Social Meme Thread v113: A Wave So Red it's Almost...Orange

[S Class]

 

[Ruke Doufus]

I believe that a person's understanding of good and evil is innate and instinctual. You can make your thought experiment about how, if there was no evil, only good, how could we know evil? In this case, yes, I would agree, but obviously there will always be good and evil.

But to say, because god loves us, he gives us this evil so that we can learn from it - I disagree. With the millions that die from malaria or natural disasters around the world each year - how is this teaching us to recognize evil? And quite frankly, to say that your all knowing all loving (amongst other "all" qualities) God gives us these things plus all the other evil shit that goes on, just so we can recognize it and learn from it is a cop-out for trying to parse the "all knowing and all loving" part of your god and what messed up shit goes on in this world.

I'm going to stop fucking up the meme thread now with text. But try and step away from scripture, what you've been taught and analyze this objectively.

All I want to know, is if morality is an intrinsic thing people agree on with no actual foundation, would it then become moral to do something traditionally abhorrent like sex trafficking if enough people felt it was fine and agreed?

 

[jrams]

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Guys why are you so obsessed?!

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

 

[UberHere]

What happened to that Left Cult Clown?

Hopefully being deprogrammed

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

 

[UberHere]

We humans decide what is good or evil. Don't you think that if religion was never invented, that humans wouldn't have come up with these concepts?

But at the end of the day, if a natural disaster happens for example, and kills loads of innocent people, shouldn't this all knowing and all powerful god have stopped that from happening? And as far as the statement "religion aka God defined what is good and what is evil" goes, who gives a fuck? A natural disaster just killed a 1/4 million people! What the fuck does that statement have to do with all the misery, suffering and death as a result of that disaster? If God is knowing and all loving, God should have stopped it.

if there is an all powerful god, why would he stop nature to save a few humans? A lifetime wouldn’t even be a blink of an eye to something that is infinite. More insects die every day than humans. World would suck if nothing ever died and we were all buried in insects.

Just seems kind of presumptuous to think an all powerful, eternal being would intervene in nature to prolong a few people’s lives when they’re gonna die anyway. I guess it’s one thing to question why nature is the way it is if such a being exists. Nature is fucking cruel as fuck. It runs on Malthusian and Darwinian principles. Morality, religion, philosophy are all ways that we as empathetic and reasoning beings come to terms with rising above that paradigm rather then embracing it as the Nazis did.

 

[Gamer2k4]

I believe that a person's understanding of good and evil is innate and instinctual. You can make your thought experiment about how, if there was no evil, only good, how could we know evil? In this case, yes, I would agree, but obviously there will always be good and evil.

But to say, because god loves us, he gives us this evil so that we can learn from it - I disagree. With the millions that die from malaria or natural disasters around the world each year - how is this teaching us to recognize evil? And quite frankly, to say that your all knowing all loving (amongst other "all" qualities) God gives us these things plus all the other evil shit that goes on, just so we can recognize it and learn from it is a cop-out for trying to parse the "all knowing and all loving" part of your god and what messed up shit goes on in this world.

I'm going to stop fucking up the meme thread now with text. But try and step away from scripture, what you've been taught and analyze this objectively.

We can have a longer discussion about this via PM if you'd like. But I just want to address your last point by reminding you that none of what I said was sourced from scripture; besides a reference to Adam, I didn't mention the Bible at all. The case I was presenting was objective analysis based on what what makes sense to me, not some religious dogma that I was taught in church.

 

[SoSo]

All I want to know, is if morality is an intrinsic thing people agree on with no actual foundation, would it then become moral to do something traditionally abhorrent like sex trafficking if enough people felt it was fine and agreed?

No, I don't think so. Just as how your body instinctively makes the motions that swallows the water that you put in your mouth because your body tells you that you are thirsty - I believe we have an understanding of good and evil at birth and choose how to navigate within that by our own interpretations. Morals can be influenced by societal norms/mores for sure. But that base good/evil is instinctual.

But that wasn't the original argument anyway...

 

[SoSo]

if there is an all powerful god, why would he stop nature to save a few humans? A lifetime wouldn’t even be a blink of an eye to something that is infinite. More insects die every day than humans. World would suck if nothing ever died and we were all buried in insects.

Just seems kind of presumptuous to think an all powerful, eternal being would intervene in nature to prolong a few people’s lives when they’re gonna die anyway. I guess it’s one thing to question why nature is the way it is if such a being exists. Nature is fucking cruel as fuck. It runs on Malthusian and Darwinian principles. Morality, religion, philosophy are all ways that we as empathetic and reasoning beings come to terms with rising above that paradigm rather then embracing it as the Nazis did.

I wasn't talking about not having death. That would be silly. But by your argument: people should stop praying too. Because God don't have no time for that.

 

[SoSo]

We can have a longer discussion about this via PM if you'd like. But I just want to address your last point by reminding you that none of what I said was sourced from scripture; besides a reference to Adam, I didn't mention the Bible at all. The case I was presenting was objective analysis based on what what makes sense to me, not some religious dogma that I was taught in church.

No PM.
We can only operate on what makes sense to us. So fair enough.

 

[UberHere]

I wasn't talking about not having death. That would be silly. But by your argument: people should stop praying too. Because God don't have no time for that.

Pretty much. Most people’s prayers are just childish, selfish pleas

That being said, I don’t think prayer is necessarily a bad thing if people find peace, self reflection, or/ and empowerment from it. Sort of like meditation.

 

[Ruke Doufus]

No, I don't think so. Just as how your body instinctively makes the motions that swallows the water that you put in your mouth because your body tells you that you are thirsty - I believe we have an understanding of good and evil at birth and choose how to navigate within that by our own interpretations. Morals can be influenced by societal norms/mores for sure. But that base good/evil is instinctual.

But that wasn't the original argument anyway...

Doesn't matter what the original argument is, this part of what you said is ridiculous that our whole idea of the foundation of good and evil is based on common experience and an unspoken agreement we just feel. Even with this supposed understanding, many people today feel differently and have a disregard for others notion of good and evil. If these people who have a total disregard for the welfare of others were the majority then the common understanding of good and evil would be profoundly different. It's a nonsensical metric by which to measure as its predicated on everyone having the same feeling.

Anyway, I won't derail the thread any further but damn if that isn't the silliest argument for morality I've ever heard.

 

[Joe_Armstrong]

No group speak meme about the Sherdog 2FA yet?

 

[Sakuraba'sEar]

We can have a longer discussion about this via PM if you'd like. But I just want to address your last point by reminding you that none of what I said was sourced from scripture; besides a reference to Adam, I didn't mention the Bible at all. The case I was presenting was objective analysis based on what what makes sense to me, not some religious dogma that I was taught in church.

No, I don't think so. Just as how your body instinctively makes the motions that swallows the water that you put in your mouth because your body tells you that you are thirsty - I believe we have an understanding of good and evil at birth and choose how to navigate within that by our own interpretations. Morals can be influenced by societal norms/mores for sure. But that base good/evil is instinctual.

But that wasn't the original argument anyway...

Doesn't matter what the original argument is, this part of what you said is ridiculous that our whole idea of the foundation of good and evil is based on common experience and an unspoken agreement we just feel. Even with this supposed understanding, many people today feel differently and have a disregard for others notion of good and evil. If these people who have a total disregard for the welfare of others were the majority then the common understanding of good and evil would be profoundly different. It's a nonsensical metric by which to measure as its predicated on everyone having the same feeling.

Anyway, I won't derail the thread any further but damn if that isn't the silliest argument for morality I've ever heard.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You think the concepts of good and evil didn't exist before the written word?

K.

Nice dodge.

But the fact is writtings are the only means of documentation for idealogical concepts.

So, unless you can find atheist writings before 3000 years ago, Judaism has atheism beat.






Pretty rare there's video proof of what everyone already knew.

 

[jrams]