why be good if there is no consequence?

[MillionaireNextDoor]

Speaking of which, how do we define consequence?

If we think of consequence as simply an effect to an action...

Main Entry:consequence
Pronunciation:*k*n(t)-s*-*kwen(t)s, -si-kw*n(t)s
Function:noun
Date:14th century

1 : a conclusion derived through logic : INFERENCE
2 : something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions
3 a : importance with respect to power to produce an effect : MOMENT b : social importance
4 : the appearance of importance; especially : SELF-IMPORTANCE
synonyms see IMPORTANCE
?in consequence : as a result : CONSEQUENTLY

...consequently, everything has a consequence!

-MiND

See: (Causality)

 

[SOFTWARE2ndComing]

As I would define "good" and "consequence," doing good means avoiding consequence. So if no action had any consequence, you would always be doing good (or neutral).

 

[conjur]

Mean people suck

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: conjur
Mean people suck

Nice people swallow

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor

Originally posted by: MAME

ThirtyThree beat me to it. It has nothing to do with math.

Besides, how do you know that "god" only accepts people who denounce him/her/it? You're taking a big chance by worshiping

Operating on the assumption that God exists, why would God accept people who denounce him/her/it?
.
.
.

I read that far, sorry I'm not reading the rest. Anyway, how can you say that god wants your to worship it? You know nothing compared to god so you can never tell.

And that my friends is the genius of religion

 

[Geekbabe]

Because when I act in mean or unkind ways it makes me feel bad and rotten inside.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor

Originally posted by: MAME

ThirtyThree beat me to it. It has nothing to do with math.

Besides, how do you know that "god" only accepts people who denounce him/her/it? You're taking a big chance by worshiping

Operating on the assumption that God exists, why would God accept people who denounce him/her/it?
.
.
.

I read that far, sorry I'm not reading the rest. Anyway, how can you say that god wants your to worship it? You know nothing compared to god so you can never tell.

And that my friends is the genius of religion

Because God has appointed prophets to whom He has revealed His divine mandates, and they in turn reveal it to those who are willing to listen.

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor

Originally posted by: MAME

ThirtyThree beat me to it. It has nothing to do with math.

Besides, how do you know that "god" only accepts people who denounce him/her/it? You're taking a big chance by worshiping

Operating on the assumption that God exists, why would God accept people who denounce him/her/it?
.
.
.

I read that far, sorry I'm not reading the rest. Anyway, how can you say that god wants your to worship it? You know nothing compared to god so you can never tell.

And that my friends is the genius of religion

Because God has appointed prophets to whom He has revealed His divine mandates, and they in turn reveal it to those who are willing to listen.

So without knowing what God wants from you, how do you determine which prophets are real and which are false? If someone proclaimed himself to be a prophet and told you that the will of god is for man to eat sheep every 3 days, how could you possibly determine whether or not that's reasonable without assuming that you know something about the will of God? Which is even more confusing because you're looking to a prophet to tell you the will of God, yet you use what you assume is the will of God in order to determine which prophet is true and which is false.

dfi

 

[dighn]

.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor
That's the implication if there is no consequence. But here's a kicker:

4 Possible Results:

(a) If God does not exist and you do bad, you lose nothing
(b) If God does not exist and you do good, you lose nothing

(c) If God does exist and you do bad, you lose everything
(d) If God does exist and you do good, you gain everything

Place your bets, everyone! (Either do good or bad)

*spins roulette*

-MiND

From: (Pascal's Wager)

another way to look at it...

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: dfi

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor

Originally posted by: MAME

ThirtyThree beat me to it. It has nothing to do with math.

Besides, how do you know that "god" only accepts people who denounce him/her/it? You're taking a big chance by worshiping

Operating on the assumption that God exists, why would God accept people who denounce him/her/it?
.
.
.

I read that far, sorry I'm not reading the rest. Anyway, how can you say that god wants your to worship it? You know nothing compared to god so you can never tell.

And that my friends is the genius of religion

Because God has appointed prophets to whom He has revealed His divine mandates, and they in turn reveal it to those who are willing to listen.

So without knowing what God wants from you, how do you determine which prophets are real and which are false? If someone proclaimed himself to be a prophet and told you that the will of god is for man to eat sheep every 3 days, how could you possibly determine whether or not that's reasonable without assuming that you know something about the will of God? Which is even more confusing because you're looking to a prophet to tell you the will of God, yet you use what you assume is the will of God in order to determine which prophet is true and which is false.

dfi

I'm going to spell it out for you:

F-A-I-T-H

It's a gamble any way you go. I'd rather believe in something and possibly be wrong than believe in nothing and by default be wrong.

 

[Kadarin]

why be good if there is no consequence?

Why must "fear of consequences" be the only reason for being good?

My thoughts on Pascal's Wager: Of what value is a belief in God if the main justification for that belief is fear? Is not such a God worth nothing but contempt and derision?

For intellectual exercise, imagine a world without religion, a world where human behavior was governed by the principle established by the quote in my sig. Such a world would be a GOOD place. No imaginary God would be required, needed, nor wanted.

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor

Originally posted by: MAME

ThirtyThree beat me to it. It has nothing to do with math.

Besides, how do you know that "god" only accepts people who denounce him/her/it? You're taking a big chance by worshiping

Operating on the assumption that God exists, why would God accept people who denounce him/her/it?
.
.
.

I read that far, sorry I'm not reading the rest. Anyway, how can you say that god wants your to worship it? You know nothing compared to god so you can never tell.

And that my friends is the genius of religion

Because God has appointed prophets to whom He has revealed His divine mandates, and they in turn reveal it to those who are willing to listen.

How conveniant. It's great how that fits so perfectly and leaves ALL other religions in the trash huh?

 

[trek]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor

Originally posted by: MAME

ThirtyThree beat me to it. It has nothing to do with math.

Besides, how do you know that "god" only accepts people who denounce him/her/it? You're taking a big chance by worshiping

Operating on the assumption that God exists, why would God accept people who denounce him/her/it?
.
.
.

I read that far, sorry I'm not reading the rest. Anyway, how can you say that god wants your to worship it? You know nothing compared to god so you can never tell.

And that my friends is the genius of religion

Because God has appointed prophets to whom He has revealed His divine mandates, and they in turn reveal it to those who are willing to listen.

Like this guy.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor

Originally posted by: MAME

ThirtyThree beat me to it. It has nothing to do with math.

Besides, how do you know that "god" only accepts people who denounce him/her/it? You're taking a big chance by worshiping

Operating on the assumption that God exists, why would God accept people who denounce him/her/it?
.
.
.

I read that far, sorry I'm not reading the rest. Anyway, how can you say that god wants your to worship it? You know nothing compared to god so you can never tell.

And that my friends is the genius of religion

Because God has appointed prophets to whom He has revealed His divine mandates, and they in turn reveal it to those who are willing to listen.

Riiiight. I refuse to believe that God holds anyone higher than anybody else. Surely no God of mine would be so discriminatory.

I listened.

They didn't have anything interesting nor thought provoking to say. It's always the same stuff over and over, "Do as I say... OR ELSE!"

Horsesh!t.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor

Originally posted by: MAME

ThirtyThree beat me to it. It has nothing to do with math.

Besides, how do you know that "god" only accepts people who denounce him/her/it? You're taking a big chance by worshiping

Operating on the assumption that God exists, why would God accept people who denounce him/her/it?
.
.
.

I read that far, sorry I'm not reading the rest. Anyway, how can you say that god wants your to worship it? You know nothing compared to god so you can never tell.

And that my friends is the genius of religion

Because God has appointed prophets to whom He has revealed His divine mandates, and they in turn reveal it to those who are willing to listen.

How conveniant. It's great how that fits so perfectly and leaves ALL other religions in the trash huh?

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

I'm going to spell it out for you:

F-A-I-T-H

It's a gamble any way you go. I'd rather believe in something and possibly be wrong than believe in nothing and by default be wrong.

 

[skace]

How would there never be a consequence? You mean I could kill a person and no one would want to kill me? That is impossible. An impossible environment that you could only create if you lived in a world by yourself. As long as there are other people, then you are kept in check by those around you.

In a world without consequences, the only person that would matter would be myself, because everyone else would be a robotic in nature. Good or bad wouldn't really matter in a self-centered world and the world would most likely get boring extremely quickly. Somewhat like loading ultima online up to play in single player. Sure, I could do everything, but there would be no point.

In regards to:

4 Possible Results:
(a) If God does not exist and you do bad, you lose nothing
(b) If God does not exist and you do good, you lose nothing
(c) If God does exist and you do bad, you lose everything
(d) If God does exist and you do good, you gain everything

These are flawed. If god does not exist and you do bad, you have EVERYTHING to lose. Because if god does not exist then the only thing you have is life. And if you lose life, you've lost everything. So then those results are only applicable to you if you are near the end of your life or do not want to live any longer. Unless this is based on a consequenceless world also. In which case, the 'if you do bad/good' wouldn't matter because your consequences wouldn't matter thus the outcome would be the same.

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

I'm going to spell it out for you:

F-A-I-T-H

It's a gamble any way you go. I'd rather believe in something and possibly be wrong than believe in nothing and by default be wrong.

there's a very fine line between faith and cultural ignorance/bigotry

it's not nearly as peacful as you make it sound

 

[Brutuskend]

Santa won't bring you no toys if you're bad

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

I'm going to spell it out for you:

F-A-I-T-H

It's a gamble any way you go. I'd rather believe in something and possibly be wrong than believe in nothing and by default be wrong.

there's a very fine line between faith and cultural ignorance/bigotry

it's not nearly as peacful as you make it sound

Okay. That doesn't really have anything to do with what we were talking about, though.

 

[gopunk]

there are always consequences, whether or not you are aware of them

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

I'm going to spell it out for you:

F-A-I-T-H

It's a gamble any way you go. I'd rather believe in something and possibly be wrong than believe in nothing and by default be wrong.

Actually, that is exactly what I was trying to get someone to realize/say. In the end, you believe the prophets and the texts of a certain religion because you have made a decision that this is what you want to do, aka, faith. I can say that the christian devil is actually our creator, as I believe the Romans had been dispersing at one time, and believe it because I have taken a leap of faith. Or I can believe in something that we would consider much more ridiculous, such as dogs having telekenetic powers, and I would never need any scientific proof whatsoever if I have take a leap of faith. And you could supply me with all the facts and data about dogs that show they have no telekenetic capabilities, and you could not derail me from my belief because I have erected a stone wall to reasoning called faith that was based on no proof to begin with. So there is no way to convince someone otherwise who has taken a absolute leap of faith, because that person sincerely thinks that "I believe it, so it must be true".

And btw, how are you wrong "by default" if you don't believe? If you pick a religion you are possibly wrong. If you don't you are possibly wrong. So whether or not you believe in something, you are possibly wrong, but you can't be wrong "by default". Saying that you know what is wrong "by default" assumes you know absolutely what is wrong, which would only happen if 1) you actually had absolute knowledge of what is wrong, or 2) you believe absolutely (absolute faith) that non-believers are wrong.

dfi

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: dfi

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

I'm going to spell it out for you:

F-A-I-T-H

It's a gamble any way you go. I'd rather believe in something and possibly be wrong than believe in nothing and by default be wrong.

Actually, that is exactly what I was trying to get someone to realize/say. In the end, you believe the prophets and the texts of a certain religion because you have made a decision that this is what you want to do, aka, faith. I can say that the christian devil is actually our creator, as I believe the Romans had been dispersing at one time, and believe it because I have taken a leap of faith. Or I can believe in something that we would consider much more ridiculous, such as dogs having telekenetic powers, and I would never need any scientific proof whatsoever if I have take a leap of faith. And you could supply me with all the facts and data about dogs that show they have no telekenetic capabilities, and you could not derail me from my belief because I have erected a stone wall to reasoning called faith that was based on no proof to begin with. So there is no way to convince someone otherwise who has taken a absolute leap of faith, because that person sincerely thinks that "I believe it, so it must be true".

And btw, how are you wrong "by default" if you don't believe? If you pick a religion you are possibly wrong. If you don't you are possibly wrong. So whether or not you believe in something, you are possibly wrong, but you can't be wrong "by default". Saying that you know what is wrong "by default" assumes you know absolutely what is wrong, which would only happen if 1) you actually had absolute knowledge of what is wrong, or 2) you believe absolutely (absolute faith) that non-believers are wrong.

dfi

I'll agree with the first part, though I think the set of Christian beliefs is a bit more feasible than that of dogs having telekinesis.

I didn't mean that anybody that doesn't believe (Christianity) is wrong. I meant if you choose to believe nothing (i.e. you don't really care enough about what happens after we die to form a belief) then you are wrong no matter what. I suppose it would be similar to not answering a question on a test, though even that is a poor analogy.