have experiences of this kind of self-justifying behavior. That's we need a more objective view of what is moral.
I'm a bit surprised at your view of morality - usually it is the Christians who claim that atheists have a relativistic morality while religion gives one morality with a solid basis. Yet here you are saying the opposite.
PS. As for the benefits of praying, a report from Harvard found the following: (source)
quote:For those facing surgery or battling disease, the prayers of others can be a comfort. Researchers in the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP), the largest study to examine the effects of intercessory prayer-prayer provided by others-evaluated the impact of such prayer on patients recovering from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.
The STEP team, composed of investigators at six academic medical centers, including Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota; St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Florida; Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C; and the Mind/Body Medical Institute, found that intercessory prayer had no effect on recovery from surgery without complications. The study also found that patients who knew they were receiving intercessory prayer fared worse. The paper appears in the April issue of American Heart Journal.
Now that you know prayer doesn't actually help anybody, can I assume you will find it immoral to continue the self-indulgent practice?
First off, if I don't follow the commands of the church, I feel guilty. This is because at one time in my life I had to use some reasoning to discover if these rules were worthy of my respect, useful, efficacious. Eventually, they became more than rules, and a part of what I believe is 'good'.
Well, I concede that I cannot 'imagine' as well as you. I deal less and less with imagintation and fairly tales, and more with reality each day. But you can wish it away... just 'imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. Imagine all the people, living life in peace'...
Just wish it into being. Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in your imagination. Think positive Kuresu. Don't let the facts stand in your way.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. Take comments to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD