Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anything Divine in the Bible?
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 202 of 406 (490872)
12-09-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by DevilsAdvocate
12-09-2008 6:11 AM


Re: read again
Are there still wars, poverty, etc. Of course. However, how many wars have we had in the last 100 years compared to the wars of 1000 years ago. The difference is that we have had less wars but have caused more destruction due to the increase in technology
As a slight aside, this is wrong. The number of conflicts with 1,000 battle deaths in the 20th century is more than in the 19th century. Of course, there weren't very many wars with over 1,000 battle deaths 1000 years ago possibly due to a much smaller population (the EU today has 500 million citizens, the world 6.6 billion; 1000 years ago the pop of europe was something like 30 million iirc).
That said, there have been ~230 conflicts in the 20th century (a quick count from wiki's list; my source, "Capital, Coercion, and European States" has a higher number, but I can't check it right now). Wiki has 17 wars from 1000-1099. There has not been a single year in the 20th century without some conflict somewhere.
What has changed is duration. Civil and guerilla wars are increasingly longer than they were, while other conflicts have become shorter.
Destructive power, as you note correctly, has indeed mushroomed. That book I can't check (had to return it...urgh) mentions something like 46 deaths per 10,000 people in the 20th century. The 19th? 9 deaths per 10,000. I can't remember if that was just counting males or if it was 10,000 or some other number, nor can I remember what specifically he was doing with the numbers. When I get another copy of the book from the library, I'll update those numbers.
Point is, the 20th century has been the most violent in human history, not merely in terms of number of wars, but also percentage of death

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-09-2008 6:11 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 246 of 406 (490997)
12-10-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by jaywill
12-10-2008 3:10 PM


Re: The true colours of Bertot the "Christian"
Speaking as an atheist, my morality is strongly founded. It is based on consequences to other people and myself.
A:
Do my actions harm myself?
If so, is it justifiable?
B:
Do my actions harm other people?
If so, are they justifiable?
C:
Do other people's action harm themselves?
If so, are they justifiable?
D:
Do other people's actions harm other people?
If so, are they justifiable?
Justification is based on the amount of total good an action causes. The total good has to exceed the total harm. That said, an action that causes more good than harm is not necessarily moral, but is reluctantly, hesitantly, acceptable. Was the hiroshima bombing moral? No. Was the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden or other cities moral? No. Was WWII moral? Germany and the final solution were not, American concentration camps were not. The defeat of the Third Reich was.
I haven't thought out the full implications of my system as of yet, and I can very well imagine that it could lead to some interesting statements. Point is, I have a relative moral system that is well-grounded and relatively stable. And funnily enough, it's based partly on the penultimate relativistic moral instruction: do unto others as you would have others do unto you (a la Christ and numerous other religions, cultures, and so forth in the world).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2008 3:10 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by subbie, posted 12-10-2008 7:50 PM kuresu has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 248 of 406 (491014)
12-10-2008 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by subbie
12-10-2008 7:50 PM


a utilitarian morality?
Precisely what I was talking about . . .those interesting situations that arise from having not fully thought through the implications.
The question is, does killing that one person in order to harvest the organs create more good than the persons's death causes harm?
I removed a statement from my rough post that now seems as if it should have been left in. Following the bit about examples of moral and immoral actions, I had planned on saying: the only true moral actions are those that cause no or insignificant harm while also causing good. This would mean that the effort to defeat the third reich, while not immoral, is not truly moral, becuase the effort certainly caused a very significant amount of harm.
Killing a person to harvest organs to save others is causing significant harm. One death plus potential grief--did the person have family and/or friends who cared for him? How would the others feel about having an organ from someone who was actively killed to obtain the organs so they could live?. One death alone is significant harm in this case. So it is not moral.
But is it acceptable? If it leads to more good than harm, my system would answer yes. I'm not sure I could say the action is immoral. I could say it is despicable, that there were other options available that would have caused less harm to achieve the same good. But without knowing the full situation, I can't make a judgement on that. There's probably a slippery slope somewhere in here that could lead us to the final solution yet again.
A question remaining is: how do you quantify harm? One way is through deaths, injuries, and assorted statistics. How do you quantify grief? How can you compare grief with the number dead?
No wonder there are people who rely on god to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Good thing I've got another (hopefully) 60 plus years to work it out (assuming I can).
Edited by kuresu, : you know, this has absolutely nothing to do with bertot. So changed the subtitle to something more a propro.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by subbie, posted 12-10-2008 7:50 PM subbie has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 273 of 406 (491081)
12-11-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by jaywill
12-11-2008 1:41 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
So you believe in god to satisfy your blood lust? To satisfy your thirst for vengeance? For revenge? That's sickening. Naturally you'll say that you don't believe in god for solely these reasons, but they do seem to provide support to your faith. It would seem that your god is still a vengeful, petty god.
Are there not better reasons to believe in god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by jaywill, posted 12-11-2008 1:41 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by jaywill, posted 12-11-2008 3:12 PM kuresu has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 278 of 406 (491090)
12-11-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by jaywill
12-11-2008 3:12 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
Actually, I haven't jumped to any conclusions. You'll notice that I'm asking a question. Conclusions are not questions.
I honestly have read very, very little of what you have written on this board. But then, you apparently can't spell my profile name. It's not karuse, it's kuresu. It's not even a close typo.
Let's see what you said.
I have written on this Forum thousands upon thousands of words speaking of God's eternal purpose and salvation quite apart from the matter of judgment
Great, so you have reasons other than the eternal damnation of people who have wronged you for believing in god. Yet:
Where's the justice? Where's the salvation? It is nowhere{in reference to atheism}
So you do need to satisfy your desire for blood, and it is found with god. So the desire to see people damned for all eternity is a key part of your reason for believing in god. Not your only reason, but a foundational one nonetheless. Savvy? That's what's sick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jaywill, posted 12-11-2008 3:12 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by jaywill, posted 12-12-2008 10:54 AM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 280 of 406 (491093)
12-11-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by jaywill
12-11-2008 3:21 PM


a hah. So your believe in god is effectively one of idolization? How is this different from idolizing anything or anyone else?
Call it an ego-trip (I bet you will), but I have no need to believe in an idolized supreme being, especially one that has commanded genocide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by jaywill, posted 12-11-2008 3:21 PM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024