Religion & Logic

veritas-splendor:

religionandlogic:

veritas-splendor:

religionandlogic:

veritas-splendor:

religionandlogic:

Why would anyone be punished when our decisions are based entirely on our past experiences? If you have lived the exact same life of a murderer, you’d end up doing the same crimes that he did. Is this really fair?

Perhaps I am misreading you, but it seems then, that by…

I meant, of course, if there was an afterlife, but you have a good point there. Now how can we decide if an action, such as murder, is wrong or not? Some people believe that taking the life of a person without an efficient reason is wrong. Now who decides if the reason of the murder was efficient or not? Because back in the days killing a person because of his race, religion or beliefs was a normal act and was sometimes even appreciated by others. How can we decide if an action is entirely wrong or not? Can humanity ever agree on that? and if so will it be completely right? It’s man who initiated some ground rules which were broken in time with some other ground rules and they’ll be broken with some others and it’ll be like that till the end of days. So please specify the reason of the murderer, which made him commit this act, the punishment you believe is legit, and how you came up with this conclusion.

Judging from what you have said, it would seem you find morality to be subjective. But insofar as there are objective truths, there will also be objective morals. Though that being said, a third person type of ethics and morality is often flawed. Due to this the teaching stands that 3 things must be accounted for in order to derive the morallity of the act:

1. The act itself - in this case murder (which is indeed evil)

2. The intention - was the person murdered for greed, anger, revenge…etc.

3. The circumstances - were the people in war, was it self defense …etc.

Now even though the act itself is deemed evil, the intention and/or circumstances can remove the moral responsibility of the person acting. In summary the act itself is immoral but the person might not be morally accountable.

We all are subjective at some point. Morals are completely developed by man, and they are all changeable in time and no one can deny this as we all have seen how new ideas and new lifestyles have now became more than acceptable while they were nonsensical and had to face harsh disapproval just a decade ago.  While we have gone totally off the subject, the question still remains. Do you think humans have freewill?

Yes humans are subjective at some point, but the objectiveness of morality is not. I firmly disagree that morals are a man made creation, because by this there would be no standard to judge human acts, because one could simply deny my morals and say theirs are better. In this line of thinking, because he though what he was doing was moral, there would be no objective way of saying what Hitler did was evil. It would simply be evil by our understandings not evil in and of itself.

Thus as humans develop they can distinguish more clearly the true objective morals. Granted as you say, mans morals have changed, but this is not the objective morality changing but rather the interpretations of objective morality changing.

As for your question on free will, though I cannot see the relevance (though I am confident you have your reasons) my answer is yes, humans have free will.

If the interpretation of the objective morality is changing, as you said, that will eventually cause a radical change in the definition of “objective morality”. It will never be stable until everyone accepts it, and of course, that is not likely to ever happen.

As for the freewill, do you think a guy living in a neighborhood full of thugs and ethnic groups and was born with an alcoholic parent would have the same freewill as a guy who lived with a relatively rich family who provided everything for him and did everything they can to have him well-educated? Of course everyone gets affected by the environment they’re living in, so no one would be surprised if that kid grew up to be a drug dealer and the other one grew up to be an important public figure who has graduated from Harvard.

veritas-splendor:

religionandlogic:

veritas-splendor:

religionandlogic:

Why would anyone be punished when our decisions are based entirely on our past experiences? If you have lived the exact same life of a murderer, you’d end up doing the same crimes that he did. Is this really fair?

Perhaps I am misreading you, but it seems then, that by…

I meant, of course, if there was an afterlife, but you have a good point there. Now how can we decide if an action, such as murder, is wrong or not? Some people believe that taking the life of a person without an efficient reason is wrong. Now who decides if the reason of the murder was efficient or not? Because back in the days killing a person because of his race, religion or beliefs was a normal act and was sometimes even appreciated by others. How can we decide if an action is entirely wrong or not? Can humanity ever agree on that? and if so will it be completely right? It’s man who initiated some ground rules which were broken in time with some other ground rules and they’ll be broken with some others and it’ll be like that till the end of days. So please specify the reason of the murderer, which made him commit this act, the punishment you believe is legit, and how you came up with this conclusion.

Judging from what you have said, it would seem you find morality to be subjective. But insofar as there are objective truths, there will also be objective morals. Though that being said, a third person type of ethics and morality is often flawed. Due to this the teaching stands that 3 things must be accounted for in order to derive the morallity of the act:

1. The act itself - in this case murder (which is indeed evil)

2. The intention - was the person murdered for greed, anger, revenge…etc.

3. The circumstances - were the people in war, was it self defense …etc.

Now even though the act itself is deemed evil, the intention and/or circumstances can remove the moral responsibility of the person acting. In summary the act itself is immoral but the person might not be morally accountable.

We all are subjective at some point. Morals are completely developed by man, and they are all changeable in time and no one can deny this as we all have seen how new ideas and new lifestyles have now became more than acceptable while they were nonsensical and had to face harsh disapproval just a decade ago.  While we have gone totally off the subject, the question still remains. Do you think humans have freewill?

never-stop-questioning:

religionandlogic:

Why would anyone be punished when our decisions are based entirely on our past experiences? If you have lived the exact same life of a murderer, you’d end up doing the same crimes that he did. Is this really fair?

Saying that a person’s actions and decisions are entirely…

This is actually a stronger argument I must say, and the answer for that question could never be any clearer.

(Source: yesimanatheist, via christiantheatheist)

veritas-splendor:

religionandlogic:

Why would anyone be punished when our decisions are based entirely on our past experiences? If you have lived the exact same life of a murderer, you’d end up doing the same crimes that he did. Is this really fair?

Perhaps I am misreading you, but it seems then, that by…

I meant, of course, if there was an afterlife, but you have a good point there. Now how can we decide if an action, such as murder, is wrong or not? Some people believe that taking the life of a person without an efficient reason is wrong. Now who decides if the reason of the murder was efficient or not? Because back in the days killing a person because of his race, religion or beliefs was a normal act and was sometimes even appreciated by others. How can we decide if an action is entirely wrong or not? Can humanity ever agree on that? and if so will it be completely right? It’s man who initiated some ground rules which were broken in time with some other ground rules and they’ll be broken with some others and it’ll be like that till the end of days. So please specify the reason of the murderer, which made him commit this act, the punishment you believe is legit, and how you came up with this conclusion.

Why would anyone be punished when our decisions are based entirely on our past experiences? If you have lived the exact same life of a murderer, you’d end up doing the same crimes that he did. Is this really fair?

Heaven will only be for those who believed in him blindly. As for those who questioned his existence, the Inferno (hell) will be their place of residence for eternity.

This blog is for me to express my thoughts about religion since it’s kind of forbidden where I live. I’m not here to offend anyone of faith. I just want to trigger your curiously in life and start digging deeper than you ever did.