Do you believe in fate?

<Yawn>

Very instructive.

<Yawn>

You must have stayed up all night thinking of that one!

Actually, all it took was another one of your insipid posts.

I see you've got the dictionary open.

Initially, I was going to post another funny response, but I'm getting tired of it. If you have something meaningful to say to me (either good or bad), say it. Otherwise, I'd be done with this .

war is created through ignorance,
peace is found through understanding.
got to love that albert einstien.

not ignorance, but senseless truth.

Hey knives,

that is so true.

Unfortunately, too many of the world's political leaders have enough understanding to go to war.

Ok, I'm going to totally digress, partially because I'm too lazy to read what just happened, partially 'cause I was thinking about what you wrote earlier about respect for religious belief, and what isaqel wrote about how you talk to Christians. We're not so different. I believe in subtle irregularities, finding beauty in life in the least likely places, music, etc. I just believe there's something bigger behind the good things in the world. I don't know if you see my point, but I'd like for you to see where I'm coming from here, so maybe you won't compare my God to a nazi? Though I know what you mean. Religion isn't about genocide. It's about love, not hate, life not death, peace not war, good not evil. About believing there's something else out there. I wonder if this makes sense? In real life, I like to speak in half sentences, gestures and sounds. :) real primitive. mlargghh!! blarggh! meh bleh!

Actually, I was thinkin'. [dum dum dummmm!!] [shock, I know] my friend thinks that whenever you lose something, if you sing to it, you'll find it. It's a bit of a joke, but I tried it, and it actually works. I wouldn't respect it as a serious belief though. She's also a Hindu. That isn't my personal belief, but I do respect that. Why? And, strangely enough, I also know a rain dance. Someone taught it to me when I was about eight or nine. I've done it maybe three times in my life [as a kid, I assure you], but it's never failed, ever. It's still not something I believe in, or would respect if someone else did. It's a relationship between cause and effect that makes no sense. So... what am I trying to say? Maybe to respect something you need to see the reason behind it. Or it needs to be something where it can conform to your own attitudes and values to some extent. I'm trying to show the reason behind religion.

Oh, the cause and effect thing ties in with what someone else said. That religious people will hold God accountable for thing when there's no real relationship between what happens. Which got me thinking about the rain dance thang. So. ok, I'll sound like an idiot, and I don't care; I still think there's a relationship there. Between when you pray and when something happens. That one's never failed me either. But, you know, you really don't wanna hear me sing. Why do I get the sinking feeling I give Christians a bad name??

I don't think your giving Christians a bad name. I van see what your talking about. And your right, our faith is about love etc... Religious people can't always hold God accountable for bad things. We have free will so some bad things come as a result. Other things are inevitable ie death or maybe for our own good ie Job's suffering showed his true faith in god. I also agree that to repect something it helps to see a reason behind it. I can accept and kinda respect abelief I don't understand but it is really hard and not proper respect just confused acceptance of other people, unless I really disagree strongly.

Don't you normally hold God accountable for good things, and the world accountable for bad things?

There appear parallels between these sorts of behaviour, but I don't think there REALLY are. I wrote that because I draw the parallels without knowing quite how to disprove them. Which I should be able to do. damn!! There's something there. Something rather inexplicable... some reason why people will still believe. There's no connection between dancing and rain.. there's no driving force. There must be something between God and what happens... I think, anyway. [not helping my argument. I wish I were a better debater]

God does answer prayers and cause things to happen however sometimes the answer is no and bad things happen. maybe it's partly down to what we perceive as 'bad', Maybe what we see as bad God doesn't. And the world can be accountable for good things otherwise we'd all be going to hell in handbasket. If you say what parrallels you're thinking of maybe others can disprove them. By the way my sister once prayed for rain to stop while we went to this outdoor place and as we pulled up to the door the rain stopped and we had glorious sunshine, as we left two hours later and got back in the car it tipped it down again :) coincidence or God? Maybe dancing and child's trust can be like prayer.

That's my point. urgghhh. I was talking to somebody about this.. and she wouldn't stop drawing those parallels. Like, what makes one reasonable and the other ridiculous? And I don't have an answer, other than it's what I think and feel. Which is ...just plain tacky as an answer or an argument. What can I say? Dancing and prayer aren't supposed to be similar. They shouldn't be. I know, ati'll have a field day ripping this apart when he reads this. I sure am giving him a lotta material. ;) ah well. AND I have no rebuttles!! :(

Why can't dancing be prayer? I see your point about only being able to defend things with feelings which is useless in an argument cus you can't share. That's why it's belief I guess. It's also why I lose a lot of arguments.

Maybe that's just it though. You have to be able to take a leap of faith. To believe it even though there's no proof, no evidence. In spite of that. maybe that gives it meaning. ati, you'll rebut that too, I'm sure. ;)

Dancing could be prayer, but raindancing compared to prayer-there's a difference. [yes, there IS a difference, even if I'm unable to pinpoint what it is]

I know what you mean though I still think it depend son how the dance was meant. I don't think god would randomly stop rain for dancing people because then it'd never rain and we'd all die :( !
Faith by definition seems to imply no physical evidence and thta makes it hard to accept as proof in an arguement for a lot of people. I think it woould depend on whether you really trusted the person arguing through faith.

No matter what you believe, everything you see will justify it. People are incredibly narrow-minded. I see good things that happen as proof there must be a God, others would take it to be proof there isn't a God. We all think we're right; everyone else is wrong. I just want to share my perspective. I mean, I can see it from both sides, can't others?

I can. I'm entitled to my beliefs and others are entitled to theirs. We can disagree and discuss it but that doesn't mean I will change my mind necessarily or try to change theirs.

Just to throw in my two pennies...i think part of having a relationship with God is either one does or doesn't have that leap of faith. Yes, I wrote that before seeing your phrase up there, faye :). But, I think having taken it, one trusts/surrenders and lives life on the other side of where that leap has taken him/her. And if one hasn't, then it's more a matter of intellect.

Hm. One more cent. If one has experienced God's love, be it in the "real world," the dream state, heard God's sounds/seen God's lights, nothing can take that away. And if someone hasn't had it, or just has knowledge of it, they may refute it, and that's fine, too, where they're at with it. But when people go around poking at each other I think when we have to stop and say, wow, is this what I really want to do? Is this really how I want to treat and maybe even limit others/myself.

Amuse wrote:

<If one has experienced God's love, be it in the "real world," the dream state, heard God's sounds/seen God's lights, nothing can take that away>.

Time has already taken it from you I'm afraid. All you have left is a memory of it. You might have new experiences based upon your memories, but let's not confuse a continued presence of a past experience with a remembered, recreated, refashioned experience of a past experience.

<And if someone hasn't had it, or just has knowledge of it, they may refute it, and that's fine, too, where they're at with it. But when people go around poking at each other I think when we have to stop and say, wow, is this what I really want to do? Is this really how I want to treat and maybe even limit others/myself>

As I continually stress, there is a difference between attacking beliefs and attacking people. Most people who cannot see this, are those that cannot be at ease with their beliefs. Just let go and let your beliefs, ideas, etc breathe. If they are good enough, they can stand on their own. If they are bad, you don't have to fall with them.

You say that without writing about what your beliefs are. ie, you can write with complete impunity, whereas we cannot. It's a lot easier to stand there and criticize than to try to defend something.

Fayefaye,

Do you think I would be able to write anything without revealing a set of beliefs? You speak as if belief is concrete, instead of a transient thing. That is my whole point. We make beliefs. They serve a purpose for us. We are not made by them. But some people act as if they and their belief are the same thing.

When you criticise my beliefs or my views, I can step back and assess what you say. If I feel what you say is pertinent, then I may drop that particular belief. I don't feel that part of me is lost when a belief I once held is lost. On the contrary, part of my is free, or part of me may have grown. Look at Bertrand Russell, he changed his views and beliefs repeatedly, with good reason. And as he once said, no respectable physicist of his day would seek to hold onto views held by say Lord Kelvin or his contemporaries.

Some beliefs are set in stone for those that believe them, this gives people a firm place to stand if you will. Some beliefs should not be changed, especially if they're right. Beliefs are part of people AP, we base our lives on them and some you cannot stand back and look at objectively cus with the most basic beliefs there is no room for interpretation. Some beliefs should be dear enough to us that we are part of them. However one has to change or modify some of one's beliefs as it is through that that we can learn things and grow. My beliefs and perceptions change every day. You say all beliefs should be transient but some need to be concrete for stability and cus they're true.

(Yes I know that was somewhat rambleing.)

<Some beliefs should not be changed, especially if they're right.>

Who's to say what is right? My beliefs in my mind are right. To someone else they may be wrong or stupid.

Exactly, Lara.

I believe in athesim, but certainly would not recommend it to everyone (some people obviously can't handle it).

One cannot say what is right, one has to believe it. However something could be right so you have to look very carefully at your beliefs cus you don't want to keep wrong ones or change right ones.

I agree Cassandra, that it is okay to evaluate our own beliefs, but again I ask you, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? What is right and wrong comes from our own opinions, beliefs and morals.

I guess we have to evaluate our own. sometimes it's OK if we think one thing is right and others think the opposite but at other times it can't work. Then you just seem to have to trust to reason and instinct ie most of us think murder is wrong but clearly many people believe it can be justified.

Hello,

I think I'm starting to tune in to this discussion. Are we saying that morals are relative?

Hows about ethics? or Values.

Do you suppose that there is at least one thing under the sun that is always right?

--no matter what.

Kant's categorical imperative

Good questions Sancho. I suppose that could be one way to describe my point of view. I don't think there is one thing that is always right because there will always be someone to disagree.

But is it in the agreement / disagreement of a human mind that makes something wrong / right?

Kant's categorical imperative is rather inflexible to my mind. I'm sure there are many situations where it would be best to do what you would not will to become a universal law. Lying is a good example. In some cases, it is right to lie, in others not. The categorical imperative does seem to treat people as types rather than individuals. It is far too restrictive in my opinion.

Where ethics, values, and morals are concerned, rightness, I would think has to be in the agreement/disagreement of the human mind.

Ethics, values and morals are afterall a uniquely human endevour.

I think.

Always telling the truth is a good example of why Kant's Categorical Imperitive doesn't work.

The classic example is: When the Nazis are at the front door demanding to know where you've hidden the Jews, It'd be a great time to tell a fib.

I think Kant would say, "Well you just don't say anything at all." But I don't think that would work too well in practice either.

But I'm still holding hope that there is at least one ethical dilemma under the sun that everyone can agree on.

*embarassed*
I am not familiar with Kant's categorical imperative. Please enlighten me.

I’m not so sure I totally understand it either. But since I’m sitting here in the middle of the night, a hopeless insomniac, and Kant’s “Critique of Practical Reason” is a well known insomnia cure, I’m willing to give it a go. Trying to explain it may help me to better understand it.

Immanuel Kant was an 18th century German (Prussian) Enlightenment Thinker. His theories are best described as “rationalist” as opposed to David Hume’s “sentimentalist” thought.

Kant first described a “hypothetical imperative;” which is sort of a natural causation of actions. It’s like the old Fortran programming commands: IF – THEN – ELSE. It can even be reflexive. IF I am hungry THEN I should eat that cheese burger ELSE I will remain hungry. Or less reflexive, IF I always tell the truth THEN people will think of me as a trustworthy person.

A Categorical Imperative by contrast is a moral action that is always right in and of itself; no IFS ANDS or BUTS. Simply stated: “Act in such a way that the maxim of your action would be instituted as a universal moral law.” As you can see the categorical imperative can be problematic in practice.

And it’s kinda hard to say with a straight face after a couple of whiskies.

I think there must be some absolute truth. Majority thinking does not make a thing true or not. Some truths are true no matter what others depend on the situation which is why the law always changes. As people we have to decide as best we can what truth is true and relevent when, just cus we can't agree doesn't mean that some of us aren't right. Therefore for each situation there must be a truth.