Obviously mine, considering that his is so obviously ****ed up.
Or maybe yours is.
Morality is not something to be commanded to people.
That explains why we have lawmakers, police departments, and judges. Without any sort of commands, people do what they want, and we end up with chaos. How is our justice system any different? We certainly command a certain level of morality ourselves.
Eh, the police aren't there to teach morality. They're there to prevent people from doing immoral things (speaking simply). Rules do not teach morality. Morality is learned through experience and rationale. Law enforcement is a great example of how religion fails to protect humanity, and so people step up to the plate. Morality is not derived from religion. Morality is a consensus of conduct developed by a society to preserve harmony and minimize suffering. An all powerful supernatural dictator does not fit into this equation, let alone is it required. You and I could literally sit here and improve the ten commandments in about five minutes, morally speaking. As a better man than myself once pointed out, do you really think the Jews wandered through Egypt killing and raping one another for thousands and thousands of years thinking it was just fine and dandy until, suddenly, an old man wanders in with an armful of boulders with a bunch of rules written all over them, and then they realize the err of their ways? No. Morality comes from rationale. Whether the universe was created by a conscious designer, or whether it simply exists with no guiding hand, is inconsequential to this point.
Morality is learned through experience and rationale.
Seeing as we still have debates on many moral issues which are unresolved, obviously they are not enough. Experience and rationale alone seem insufficient.
Eh, the police aren't there to teach morality. They're there to prevent people from doing immoral things (speaking simply).
Which is why I included lawmakers and judges in my argument. Arguing about law enforcement and ignoring the others does not invalidate my argument.
Law enforcement is a great example of how religion fails to protect humanity, and so people step up to the plate.
It is not religion itself, but rather God working through people that helps protect us. By shifting the argument from the person of God and to the abstract concept of religion in general, you have set up a straw man.
Morality is not derived from religion.
Correct. Morality is not from the abstract concept of religion. It is from God.
You're arguing on very tenuous ground - replacing God with religion, as if it were reasonable to replace a person with an abstraction without destroying the argument. They are not synonyms.
You and I could literally sit here and improve the ten commandments in about five minutes, morally speaking.
No need. The ten commandments are the beginning, but not the end, of what God commanded as far as morals go. They are a part of a larger series of commands.
do you really think the Jews wandered through Egypt killing and raping one another for thousands and thousands of years thinking it was just fine and dandy until, suddenly, an old man wanders in with an armful of boulders with a bunch of rules written all over them, and then they realize the err of their ways?
You are presenting a strawman. This in no way represents what happened. They had just been released from Egyptian law - they needed their own laws, and that's what the ten commandments helped provide.
Yes, part of the intent of the new laws was to provide a replacement for the laws of the nation they recently left.
And no, thousands of years were not involved. That is not in the narrative anywhere.
Morality comes from rationale.
Unfortunately rationale has proven to be quite insufficient, so I would disagree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When all is said and done, Will you have said more than you have done?
Seriously, I got one kid who kept trying to convert me to not even talk if he knew I was around.
DON'T START IT
For the most part, I'm just showing the religious POV is defensible. Some people have this odd notion that religious POVs are fundamentally broken, but that's not the case. I don't think they're any more broken than any other POV.
I find it hypocritical that atheists think that they should be free to convert people to their POV, yet will do anything to forbid religious people from trying to convert people to their POV. Fair is fair, and either both should be allowed, or both should be forbidden. If the other atheists here agree to stop talking about the issue, I will stop as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When all is said and done, Will you have said more than you have done?
Seriously, I got one kid who kept trying to convert me to not even talk if he knew I was around.
DON'T START IT
For the most part, I'm just showing the religious POV is defensible. Some people have this odd notion that religious POVs are fundamentally broken, but that's not the case. I don't think they're any more broken than any other POV.
I find it hypocritical that atheists think that they should be free to convert people to their POV, yet will do anything to forbid religious people from trying to convert people to their POV. Fair is fair, and either both should be allowed, or both should be forbidden. If the other atheists here agree to stop talking about the issue, I will stop as well.
I'm not just talking to you, but to everyone. I get quite vicious when it comes down to these matters.
I'm not trying to convert people, nor have I ever done so. The kid I mentioned is still christian, and we are friends, but both him and I watch our tongues, something that a few people on this site, as well as others, seem to be incapable of doing.
However, my POV is that your POV is that our POV is that your POV is wrong. Yes, that does make sense, and no, that is not our (or at least, my) POV. But angels and banishment to Hell and Satan and God (various other thread suggestions too) is hypocritical by your very criteria. I am expecting some kind of "science is trying to convert us" thing, but that's humans, christian or other, trying to find out more about the world. And I get a lot more people coming up to my door to talk about God than I do about the Large Hadron Collidor. I need to stop talking now or I'll start a massive tangent and fill this page with walls of text that get relatively bad reactions from most religious people here.
Basically, I like my games religion neutral. Because religion has already ruined TV for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Passive minecrafter FTW.
Hamumu.com, the site I should thank for helping me find minecraft.
It amazes me that more people are offended by a Heaven concept than a Hell one. Minecraft isn't reality, of course I know that, but you are suggesting this because you are taking the place that Notch has named hell and connected it with a concept from our reality. (I believe in a heaven and a hell just so you know)
My point is that I never heard a complaint like this when Hell was an option in the ol' /indev/ version, which you can no longer play, so why now?
EDIT: Actually, making a place called hell that looks like the hell described in the Bible might save a few people from it! (One can hope)
Can this thread just die now? Please? It's becoming, slowly but surely, just a big Flame War. You know it's true...
Why should it? Sure there are some people who refuse to leave the subject alone, but I also see more people putting forth good ideas. I see people here who are excited about this idea, and I think Minecraft would be an even greater place with a land above the clouds. Really, I think that's awesome and I would be so happy if it made it into the game. Don't let some bad apples spoil the bunch as they say. I enjoy coming here every now and then and seeing some new ideas being thrown on the table and new supporters joining in and voicing their excitement.
There are some truly great ideas that could go into "Heaven" and even more out there that nobody has thought of yet. If you don't want it to turn into a flame war then ignore those people and make constructive posts instead.
Morality is learned through experience and rationale.
Seeing as we still have debates on many moral issues which are unresolved, obviously they are not enough. Experience and rationale alone seem insufficient.
Do you really believe rape and murder is only immoral if a God exists? Come on now.
Which is why I included lawmakers and judges in my argument. Arguing about law enforcement and ignoring the others does not invalidate my argument.
Yeah, the government isn't there to teach morality, either. That's what philosophers do, and what you should be doing for yourself.
It is not religion itself, but rather God working through people that helps protect us.
Yeah, tell it to all the atheists in the military and police force. I doubt they'd be comfortable with you attributing the credit of their good work to your imaginary friend.
By shifting the argument from the person of God and to the abstract concept of religion in general, you have set up a straw man.
Yeah, the concept of a moral God, which is what we're arguing the merit of here, is in itself a religious concept, so if I'm misrepresenting one of your beliefs by making the point I made about religion, by all means, identify it.
Correct. Morality is not from the abstract concept of religion. It is from God.
Do you really need a God to tell you that rape and murder is wrong?
The addition of "God" to the equation does not make or break morality.
You're arguing on very tenuous ground - replacing God with religion, as if it were reasonable to replace a person with an abstraction without destroying the argument. They are not synonyms.
No, God alone is not synonymous with religion, but a moral God, which is what we're arguing the merit of here, renders the two subjects mutually implicit. If you're talking about a moral God, you're therefore talking about religion.
No need. The ten commandments are the beginning, but not the end, of what God commanded as far as morals go. They are a part of a larger series of commands.
Oh, yes, let's just ignore the obvious insufficiencies and immoralities of the ten commandments, and just leap to the excuse that they're "the beginning" of something, that way you don't actually have to address their own merit. Well done :smile.gif:
You are presenting a strawman. This in no way represents what happened. They had just been released from Egyptian law - they needed their own laws, and that's what the ten commandments helped provide.
So Egyptian law, you're saying, was sufficient in preventing people from raping and murdering one another. Therefore, if, as you've claimed, morality comes from God, then where cometh Egyptian morality? There was no Torah, nor Bible, nor Ten Commandments then.
By the way, I'm oh so impressed you know how to type "straw man", despite the fact that I am most definitely not presenting a straw man. Don't attempt to deflect the question by calling it a straw man, answer it: Do you really believe people wandered around Egypt thinking that raping and murdering one another was just fine and dandy until God supposedly dropped a set of boulders with rules written all over them into the arms of an old man? Do you really think that people could not decipher the simple and blatant immorality of such things for themselves?
Yes, part of the intent of the new laws was to provide a replacement for the laws of the nation they recently left.
And no, thousands of years were not involved. That is not in the narrative anywhere.
Yes, thousands of years were indeed involved. The Ten Commandments were received by Moses around 1,300 BC, which is 3,300 years ago. That still leaves, even to the absolutely bat-**** crazy creationist estimate of 6,000 years for the age of the Earth (Adam and Eve supposedly living at the very least in 3,000 BC), 2,700 years, at the very, very least, that people wandered around supposedly thinking that rape and murder was fine and dandy. The question still stands, do you really think people could not decipher such blatant immorality for themselves, and for that long?
Unfortunately rationale has proven to be quite insufficient, so I would disagree.
So you're saying that you and I can't sit here and identify the immorality of the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Crusades, 9/11, etc. with our rationale? I'm going to have to disagree.
Neither you nor I really need to be told by an old poorly narrated, self-contradictory fable, that the Holocaust was wrong. And if you do, then I must sincerely question your understanding of morality.
Look, morals are the sentiment of 'do unto others as you would yourself' and is not specific to religion. I don't believe in god, or anything like that, and yet it I don't kill people or rape them or even harm them. (Unless they are trying to attack me, self defense is moral). Seriously, saying god made morals is so middle ages. A famous scientist was hung for accurately explaining how rainbows form, where the church simply said 'they are made by god, kill him'. To have a religion work correctly you need to have the POV work with AND without a higher power. Why? Because otherwise, everything is suddenly their doing. How did you breath? God makes you breathe? No, your diaphragm moves up and down, compressing and decompressing your lungs, which pushes air out, then forms a vacuum, pulling air back in.
See? I mean, I could get a group of friends and I to start a new religion, make up random ******** that has thousands of loopholes, and we could still get people to believe us! GIVE IT UP.
EDIT: Also, your god's morals used to state that people who were not christian were KILLED. Millions of people of religions now lost were killed by roaming christian groups, and yet, because it was in the name of 'God', it was deemed OK. MY morals are better than that, and I'm not even religious.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Passive minecrafter FTW.
Hamumu.com, the site I should thank for helping me find minecraft.
Could we PLEASE stop discussing morales and religion here and just agree that he is speaking of a realm of sorts or a land high up in the sky with creatures inspired by mythology such as angles and flying pigs?
Now I would really like this, Just a floating island chain or two really high up in the sky above the clouds with all sorts of rarities.
Could we PLEASE stop discussing morales and religion here and just agree that he is speaking of a realm of sorts or a land high up in the sky with creatures inspired by mythology such as angles and flying pigs?
well since theres already going to be a hell world why not. hmm hellworld...you should add pinhead into the game =p. well i want to kill flying pigs. but there needs to be manbearpig some where. maybe it can spawn after x amount of angels appear and you need a heelstone axe to kill it. and heaven is just as religious as hell so it dosent matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from VIROS »
He already has these. They inhabit his comment boards, and prey on those who are tenacious enough to compliment him or his work.
Looks like a trap to me. Go check it out.
sorry, this picture was taken before the stairway to heaven project
Eh, the police aren't there to teach morality. They're there to prevent people from doing immoral things (speaking simply). Rules do not teach morality. Morality is learned through experience and rationale. Law enforcement is a great example of how religion fails to protect humanity, and so people step up to the plate. Morality is not derived from religion. Morality is a consensus of conduct developed by a society to preserve harmony and minimize suffering. An all powerful supernatural dictator does not fit into this equation, let alone is it required. You and I could literally sit here and improve the ten commandments in about five minutes, morally speaking. As a better man than myself once pointed out, do you really think the Jews wandered through Egypt killing and raping one another for thousands and thousands of years thinking it was just fine and dandy until, suddenly, an old man wanders in with an armful of boulders with a bunch of rules written all over them, and then they realize the err of their ways? No. Morality comes from rationale. Whether the universe was created by a conscious designer, or whether it simply exists with no guiding hand, is inconsequential to this point.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumSeeing as we still have debates on many moral issues which are unresolved, obviously they are not enough. Experience and rationale alone seem insufficient.
Which is why I included lawmakers and judges in my argument. Arguing about law enforcement and ignoring the others does not invalidate my argument.
It is not religion itself, but rather God working through people that helps protect us. By shifting the argument from the person of God and to the abstract concept of religion in general, you have set up a straw man.
Correct. Morality is not from the abstract concept of religion. It is from God.
You're arguing on very tenuous ground - replacing God with religion, as if it were reasonable to replace a person with an abstraction without destroying the argument. They are not synonyms.
No need. The ten commandments are the beginning, but not the end, of what God commanded as far as morals go. They are a part of a larger series of commands.
You are presenting a strawman. This in no way represents what happened. They had just been released from Egyptian law - they needed their own laws, and that's what the ten commandments helped provide.
Yes, part of the intent of the new laws was to provide a replacement for the laws of the nation they recently left.
And no, thousands of years were not involved. That is not in the narrative anywhere.
Unfortunately rationale has proven to be quite insufficient, so I would disagree.
Seriously, I got one kid who kept trying to convert me to not even talk if he knew I was around.
DON'T START IT
anyways, I don't think a heaven makes sense, but some kind of paradise still sounds cool. Just no angels or gods, please.
Hamumu.com, the site I should thank for helping me find minecraft.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumFor the most part, I'm just showing the religious POV is defensible. Some people have this odd notion that religious POVs are fundamentally broken, but that's not the case. I don't think they're any more broken than any other POV.
I find it hypocritical that atheists think that they should be free to convert people to their POV, yet will do anything to forbid religious people from trying to convert people to their POV. Fair is fair, and either both should be allowed, or both should be forbidden. If the other atheists here agree to stop talking about the issue, I will stop as well.
Back in my day, sheep dropped brown mushrooms, and by golly we... Hated it, pretty much.
I'm not just talking to you, but to everyone. I get quite vicious when it comes down to these matters.
I'm not trying to convert people, nor have I ever done so. The kid I mentioned is still christian, and we are friends, but both him and I watch our tongues, something that a few people on this site, as well as others, seem to be incapable of doing.
However, my POV is that your POV is that our POV is that your POV is wrong. Yes, that does make sense, and no, that is not our (or at least, my) POV. But angels and banishment to Hell and Satan and God (various other thread suggestions too) is hypocritical by your very criteria. I am expecting some kind of "science is trying to convert us" thing, but that's humans, christian or other, trying to find out more about the world. And I get a lot more people coming up to my door to talk about God than I do about the Large Hadron Collidor. I need to stop talking now or I'll start a massive tangent and fill this page with walls of text that get relatively bad reactions from most religious people here.
Basically, I like my games religion neutral. Because religion has already ruined TV for me.
Hamumu.com, the site I should thank for helping me find minecraft.
The bottom is not limitless.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWho made it? Is there anyone here? And what's with the flying glowing orbs?!
My point is that I never heard a complaint like this when Hell was an option in the ol' /indev/ version, which you can no longer play, so why now?
EDIT: Actually, making a place called hell that looks like the hell described in the Bible might save a few people from it! (One can hope)
Why should it? Sure there are some people who refuse to leave the subject alone, but I also see more people putting forth good ideas. I see people here who are excited about this idea, and I think Minecraft would be an even greater place with a land above the clouds. Really, I think that's awesome and I would be so happy if it made it into the game. Don't let some bad apples spoil the bunch as they say. I enjoy coming here every now and then and seeing some new ideas being thrown on the table and new supporters joining in and voicing their excitement.
There are some truly great ideas that could go into "Heaven" and even more out there that nobody has thought of yet. If you don't want it to turn into a flame war then ignore those people and make constructive posts instead.
Do you really believe rape and murder is only immoral if a God exists? Come on now.
Yeah, the government isn't there to teach morality, either. That's what philosophers do, and what you should be doing for yourself.
Yeah, tell it to all the atheists in the military and police force. I doubt they'd be comfortable with you attributing the credit of their good work to your imaginary friend.
Yeah, the concept of a moral God, which is what we're arguing the merit of here, is in itself a religious concept, so if I'm misrepresenting one of your beliefs by making the point I made about religion, by all means, identify it.
Do you really need a God to tell you that rape and murder is wrong?
The addition of "God" to the equation does not make or break morality.
No, God alone is not synonymous with religion, but a moral God, which is what we're arguing the merit of here, renders the two subjects mutually implicit. If you're talking about a moral God, you're therefore talking about religion.
Oh, yes, let's just ignore the obvious insufficiencies and immoralities of the ten commandments, and just leap to the excuse that they're "the beginning" of something, that way you don't actually have to address their own merit. Well done :smile.gif:
So Egyptian law, you're saying, was sufficient in preventing people from raping and murdering one another. Therefore, if, as you've claimed, morality comes from God, then where cometh Egyptian morality? There was no Torah, nor Bible, nor Ten Commandments then.
By the way, I'm oh so impressed you know how to type "straw man", despite the fact that I am most definitely not presenting a straw man. Don't attempt to deflect the question by calling it a straw man, answer it: Do you really believe people wandered around Egypt thinking that raping and murdering one another was just fine and dandy until God supposedly dropped a set of boulders with rules written all over them into the arms of an old man? Do you really think that people could not decipher the simple and blatant immorality of such things for themselves?
Yes, thousands of years were indeed involved. The Ten Commandments were received by Moses around 1,300 BC, which is 3,300 years ago. That still leaves, even to the absolutely bat-**** crazy creationist estimate of 6,000 years for the age of the Earth (Adam and Eve supposedly living at the very least in 3,000 BC), 2,700 years, at the very, very least, that people wandered around supposedly thinking that rape and murder was fine and dandy. The question still stands, do you really think people could not decipher such blatant immorality for themselves, and for that long?
So you're saying that you and I can't sit here and identify the immorality of the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Crusades, 9/11, etc. with our rationale? I'm going to have to disagree.
Neither you nor I really need to be told by an old poorly narrated, self-contradictory fable, that the Holocaust was wrong. And if you do, then I must sincerely question your understanding of morality.
Look, morals are the sentiment of 'do unto others as you would yourself' and is not specific to religion. I don't believe in god, or anything like that, and yet it I don't kill people or rape them or even harm them. (Unless they are trying to attack me, self defense is moral). Seriously, saying god made morals is so middle ages. A famous scientist was hung for accurately explaining how rainbows form, where the church simply said 'they are made by god, kill him'. To have a religion work correctly you need to have the POV work with AND without a higher power. Why? Because otherwise, everything is suddenly their doing. How did you breath? God makes you breathe? No, your diaphragm moves up and down, compressing and decompressing your lungs, which pushes air out, then forms a vacuum, pulling air back in.
See? I mean, I could get a group of friends and I to start a new religion, make up random ******** that has thousands of loopholes, and we could still get people to believe us! GIVE IT UP.
EDIT: Also, your god's morals used to state that people who were not christian were KILLED. Millions of people of religions now lost were killed by roaming christian groups, and yet, because it was in the name of 'God', it was deemed OK. MY morals are better than that, and I'm not even religious.
Hamumu.com, the site I should thank for helping me find minecraft.
Now I would really like this, Just a floating island chain or two really high up in the sky above the clouds with all sorts of rarities.
O.o
It's not religious at all, think of it as a mythological heaven like Mount Olympus or something.
Plenty of games use these religious motifs without any religion attached to them.
I'm all for it. I think it would be pretty awesome to go high enough into the clouds to find something surreal like that.