"Certain enough" is as good a synonym as you'll find for "probably."
putting religion in it's proper place
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
I think it easy to show why it is still 'practical' to be moral regardless of religion, just by comparing the moral tenets one must emulate if one is to follow a god.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:08 pmDo you have a conscience?The question from Immanuel's position (which is of most people with some form of religion) is "Why should anyone behave with any 'moral' when there is nothing BUT other people to demand that we do?"Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:52 pm I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.
Reciprocity is fair play. Right?
Mine might hold truth, but the religious are flat out lying every time they say something/anything about a god they do not and cannot know without a defective supernatural believing mind.
Regards
DL
I do.
What prevents you from using it instead of an imaginary evil genocidal god that some poor thinkers think is good?
We all have times when we will choose to compete instead of cooperate. Evolution says that if we do not take advantage of those less fit than ourselves, we are fools who are not showing their fitness.and "If one CAN behave to their advantage when no one is there to observe, would not anyone behave even against the negotiated agreement of conduct when it suits them best?" [This last question is related to the "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to see it, does it make a 'sound'?"]
Follow the secular laws because secular law has already shown that is is more moral than theistic laws made by a genocidal p**** who likes to stone fornicators and unruly children to death. Not quite an eye for an eye eh?So, in other words, even IF we set up government as the 'secular' means of defining morality, what other than FORCE by other people is left to command how we should behave.It is a valid concern of which was taken up by Neitzche and where the answer to "God is dead" is that he expects us to still set up some fake religion as a means to still assure people are compelled to behave 'morally' when no one is watching.
My arguments with him is to argue that we still have the same problem when religion is used except that for those in power, they are able to have the advantage when or where they IMPOSE religion upon others while simultaneously NOT be religious themselves in fact. That is, even if one argues for religion as 'necessary' to maintain civilization, the utility of religion just narrows the powers of those utilizing religion as a mechanism to get OTHERS to follow the tenets of some provided religion, with exception of themselves. This argument has to be expanded upon to show why it is still 'practical' to be moral regardless of religion, something that Veritas*, here has been attempting.
Edit: made the mistake at the asterisk originally saying Advocate but meant Veritas, though I'm sure Advocate may share this too.
Just point out to theists how they do not have to stone people who do not deserve it, which is common sense to all except genocidal gods and those immoral enough to follow them.
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
I offer logos, logic and reason.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:16 pmIn the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:52 pmI offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.
In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.
The god religions offer nothing but mythos and demonstrable lies, to honest jurists.
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
Thanks fo9r this.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:32 pmA "Gnostic" by Gnostic is not arguing as a 'mystic' but by the means that the original gnostics meant: THAT what scriptures and other religious records HIDE regarding mysterious entities has a SECULAR interpretation when properly addressed. I happen to feel the same and why I try to show how particular sources or origins of what has become 'religion' has some basis in secular reality that has DEVOLVED into myth. There was a danger to challenge those who interpret old documents incorrectly, especially when they turn them into LITERAL history or 'fact'. Thus the original 'mystics' can be understood in light of those like the MAGICIANS today who expose fraudulent thinking by demonstrating how people can easily get fooled. The ancient 'gnostics' may have been thought of as acting mystical because they learned to ask questions as responses and left some listeners hanging. That is because one could easily be killed for DIRECT offense of even another's weirdest claims.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:16 pmIn the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:52 pm
I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.
In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.
He is not a 'mystic' in what you may be interpreting it is.
"I happen to feel the same and why I try to show how particular sources or origins of what has become 'religion' has some basis in secular reality that has DEVOLVED into myth."
I have a bit on this issue of devolving from my second favorite religious historian.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
You spoke about knowing a lot about Gnostic Christianity, yet have mixed our beliefs with our myths.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:42 pmActually, Scott, I'm certain I have better information about the history and literature of the Gnostics than most people are likely to have. In fact, if you wish to debate their ancient writings, I have many of them on hand.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:32 pmA "Gnostic" by Gnostic is not arguing as a 'mystic' but by the means that the original gnostics meant: THAT what scriptures and other religious records HIDE regarding mysterious entities has a SECULAR interpretation when properly addressed.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:16 pm
In the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.
In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.
They were not secular. That's a very recent innovation, and one, I think, unlikely to stick. They are a religious sect that actually predates even Christianity, historically. That's why Paul was keen to refute them, using their own language, in Colossians and elsewhere.
One doesn't debate or refute a sect that doesn't exist yet. So we know for certain they predate Paul. There was no church when Gnosticism first appeared, and no "Gnostic Christians" until much later, although that word remains an oxymoron, since, as you see from earlier messages, the Gnostics hate the God of the Bible anyway. Their religosity takes a skeptical form in regard to that, on the one hand, even while they feverishly embrace the most bizarre speculative mysticisms about hierarchies of heavenly realms with the other hand.
Secularism and Gnosticism have only really got hooked up in the last fifty years or so, and increasingly with the new Techngonsticism sponsored by things like information technologies. Prior to that, they were thoroughly religious for thousands of years, and in a tacit sense, still remain very much so, although they've relocated their religious enthusiasm and hopes to things like modern technology.
First, we hold no supernatural belief. Please see the info 8in my last post and you might glean that we were the intelligentsia of those days while the myth believing Christians were and still are the dummies.
Who else but the not too bright will believe in real talking serpents and donkeys or a water walking person.
Go logos. That always trumps mythos.
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
It is also anti our selfish gene's desire, if I can use that word, as our default position is cooperation.Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:19 pmThat's a child's level of morality. "Get whatever you can" has a much lower ceiling than "cooperate".Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:43 pmOh, many, many!
I get as many possessions as I desire. I get as many women as I desire. I can act with impunity to obtain anything I desire. Without morality, self-interest carries me toward some wonderful results. On the other hand, I can play selectively "good" and fool my neighbours so that I never pay any unpleasant consequences, either.
Since it is so clearly in their self-interest to be free of moral constraint, or at least selective in their application of it so as to maximize their self-interest, how do you justify telling anybody not to steal, molest, rape, burn, pollute, violate, and so on with impunity if they believe they can?
The fittest will have the most friends and cooperating is how we make those and that is why it is the better survival strategy.
If too many had our friends ways, it would be chaos and we would all be at each others throat.
This short link kind of shows what I mean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2LMTRoWlA
Regards
DL
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
Can you fix the quotes, DL? [for the particular linked post above] It appears to be stating something I said that I didn't. I also don't know if the responses that appear to be mine are directly from you or someone else. Thank you.
I concur with the rest of you comments in the followup posts, but will likely respond more later.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
You promise evidence, but deliver none.
Most people here are past the age when they can be impressed with a bluff.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
Actually, I didn't.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:15 pm You spoke about knowing a lot about Gnostic Christianity,
As I say, I don't even believe the term has meaning. There are no "Gnostic Christians." There are Gnostics, sure; and there are Christians. But they are not at all the same thing, ever.
First, we hold no supernatural belief.
Maybe YOU don't. But Gnostics do. So you're not an authentic Gnostic, then. So what?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
A "ceiling" on what scale?
Nietzsche's scale held that "get whatever you can" is higher than "cooperate." Ayn Rand's likewise. Huxley's scale would say, "Survive, and let the weak die," not "cooperate."
So it's by no means evident that, unless you can justify your scale, what you are suggesting is true. You'll have to justify that claim.
-
- Posts: 12357
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
{Edited by iMod]Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:17 pmPacific Buddhists are burning Myanmar Rohingya villages and raping their women, with the blessing of Aung San Suu KyiVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:19 amDon't forget there are pacifist religions and evil-laden religions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41566561ROTFLMFHOThe only active evil laden religion at present is Islam whereas most of the major religions are constituted by an overriding pacifist maxim.
You are living in a dream world of your own belief.
There is nothing in the core constitution of Buddhism that permit Buddhists per se to kill non-Buddhists.
A Buddhist is one who has taken the oath to comply with the 5 Precepts, i.e.
- The Five precepts ... constitute the basic code of ethics to be undertaken by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from,
- 1. killing living beings,
2. stealing,
3. sexual misconduct,
4. lying and
5. intoxication.
- 1. killing living beings,
When those people of Myanmar killed the Rohingyas, they were not killing while wearing their 'Buddhist hat'.
They kill as driven by their human nature, and in their eyes to drive out evil.
Prove to me, they killed the Rohingyas and justified the killing with references from their Buddhist sutras [texts] or they shouted Buddha u Akbar in their rampage.
-
- Posts: 12357
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
The central leverage of religion is a believer of a religion has explicitly or implicitly entered into a contract bounded by the specific constitution of the religion.Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:23 pmThe central problem of religion isn't in how it's interpreted, it's in that it must be interpreted.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:19 am Don't forget there are pacifist religions and evil-laden religions.
Therefrom the believer must comply with the terms of the contract and nothing more.
Prove to me, a religious believer has more to do other than what he is contractually obligated within the contract?
Therefore in term of the religious believer potential to commit evil and violence, we have to refer to the terms of contract.
Since the majority of religions [other than Islam] are pacifist within their constitution, there is no issue of evil and violence with these pacifist based religions.
Since the constitution of Islam has evil and violent commands from Allah, Muslims are obligated to commit evil and violence upon non-Muslims. This threat must be addressed by humanity.
The other pacifist religions do not have a non-violent issue but has other negatives and has issues as being organized-religions. These problems must be addressed.
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
Please refer to modern respectable theories of individuals' moral development by stages, beginning with Piaget.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:22 amA "ceiling" on what scale?
Nietzsche's scale held that "get whatever you can" is higher than "cooperate." Ayn Rand's likewise. Huxley's scale would say, "Survive, and let the weak die," not "cooperate."
So it's by no means evident that, unless you can justify your scale, what you are suggesting is true. You'll have to justify that claim.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
What would you like to say about those? I can talk about Piaget, or Kohlberg (his disciple), or somebody like Carol Gilligan, who followed both?
They're all moral-developmentalists, meaning that they presume that morality will just "emerge" from human beings naturally if "cultivated," through predictable "stages", and that human beings are naturally inclined to moral goodness.
Of course, they all have important disagreements with each other; and on a deep level, they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.
Speak on.
Re: putting religion in it's proper place
As opposed to some silly woman being tricked by a talking snake.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:27 pm...they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.