The Philosophy discussion

[Ilunga]

9 hours ago, nux_win said:

Many religions think that they have a monopoly over ethics.  That isn't so.  Many people who abandon religion or may think about abandoning religion are worried that they will or have lost any foundation to ethical behavior.  This is also untrue.  Morality and ethics can and do exist outside of any religious framework and are not dependent on any god.  Secular ethics is a well studied though not very widely known branch of formal philosophy.  

 

That's not to say that religion doesn't contain any ethics, but it is only a very low level kind of ethics and people often get stuck at that low level and never progress.  When one learns ethics, like many things, one goes through stages.  Avoiding doing "wrong" based on fear of punishment from a higher authority is only a small step on the road towards more advanced ethical behavior.  Real ethical behavior means that one does the right thing simply because it's the right thing and there is no punishment or reward involved.  Below is a quick introduction to secular ethics and the stages that one goes through as one learns morality.  Religion may help people get to the first stage but they often get stuck there (fearing punishment is only the first step towards real morality).

 

I think that it is a real shame that people often defer to religion for ethics when they don't really accept the rest of the package that comes with religion.  And the kind of ethics that religion offers is pretty low level.  People are free to believe what they want but if people are interested in ethics then it doesn't require any kind of supernatural force.  Humans are capable of ethical behavior all on their own.  It doesn't always happen but we have the capacity if we so choose.  I think that religion was helpful to humanity to get started along the path to ethics but like an evolutionary vestige it no longer serves a purpose in this regard.

 

P.S. - I choose free will even if it turns out to be an illusion.

 

Refer to my reply to JM.

[Ilunga]

7 hours ago, Angry Goose said:

One of biggest influences in Philosophy is Derek Parfit.  He was one of the few people on this earth who was granted a fellowship with All Souls College / Oxford University. He wasnt expected to instruct/ teach at all-just focus on his work.  His last book, On What Matters, tackles a lot of your questions pertaining to ethics.  It’s probably my favourite philosophy text.  You can even download it for free if you search for “climbing the mountain” as he freely shared it pre publication to invite feedback/suggestions.  Of course its not the finished product though.  Ive included a small excerpt from it, and its one of my favorite intros.  Although subtle, there’s alot of nuance in it and it changed how I think about analytical philosophy/ reasoning about certain topics.

Thanks for posting. 

 

I have heard of Derek however I am not very conversant with his work.

 

I will have to research his work.

 

To quote a hero of mine 

 

" The great thing about being human is our ability to reason 

But reason it don't work when no one cares 

2 parts apathy one part despair " 

 

Those few lines kinda sum up how I believe many people feel about the problems our species currently face.

[Ilunga]

5 hours ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

Very Deep question @Ilunga

 

The child asks why? The answer is situational and therefore multifaceted 

 

Man as a species is a situational creature, his morals, thought processes, and acceptances are situational

 

 

 

Personally,

 

I believe, what I believe today, I may not believe tomorrow

 

I believe to always question

 

I believe man is good, and I believe man is evil

 

I believe man is situational

 

I believe philosophy is situational

 

 

 

Thanks for the post Jan 

 

It makes me think about this subject from anither angle.

 

[Smashian Kassian]

Ooohh I really like this thread idea. Good one @Ilunga

 

16 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Also feel free to discuss the usual big questions

 

Is there a purpose to our lives ? 

 

Do we really have free will ?

 

Can you really experience anything objectively ? 

 

What are numbers ?

 

Many things, but in a nutshell an indicator. Numbers as we understand them are a mechanism/utility in understanding things like time, size, math, exc. Same goes for words, they represent something real but the words themselves are our way of understanding/referencing/communicating the phenomena.

 

I'd also say we do have free will, atleast in some places in the world most the time, but there are external influences that - via our minds & impulses - can deceive us. In some ways it also requires discipline to utilize, particularly in the pursuit of self actualization. (EG; doesn't take a ton of discipline for me to go get some beers to watch a hockey game, but making a plan & following through on it to achieve major goals - ala dream job / lifestyle / creating art, literature, exc. - well...) 

 

 

Edit: The beauty of this thread idea is, even my posts are flawed / incoherent (very likely ), its atleast fun to test your thinking & understanding of things.

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Smashian Kassian

[Ilunga]

13 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Ooohh I really like this thread idea. Good one @Ilunga

 

 

Many things, but in a nutshell an indicator. Numbers as we understand them are a mechanism/utility in understanding things like time, size, math, exc. Same goes for words, they represent something real but the words themselves are our way of understanding/referencing/communicating the phenomena.

 

I'd also say we do have free will, atleast in some places in the world most the time, but there are external influences that - via our minds & impulses - can deceive us. In some ways it also requires discipline to utilize, particularly in the pursuit of self actualization. (Ala, doesn't take a ton of discipline for me to go get some beers to watch a hockey game, but making a plan & following through on it to achieve major goals - ala dream job / lifestyle / creating art, literature, exc. - well...) 

But do numbers really exist ? 

 

Are they not just abstract objects ? 

 

Edit in regards to your edit.

 

I don't think your thoughts can be flawed in regards to these questions.

 

These questions have no real answers, or rather answers we have yet to find.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Ilunga

[nux_win]

1 hour ago, Ilunga said:

Why do you make this about religion ?

 

As the title of this article states 

 

Morality Evolved first, long before Religion.

 

https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/morality_evolved_first_long_before_religion/

 

 

Why make it about religion?  Well, because most religions try to dominate if not monopolize the concept of ethics.  And this is a big problem in our culture because it's only a stunted version of real ethics and has the effect of holding back people's ethical development instead of increasing it (see my previous post).  However, my main point was that ethics can and should stand alone outside of religion.  So for my previous post at least, the religious angle was just meant as a jumping off point rather than the meat of the discussion.  

 

As for the question of which came first religion or ethics, I think it is moot.  The origins of both religion and ethics are shrouded in the mystery of time.  Religion most likely goes back way further than anyone can have precise knowledge of.  Either religion or ethics may have even existed in some proto form before homo sapiens evolved.  Both of them may well have evolved along with us.  I do think that there was some cross fertilization between religion and ethics along the way but, like I said it is moot because we can't define the origin of either.

Edited May 19, 2022 by nux_win

[Ilunga]

2 minutes ago, nux_win said:

Why make it about religion?  Well, because most religions try to dominate if not monopolize the concept of ethics.  And this is a big problem in our culture because it's only a stunted version of real ethics and has the effect of holding back people's ethical development instead of increasing it (see my previous post).  However, my main point was that ethics can and should stand alone outside of religion.  So for my previous post at least, the religious angle was just meant as a jumping off point rather than the meat of the discussion.  

Did you read the article I posted in reply to JM ? 

 

Ethics and morality existed long before modern forms of religion.  

They are constructs that enable us to coexist in a somewhat peaceful manner.

 

These constructs seem to work in communities that consist of small numbers of people, however they seem to break down as the number of people reaches shall we say a " national " level, therefore defining us as " something " different from people from " another nation ".

 

Then there is the Dunbar number 

I will let Robin himself explain this 

https://theconversation.com/amp/dunbars-number-why-my-theory-that-humans-can-only-maintain-150-friendships-has-withstood-30-years-of-scrutiny-160676

 

 

I really don't understand why people I know are not religious, bring religion into this conversation and contribute nothing else.

 

[bishopshodan]

01110100 01101000 01100101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01101110 01110101 01101101 01100010 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01100100 01110011 00101100 00100000 01101110 01100001 01110100 01110101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01100110 01110010 01100001 01100011 01110100 01100001 01101100 01110011 00101110 00100000 01101001 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01110000 01110101 01110010 01110000 01101111 01110011 01100101 00101100 00100000 01101001 01101100 01110101 01101110 01100111 01100001 00101110 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01100110 01110010 01100101 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101001 01100110 00100000 01110000 01101000 01111001 01110011 01101001 01100011 01100001 01101100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01110100 01110100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01100110 01110010 01101111 01101101 00100000 01110011 01101111 01101101 01100101 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101100 01101001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100010 01101001 01100111 00100000 01100010 01100001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01111001 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100100 01101111 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110011 01100011 01101001 01101111 01110101 01110011 01101110 01100101 01110011 01110011 00101110 00100000 01101001 01100110 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 01101110 01110100 00101100 00100000 01110111 01100101 00100000 01100101 01111000 01101001 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110000 01101000 01111001 01110011 01101001 01100011 01100001 01101100 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110011 01110100 01110010 01100001 01101001 01101110 01110100 01110011 00101110 00100000

[nux_win]

5 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

Did you read the article I posted in reply to JM ? 

 

Ethics and morality existed long before modern forms of religion.  

They are constructs that enable us to coexist in a somewhat peaceful manner.

 

These constructs seem to work in communities that consist of small numbers of people, however they seem to break down as the number of people reaches shall we say a " national " level, therefore defining us as " something " different from people from " another nation ".

 

Then there is the Dunbar number 

I will let Robin himself explain this 

https://theconversation.com/amp/dunbars-number-why-my-theory-that-humans-can-only-maintain-150-friendships-has-withstood-30-years-of-scrutiny-160676

 

 

I really don't understand why people I know are not religious, bring religion into this conversation and contribute nothing else.

 

Religion and ethics are intertwined both socially and philosophically.   I agree however that we should work to untangle them as they should exist independently.  That's what I've been trying to do.

 

P.S. - I did address the question of which came first religion or ethics in my previous post (I edited it, probably while you were typing).  For clarification I don't think it is possible to claim which came first because we can't define the starting point of either.

 

P.P.S. - Why can't non religious people comment on religion?  Even if one believes that gods don't exist, religion certainly exists and has an effect on all of us.  And even if one weren't directly affected, one can still at least comment on the idea of religion, can't one?

Edited May 19, 2022 by nux_win

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, Ilunga said:

Thanks for the post Jan 

 

It makes me think about this subject from anither angle.

 

This just reminds of a comment I once heard........

 

Just when I thought I had learned something, they went and changed the answer............lol

[Ilunga]

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

01110100 01101000 01100101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01101110 01110101 01101101 01100010 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01100100 01110011 00101100 00100000 01101110 01100001 01110100 01110101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01100110 01110010 01100001 01100011 01110100 01100001 01101100 01110011 00101110 00100000 01101001 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01110000 01110101 01110010 01110000 01101111 01110011 01100101 00101100 00100000 01101001 01101100 01110101 01101110 01100111 01100001 00101110 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01100110 01110010 01100101 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101001 01100110 00100000 01110000 01101000 01111001 01110011 01101001 01100011 01100001 01101100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01110100 01110100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01100110 01110010 01101111 01101101 00100000 01110011 01101111 01101101 01100101 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101100 01101001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100010 01101001 01100111 00100000 01100010 01100001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01111001 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100100 01101111 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110011 01100011 01101001 01101111 01110101 01110011 01101110 01100101 01110011 01110011 00101110 00100000 01101001 01100110 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 01101110 01110100 00101100 00100000 01110111 01100101 00100000 01100101 01111000 01101001 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110000 01101000 01111001 01110011 01101001 01100011 01100001 01101100 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110011 01110100 01110010 01100001 01101001 01101110 01110100 01110011 00101110 00100000

Please translate this for this particular ignorant sod- me 

[Ilunga]

1 hour ago, nux_win said:

Religion and ethics are intertwined both socially and philosophically.   I agree however that we should work to untangle them as they should exist independently.  That's what I've been trying to do.

 

P.S. - I did address the question of which came first religion or ethics in my previous post (I edited it, probably while you were typing).  For clarification I don't think it is possible to claim which came first because we can't define the starting point of either.

 

P.P.S. - Why can't non religious people comment on religion?  Even if one believes that gods don't exist, religion certainly exists and has an effect on all of us.  And even if one weren't directly affected, one can still at least comment on the idea of religion, can't one?

This is an interesting article which discusses when our species achieved consiousness and the benefits this gave our species 

 

https://science.thewire.in/culture/books/evolution-human-intelligence-consciousness-social-order-brain-size/

 

I firmly believe that our distant ancestors developed social constructs in order to maintain relationships ships in their particular group. 

 

As the article above suggests, religion/ mythology began when our hominids started to fear death.

 

So it is reasonably clear what we now define as ethics/ morality existed long before Religion/ mythology. 

 

I am not stating non religious people cannot comment on religion.

I am non religious.

 

I wish they would bring more to the discussion than just bashing religion.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Ilunga

[thrago]

10 hours ago, Ilunga said:

No offence however you haven't really given me an answer. 

 

 

The only social media I use is this forum. 

 

I get my knowledge from books.

From research/ scholarly papers on the web.

 

I use my BS detectors. The three basic BS detectors are, who is the person informing me, what is their history, what is their motivation for disseminating the information.

 

However none of this addressess who or what defines what is ultimately right or wrong, or what right and wrong actually are.

 

Oh well that's easy, what's right or wrong is whatever society says it is at the time. For example if you lived on a island full of cannibals, killing people and eating them would be right.  Here in Canada that would be wrong.  What is right or wrong is a social construct of the society that you live in, it's whatever it is that continues to make that society work at the time and is ever changing all the time.  What's right or maybe just ok today might be wrong tomorrow.  In the 70's for example it would have been ok to make fun of Gay people, today we have decided that it is wrong.  My point of social media and like I said the AI attached to it is,  if your not moving in the direction that society is, it will still give you conformation bias to think that, that way of thinking is ok. 

 

So this forum while technically social media, because it is made for hockey, when discussing other topics will give you a wide variety of opinions, which IMO is very good.  It's important that all opinions are given so they can be understood and society as a whole can decide which direction to move forward.  The fact of the matter is that society as a whole is made up mostly of people that are good and want to do the right thing, but because of the vast size of the collective it can take a really long time to get there. 

 

 Part of the reason I believe  that it takes so long is that force doesn't work well in changing society and Cancel culture is terrible for the advancement of society.  People when told they are wrong and they need to change or else, tend to dig there heals in and while outwardly maybe seeming to conform are looking to fight back.   When society shifts it's important for it to be patient with the people taking longer to make the shift, while continuing to encourage the behaviour it is moving towards.  In Canada we have been lucky our society has been trending in the right direction for a very long time.  Another problem with social media is it's introducing social pressures from outside sources that can come from societies that are less advanced then ours, not saying ours is the best or that we've got it right but we have been trending in the right direction.

 

Moving too fast and leaving people disenfranchised and falling on hard times can make society take a turn for the worse,  we might see soon how well we have done overall, society has forced some pretty quick shifts lately and with the government now forcing a Recession to get inflation under control, we might see some steps backwards soon (hopefully not).         

[Ilunga]

12 minutes ago, thrago said:

Oh well that's easy, what's right or wrong is whatever society says it is at the time. For example if you lived on a island full of cannibals, killing people and eating them would be right.  Here in Canada that would be wrong.  What is right or wrong is a social construct of the society that you live in, it's whatever it is that continues to make that society work at the time and is ever changing all the time.  What's right or maybe just ok today might be wrong tomorrow.  In the 70's for example it would have been ok to make fun of Gay people, today we have decided that it is wrong.  My point of social media and like I said the AI attached to it is,  if your not moving in the direction that society is, it will still give you conformation bias to think that, that way of thinking is ok. 

 

So this forum while technically social media, because it is made for hockey, when discussing other topics will give you a wide variety of opinions, which IMO is very good.  It's important that all opinions are given so they can be understood and society as a whole can decide which direction to move forward.  The fact of the matter is that society as a whole is made up mostly of people that are good and want to do the right thing, but because of the vast size of the collective it can take a really long time to get there. 

 

 Part of the reason I believe  that it takes so long is that force doesn't work well in changing society and Cancel culture is terrible for the advancement of society.  People when told they are wrong and they need to change or else, tend to dig there heals in and while outwardly maybe seeming to conform are looking to fight back.   When society shifts it's important for it to be patient with the people taking longer to make the shift, while continuing to encourage the behaviour it is moving towards.  In Canada we have been lucky our society has been trending in the right direction for a very long time.  Another problem with social media is it's introducing social pressures from outside sources that can come from societies that are less advanced then ours, not saying ours is the best or that we've got it right but we have been trending in the right direction.

 

Moving too fast and leaving people disenfranchised and falling on hard times can make society take a turn for the worse,  we might see soon how well we have done overall, society has forced some pretty quick shifts lately and with the government now forcing a Recession to get inflation under control, we might see some steps backwards soon (hopefully not).         

So you are the arbiter ?

 

You decide that whatever society at whatever time decides what's right or wrong ?

 

That there is no consistent set of values/ ethics that are timeless across all human societies ?

 

We are all humans, why shouldn't we share the same set of values ? 

 

You say Canada's society has been trending in the right direction, what direction is that ?

Thats your opinion, others don't feel the same.

Are your set of values/ ethics those we all should live by ? 

If so why ? 

Why not mine ?

Why not some or else who has a completely different set of values ?

 

I am not claiming you are wrong just making my point.

There is no correct answer to the question I posed. 

 

 

 

[Smashian Kassian]

12 hours ago, Ilunga said:

But do numbers really exist ? 

 

Are they not just abstract objects ? 

 

Edit in regards to your edit.

 

I don't think your thoughts can be flawed in regards to these questions.

 

These questions have no real answers, or rather answers we have yet to find.

 

Abstract sure, but are numbers objects rather than creations? Wouldn't they be better categorized as language than object? 

 

Do singular things exist in the physical world? Do multiplicities exist? Yes. How would this be conceptualized without something like numbers - it wouldn't mean they're aren't multiples or singulars. I think once that's realized a mechanism for distinguishing become a necessary reality.

 

An easy back door way out of this is there's big numbers on Rogers Arena. So even if they are created abstractions, they physically exist now. Haha

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Abstract sure, but are numbers objects rather than creations? Wouldn't they be better categorized as language than object? 

 

Do singular things exist in the physical world? Do multiplicities exist? Yes. How would this be conceptualized without something like numbers - it wouldn't mean they're aren't multiples or singulars. I think once that's realized a mechanism for distinguishing become a necessary reality.

 

An easy back door way out of this is there's big numbers on Rogers Arena. So even if they are created abstractions, they physically exist now. Haha

numbers aren't just our creations, there are constants (numbers and relationships) in the universe that all advanced cultures would discover. Life on every planet would have different versions of religion, e.g., but we'd all have the same frequency for hydrogen.

 

[Smashian Kassian]

17 hours ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

Very Deep question @Ilunga

 

The child asks why? The answer is situational and therefore multifaceted 

 

Man as a species is a situational creature, his morals, thought processes, and acceptances are situational

 

 

 

Personally,

 

I believe, what I believe today, I may not believe tomorrow

 

I believe to always question

 

I believe man is good, and I believe man is evil

 

I believe man is situational

 

I believe philosophy is situational

 

 

 

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'situational', but shouldn't morals not be situational if a person is principled? (Or not be 'relative', if I could interchange that term here)

 

(And I don't mean that all people are principled either, btw) 

[thrago]

27 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

So you are the arbiter ?

No I am not.

You decide that whatever society at whatever time decides what's right or wrong ?

No but I am part of society as are we all.

That there is no consistent set of values/ ethics that are timeless across all human societies ?

Yes maybe through out  societies but timeless probably not other then a sense of self preservation.

We are all humans, why shouldn't we share the same set of values ? 

Maybe we should but geography and cultures make that difficult

You say Canada's society has been trending in the right direction, what direction is that ?

One that is more excepting of other ways of thinking and different lifestyles people live.

Thats your opinion, others don't feel the same.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Are your set of values/ ethics those we all should live by ? 

maybe some but society will continue to shift long after I'm gone, hopefully for the better

If so why ? 

I don't make any claims to being held to the highest moral standard, but one of my values that I do think will stand the test of time is to not purposely cause harm to others at least without good cause.

Why not mine ?

I have no clue what your values or ethics are, but beyond that I am a very small cog in society that will determine that over time.

Why not some or else who has a completely different set of values ?

It could very well turn out that way.

 

I am not claiming you are wrong just making my point.

There is no correct answer to the question I posed. 

I'm not claiming that our society is right or perfect in any way although in my opinion Canadian society has been trending in the right direction.  I use trending in the sense that we are getting more things right then wrong, however there is no guarantee this will continue.

 

 

My responses to your questions are in bold.

Edited May 19, 2022 by thrago

[thrago]

12 hours ago, nux_win said:

Religion and ethics are intertwined both socially and philosophically.   I agree however that we should work to untangle them as they should exist independently.  That's what I've been trying to do.

 

P.S. - I did address the question of which came first religion or ethics in my previous post (I edited it, probably while you were typing).  For clarification I don't think it is possible to claim which came first because we can't define the starting point of either.

 

P.P.S. - Why can't non religious people comment on religion?  Even if one believes that gods don't exist, religion certainly exists and has an effect on all of us.  And even if one weren't directly affected, one can still at least comment on the idea of religion, can't one?

Religion is something that has perplexed me my entire life at least my rationally thinking part of my life so from the ages of 8-10 onwards if not earlier.  Anything I say hopefully wont offend anyone as it is the furthest thing from my intent however I recognize that what I say might offend, but that is not my intent.

 

When I was a kid my grandmother was very religious and when we would visit her she would force me to go to church with her.  I remember having conversation with her and being frustrated that somehow she actually believed there are for lack of a better term a magical being or beings aka God/Gods.  As much as I've tried my whole life to try and understand why or how someone can believe this, I haven't been able to come up with any rational reason why anyone could honestly believe.   Some small part of me thinks no one actually believes but are just hedging there bets incase they are wrong, but I doubt that's true.   

 

I think that a lot of Atheist's struggle with this also as it causes a disconnect between them and a large part of society.  It boggles my mind that people believe these things that in my mind are so obviously not true (please note I said in my mind).  It's something I find impossible to reconcile that people believe something that again in my mind is blatantly untrue.   

 

I've researched religions endlessly at times in an attempt to believe or a best understand, but that has actually done the opposite.  I consider myself to be very open minded to all things and try not to judge others but religion has always been a sticking point, I can't get past despite a lot of effort on my part.

 

Religion is something at times I have thought about a lot and I could have conversations literally days, however I would unintendingly offend some.  Which I find odd because I take no offense to people telling me I'm wrong and would actually welcome someone giving me a reason I could actually believe.

 

So back to the topic, despite my efforts and wants to believe or at the very least understand religion, I just can't.  Which brings me to the point I can't see how like me and religion everyone will ever be able agree on how the world should be as surely people will have ideas that they just can't reconcile with other like I struggle with Religion.  As the only way I think it possible for me to ever believe in a God/Gods would be for them to come tap me on the shoulder and do things that would prove it but even then I would probably think I was just losing my mind.   

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'situational', but shouldn't morals not be situational if a person is principled? (Or not be 'relative', if I could interchange that term here)

 

(And I don't mean that all people are principled either, btw) 

Morals......................question

 

 

Killing...........is it ok to kill?

Well our morals say no, it is not ok

But it is during a time of war

 

Stealing........is it ok to steal?

Well our morals say no

But during a famine is it ok?

 

That is just 2 that come to mind. So is it ok? Is it morally ok, to protect someone, by killing another?

I say it is situational..........

 

What about child marriages?

Well in Canada, if a child was married and having sex at 12

We would arrest the man/women

In Africa, it is accepted in some area's

 

My point is, in North America, we judge other people by our own ideals

which are based on our own upbringing or situation

 

Our laws are based on our moralities

 

Take in part Russian people

They judge us in the west based on what they know

what they have been told

We assume that they would have a TV

We assume that the TV announcer would tell them the truth

as we see it.............

 

It reminds me of the saying

 

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

 

Perspective and situations, are what dictate, how we see things......