Morality of Religion vs. God

[Holiday20310401]

'Good' is a distinction that is in humanity alone. It is not actual but exists in reality as a force that should govern thought and morality, which in turn should govern emotion and logic.

If you believe that it is universal, lets say there is life somewhere else in the cosmos 'good' would probably not come the same to them. It is not absolute, but is determined by intellect and cognition.

Good is what creates virtues that perpetuate. Being sane is to have a coalescent goodness, to spread virtues by benevolence, and insane is selfish virtue which is bad. You simply look at what will be the most beneficial to the whole of the biotic system that one lives in to be good. History is the means of checking, we obviously know what is good because we have the ability to learn from mistakes of the past, and come up with more beneficial solutions or ideas.

This is called being moral, in my opinion. And when technology inhibits the goodness or some other force then is is possible that goodness is limited, I believe it to be limited by intellect only. Morality is limited by a lot more. The best morality is inconsistent throughout time, customs that used to promote goodness or at least seem that way through the perpetuation of society can't always stay that way. Variables change, science, technology, added history, etc. Example: Capitalism- a handy way of distributing wealth and increasing the society's overall weal and production, and even expansion but has become immoral through corporate greed and ill conceived media.

Through all of this I raise one question.Why are people so inclined to critisize god when it symbolizes the well being of humanity?, and then there are so many who are extreme about their religion as to think blissfully about the religion's implications of the immorality of humanity? People, like atheists blame god for immorality and problems of humanity as to why they have lost virtue when it is religion and blind continuance of customs that evoke immorality. And does the following make sense?

Religion has always been about power,
and God has always been about transcendence
that perfection strives for through benevolence.
Your thoughts?

- spaced paragraphs - jk

[the thinker]

QUOTE:
"'Good' is a distinction that is in humanity alone."

How do you know this? Have you ever been any sort of creature other than a human?

QUOTE:
"Good is what creates virtues that perpetuate. Being sane is to have a coalescent goodness, to spread virtues by benevolence, and insane is selfish virtue which is bad. You simply look at what will be the most beneficial to the whole of the biotic system that one lives in to be good. History is the means of checking, we obviously know what is good because we have the ability to learn from mistakes of the past, and come up with more beneficial solutions or ideas."

If you're sane, you can still do evil, or if you're insane you can still do good, can't you? And while we can see what is good or not, we have to consider whether what we are doing/have done/are planning to do is good for us or good for someone else. Whatever good you do, there'll always be someone around to call it "evil."

QUOTE:
"Through all of this I raise one question.Why are people so inclined to critisize god when it symbolizes the well being of humanity?"

My problem with God is how much some people do/have idolized him, and called him, well...a god! I'm not much for worshipping anyone, it just goes against my nature. I, myself, just don't like how the people who are so into religion have made him into this perfect being. I don't believe in perfection. Nothing is just one thing or the other, it's a mix.

Good points, even if I don't agree with all of them.

[Ramsey]

Originally Posted by the thinker

If you're sane, you can still do evil, or if you're insane you can still do good, can't you? And while we can see what is good or not, we have to consider whether what we are doing/have done/are planning to do is good for us or good for someone else. Whatever good you do, there'll always be someone around to call it "evil."

I think your putting to much emphasis on fragile concepts. Your taking a page from Anselm. "Even a fool can believe in God".

For example you explained that whether sane or insane you can still do evil, however how can one say that a mind is sane or insane just as much as one can say that something is a good action or a bad action.

I don't think God or religion are sources of morality. I think Kant was right in saying morality is an innate sense just as much as eating and pooping are. A sort of duty to ones own self.

Which leads me on that only a moral good action in my mind can only be achieved through the knowledge of ones self, which only one alone can truly understand, without the influence of sense experiences, (including religion) the knowledge of ones own mind, who can then determine what is morally good and morally bad, as an innate duty.

[de_budding]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Why are people so inclined to criticize god when it symbolizes the well being of humanity?

Well it is a sad truth that the good/evil dichotomy is made-up and some kind of evolution of 'what I want' and 'what I don't want' which in turn is some kind of an evolution of being able to comprehend ourselves in our environment- self-awareness.

All God symbolizes is that we grossly missed the point when self-awarness arrived, while deluding ourselves we decided to imply that these 'I want'/'I don't want' perspectives where somehow universal.

Everything was good then God (self-awareness) came and there was evil. If God symbolizes anything it is the latter of the dichotomy... evil, as that is what he implied... the ability to deny grew when we could recognize what we didn't want and good and evil were born.

Dan.

EDIT: Could this be the origional distructive goal? Self-awarness -> ability to deny -> goal of- not wanting to be in situations one does not want to be in -> good/evil dichotomy

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by the thinker

QUOTE:
"'Good' is a distinction that is in humanity alone."

Yes I am technically wrong but is it relevant to abstract from humanity in this sense. Yes other species are important to our survival and we should try to perpetuate them, but their goodness and morality would not be 'tuned to the same frequency' as humans, I think anyways. Doesn't morality depend on intellect?

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by the thinker

QUOTE:


If you're sane, you can still do evil, or if you're insane you can still do good, can't you? And while we can see what is good or not, we have to consider whether what we are doing/have done/are planning to do is good for us or good for someone else. Whatever good you do, there'll always be someone around to call it "evil."

QUOTE:
"Through all of this I raise one question.Why are people so inclined to critisize god when it symbolizes the well being of humanity?"

My problem with God is how much some people do/have idolized him, and called him, well...a god! I'm not much for worshipping anyone, it just goes against my nature. I, myself, just don't like how the people who are so into religion have made him into this perfect being. I don't believe in perfection. Nothing is just one thing or the other, it's a mix.

Good points, even if I don't agree with all of them.

I agree that nobody should try to mimic perfection exactly, just strive for it, because again, perfection is insane.
I like to view insanity and sanity as constants and perhaps asymptotes on a graph. Humans are always in between. To me, a way of viewing sanity is through true virtue, which can only be attained through benevolence, then agiain, thats just an opinion. Selfishness leads closer to insanity because one is deviating from logic's purpose, which should normally evoke coalescent thinking. I view insanity as not having the logical ability to know what is right or wrong, but I also use the term to view people who make a strong habit of allowing emotion be the majority of influence upon actions instead of logic. Logic is what attains morals. leading to false virtue in the end is the logic having a minority influence upon actions. Because what is the difference between not having the logic and being indifferent about it, or well, better completely deviating from it.
Then again I suppose I am being unfair. There is still 'the heart'. I see it as the construing of many emotions to form a majority influence upon actions for instances in one's life that display the cause to be more selfless than selfish, more good than evil.
As for the idea that there will always be someone to view a good action as evil is an aspect of creativity and variation. That concept opposes uniformity, and less change, and that is insane.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Ramsey

I don't think God or religion are sources of morality. I think Kant was right in saying morality is an innate sense just as much as eating and pooping are. A sort of duty to ones own self.

Which leads me on that only a moral good action in my mind can only be achieved through the knowledge of ones self, which only one alone can truly understand, without the influence of sense experiences, (including religion) the knowledge of ones own mind, who can then determine what is morally good and morally bad, as an innate duty.

I agree with you, it's jsut that so many people in this world think that there has to be an existence to look up to for perfection to strive for when it is in themselves. God is a fundamental which has no experiences and for many people has to exist. Some poeple are blind and sees god as something that experiences, and unless they are speaking 'through humanity' god is not any separated entity from humanity, that would be unethical. It comes down to who is smarter and more independent;
Whether you need a symbol like most people, (to me let it be god) to look up to for moral and benevolent influence, or can figure it out for yourself, believing it to be useless to perceive as a symbolic thing. It makes no difference. Each of the two choices are ways for people to live life will purpose, sanity, benevolence, and with virtue.

Don't get me wrong. Any god conveyed through religions that I know of are formations of greed and power. They don't stand for anything.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by de_budding

Everything was good then God (self-awareness) came and there was evil. If God symbolizes anything it is the latter of the dichotomy... evil, as that is what he implied... the ability to deny grew when we could recognize what we didn't want and good and evil were born.

Yes, but that's the people's fault, and religion only made that worse. But god is not the evil of self awareness. God is the virtue of it. Or you can say that you don't need a god to act more like what it stands for than less of what god stands for.
because I suppose we really don't need god's symbol, just the fundamentals to be grasped in our lives..

[Ramsey]

I believe that perfection, would lie within self. Once one has achieved the full notion of their own self-awareness and act unto their full awareness of this, what is it to say that, one is then perfect unto yourself. perfection lies within the soul, untainted by the naturalistic fallacy.

Perfection is what you believe it to be within you. Alot of it has to do with Irenaean soul making. But towards the perfection of your own self. Whether there is God or not, we should not be looking to an outsider to live our lives. Only us, with true knowledge of our soul, can truly know what it is we need to reach perfection.

It requires us to be purified within the soul, and mind, without interception from any other source, whether that be God or another human. It's about achieving our own Crystalness. A pure, and clear soul.

When I talk of the notion of soul I mean, the Platonic soul.

However despite this, I'm not trying to rubbish God at the same time, because personally I do believe in God, however I'd probably call myself a Gnostic.

But I do truly believe we should not rely on an external force to make our minds up. Only we can do that for ourselves.