Controversial Three Questions, Afterlife, Spirits, and Morality
- Thread starter Blax Blah
- Start date
About:
Afterlife : Yes. I never believed that it exist.
Spirits : When I was young I believed they exist, mostly because I was influenced by people around me saying that they existed and I never thought really about it.
Relative morality : Until even a few years ago, I believed that some things were universally bad and others universally good. But not anymore.
Afterlife : Yes. I never believed that it exist.
Spirits : When I was young I believed they exist, mostly because I was influenced by people around me saying that they existed and I never thought really about it.
Relative morality : Until even a few years ago, I believed that some things were universally bad and others universally good. But not anymore.
What changed my mind is my researches for scientific evidences on the subject. Evidences that do not exist for phenomenons that can be explained without the notion of spirits.
If I have scientific evidences of something close to spirits or even afterlife I would have no reason to doubt it. It would be so groundbreaking that it would shatter society and change it forever.
If I have scientific evidences of something close to spirits or even afterlife I would have no reason to doubt it. It would be so groundbreaking that it would shatter society and change it forever.
Last edited:
1. Hopefully.
2. No, I've heard a lot of stuff from a lot of people but I've never experienced any ghost-like phenomenon.
3. Yes. "Objective" in the way that we can use it better a society.
To disagree with some of the other folks here, I think that despite morality being of human nature it can be still considered objective.
For 2 reasons:
a. Humans are just about the only creatures that express any use for "morals". There are plenty of highly social animals on the planet but none so dominant nor intelligent that they require a set of "do and do nots" to ensure the survival of the species. Despite moral ideas not being naturally formed nor based in any material fact, its very presence is not affected by personal feelings or any one person's innovation. Morals are different from society to society and change from person to person, but it is indisputable that when those little primates first began congregating, the ones that agreed on what was accpetable and unacceptable, lived more peacefully and thrived to this day. It is an evolutionary eventuality for animals this intelligent and numerous. Morality will appear. Therefore I believe the existence of the "moral" is objective.
b. If a is true, and moral is objectively needed for humans to thrive, then there must be a set of guidelines and principles that universally benefits all societies. So on top of the belief of objective existence (meaning it naturally forms and exists with or without regardless of a person's idea that it should or should not exist). There must be a way for all societies to benefit following at least a few key ideas, regardless of culture. This optimal and objective morality is really a mythical pony of sorts, and is unable to be adopted by most nations, but it exists out there in the world of ideas. It is entirely possible for 2 people to be objectively moral to each other. It happens everyday, not every second and every hour but it happens a lot. The value we get out of this objective moral is stretched out thin throughout time and space.
2. No, I've heard a lot of stuff from a lot of people but I've never experienced any ghost-like phenomenon.
3. Yes. "Objective" in the way that we can use it better a society.
To disagree with some of the other folks here, I think that despite morality being of human nature it can be still considered objective.
For 2 reasons:
a. Humans are just about the only creatures that express any use for "morals". There are plenty of highly social animals on the planet but none so dominant nor intelligent that they require a set of "do and do nots" to ensure the survival of the species. Despite moral ideas not being naturally formed nor based in any material fact, its very presence is not affected by personal feelings or any one person's innovation. Morals are different from society to society and change from person to person, but it is indisputable that when those little primates first began congregating, the ones that agreed on what was accpetable and unacceptable, lived more peacefully and thrived to this day. It is an evolutionary eventuality for animals this intelligent and numerous. Morality will appear. Therefore I believe the existence of the "moral" is objective.
b. If a is true, and moral is objectively needed for humans to thrive, then there must be a set of guidelines and principles that universally benefits all societies. So on top of the belief of objective existence (meaning it naturally forms and exists with or without regardless of a person's idea that it should or should not exist). There must be a way for all societies to benefit following at least a few key ideas, regardless of culture. This optimal and objective morality is really a mythical pony of sorts, and is unable to be adopted by most nations, but it exists out there in the world of ideas. It is entirely possible for 2 people to be objectively moral to each other. It happens everyday, not every second and every hour but it happens a lot. The value we get out of this objective moral is stretched out thin throughout time and space.