[split] Are Questions About God Important?

[h4ym4n]

[FrustratedFool]

Ethics are strange from my POV. Since I don't believe in moral realism, ethical discussions are just complex arguments over feelings or preferences etc.

[no one]

If I subscribe to conclusion, it is ethically sound. If not, then said idea is disgracefully corrupt.

[FrustratedFool]

Yes. 'Ethically sound', 'good' etc just translate to 'I strongly approve'

[Confused-by-christianity]

What I don't, and never will, understand, is why you, and people like you, expect us to take your claims about your imaginary friend seriously. Especially when all you can offer in evidence of your exceptional claims is allegory, wild assertions, and ancient texts of dubious (at best) historicity.

I dont expect that. After about 2 pages i changed my mind and thought this is best thought of as a laugh - friendly banter.

For me, it's friendly banter, for you probably not so friendly - and no - im genuinely not trolling.

I'll probably disappear soon enough anyway - so no worries ;-)

[Belacqua]

[FrustratedFool]

This simply pushes the question back: why should I care about human flourishing?

The only answer is because I care for my own interest - so just cut out the middle-man and ask what do I prefer. Hence ethics is just my personal preference. It just so happens that I prefer, generally, human flourishing for my own best interest (whether practical or emotional).

Ethics boils down to preference and then expediency (what best accomplishes my desires). Anything else is pointless addition or rhetoric.

[Belacqua]

This simply pushes the question back: why should I care about human flourishing?

The only answer is because I care for my own interest - so just cut out the middle-man and ask what do I prefer.  Hence ethics is just my personal preference.  It just so happens that I prefer, generally, human flourishing for my own best interest (whether practical or emotional).

Ethics boils down to preference and then expediency (what best accomplishes my desires).  Anything else is pointless addition or rhetoric.

Well, sure. There is no way to prove, logically or empirically, that it's better to flourish than not. So in that sense it's a preference. 

You can't prove that it's better to be healthy. You can't prove that it's bad to chop the arms off of babies for fun. But there is some basic level at which we'd question the sanity of people who don't have that preference.

But yeah: ethics isn't a science and it isn't provable. So I could agree that it's a very serious discussion of what we do and should prefer.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's amazing to me that people can be so terrified by some "trap" for their gods that they refuse to speak or even acknowledge their own views on import and meaning, even when those views are completely obvious to anyone involved...and even when those views are shared by their questioner.  

I guess gods a real fuckup.  As long as you don't say what you wrongthink he can't tell the difference between you and a blasphemous heathen bound right for hell.

I wouldn't want to be in the position of defending the Biblical god's behavior, either.

[no one]

Come on thumps, I will that's an easy one:
Mysterious ways and shit.