Other: Morality without Religion?
Anyone noticed how the modern day has diffused religion from purpose and granted an overall theme of morals--ethics--to live by that determine the "good hearted person," or a "good guy" but are not assigned to any religion? This situation is interesting because it proves a wholistic, general occupation for the belief in the actions of people and the mixing of ideas [as many of our fellow philosophers on here have--converged the ideas of one religion with others, forming doctrines that are little pieces of everything]. But what is to be said about the "Good guy," and why do view this person as fundamentally good without dogmatic religion?
It's confusing, but I hope it makes sense.
Jithendar: The question we are bereft with is whether religion suffices the modern man with morality.
Religion has existed for over 2000 years but has anyting changed ??? I am not questioning the validity of theism but trying vaguely to justify the induction of morality into mainstream thought that which was not a capricious act but a result of moral evolution.
On the other hand we are not in a position to discuss the validity of a proposed divorce of Morality from religion as morality has always been seen from a common perspective to stem from religion but this notion is also widely debated... are we in a dilemma here ??
not necessarily, the solution does not depend on the very fact but that which influence wherein the uncertainty is delatory with time.
Other: Sir,. You said, � The question we are bereft with is whether religion suffices the modern man with morality.�
Religion is not necessarily associated with �morality.� For example, in Reformation Christian faith, morality is presumed and deemed lost a-priori. It is only when man recognizes and acknowledges his immorality that he may be at the gate of true salvation (religiously speaking) and therefore the path to true �morality.� In this, �conscious� awareness arrives (how it arrives is debated but the truth of predestination is obvious only to the enlightened).
The so-called gospel of �works� wildly incorporates human morality. But human morality as defined by �works� is not the mode to morality/salvation (Rom. 7: 14-25). Note that works based morality is not bad in-itself but bad only in the power that many religionists ascribe to it: that is their false teaching that �works� (morality) in-itself has the power to save a person - which it cannot. (Eph. 2: 4-9, Rom. 7: 14-25, etc).
As you correctly noticed, nothing has changed since the beginning of time: man is still immoral, corrupted and broken despite the absolute moralists insistence that works (morality) alone will save the day. Last thought; when the individual man becomes fully and entirely conscious of his absolute state of depravity, then and only then can the real, substantive and meaningful �teleological morality� occur (Luke 18: 9-14). Otherwise, he is like the religionist and absolute moralist (Luke 18: 10-14) who the text clearly states was not heaven bound as much as the immoral one was heaven bound. passion
Other:I don't intend to be offensive, but I am certain that my argument will offend. Regrets.
A religious person cannot be beaten in an argument about religion. This is not because the religious person is right. Nor is it because they use a different logic than the areligious (though that is a symptom of the actual cause).
In short, religion requires a closed mind. It cannot persist in a consciousness that entertains oppposing view points or considers them neutrally.
The evidence for this is that there are many religions, and they all make claims and propose explanations that are equally well founded, i.e. whose foundation is relavantly similar and whose claims are supported by relevantly similar evidence or proof.
An unbiased (and I hesitate to use the term, though ultimately I must admit that this is my cliam.) look across religions reveals them to be derived not from in depth consideration, but by cultural and familial norms.
The much stronger claim that I think follows from this is that, no matter the logic used to examine systems of belief, the agnostic position (and even more stongly the atheist-agnostic position) is found to be superior. Faith, the most common reply to such a claim (from my limited experience), is not a logical system, but rather a refusal to engage in logical thought, and a willful acceptance of ignorance.
Jithendar: Carleas good point made...
Religion just provides psychological security, the thought of a more powerful being, heaven... all these provide security... and the being dissolves into this illusion which purely correlates manifested earthly pleasures.
Any filiation that derives itself from religious thought is basically an expedient to contrast the fact that the very notion of sanctitude found its birth place in societal and relational influences.
This is what I would call a "manifestation of stupidity"
Virtual Reality:
Other: Ok, this is just a strange thought, if you do not understand it do not flame me or shout, just do not reply! (My mother always said, "if you can't....)"
Alright then, as water is connected to water, what does the actual connection consist of? Like 0-0-0 , what is the middle one? I think this is directly tied to our dreams and the realities we create within them. I was wondering if this can be replicated to create virtual realities.
Lol, I play video games and for a while toked a lot, so I have a wierd imagination but if anyone gets this that would be cool
Jithendar: Well, I have no idea where u got this query... but this is in ideology similar to a question which Einstien was himself faced with...
Well, connection implies "that which provides togetherness" well we are initially confronted with the notion of distinctivism because this is a vague contradiction to the idea of connection and the validity of both lies in the realm of physics. We here could lamely attempt to reconcile both these under a common idea.
The fact that connection exists if and only the sources that are connected is a valid idea with which we could proceed. Hence immediately we could conclude that a connection is an entity which depends on that which it connects. Hence we could say it is a relativistic term.