Korona said:
Anyway he has a lot of fans in the Jewish community, so he can't be all that incompatible with the Semitic view of God.
Heh, they're probably fans because he allows them (justly or otherwise) to say "God's existence is based on reason", as you are now. I fail to see how it suggests the existence of anything resembling the Christian/Jewish God, honestly.
" it's mentally impossible to do something that doesn't benefit you in some way. To do so would be to cease to be."
I dont quite know how to deal with this as I havent got a clue how you came to this conclusion!.. But the main problem as I see it with this is that even with two contradictory statements you have to accept that they are both benificial. In reality you are saying I can do anything and it would benifit me... That just seems ludicrous...
No, it makes perfect sense. A person only
ever acts because he/she chooses to do so, a person only
ever makes choices based on his/her own values (in the broader, not necessarily ideological sense), a person only
ever values something because it benefits him/her
from his/her own perspective (I didn't mean objectively).
I added the own interests bit to show that it IS common sense to accept these principles, even on a self serving level it is pretty obvious to me that it makes sense to help people.
As for the second point, I see no biological reason short of a birth defect that incapacitates someone from achieving any of the commonly held ideals of greatness. Anthing else is environemental, and so can be changed. I agree that a crappy upbrining is commonplace, but the attitudes that keep a lot of people in a state of stagnation are learned, not given at birth, and in any case can be overcome.
Posting here right now could potentially help people out of a stagnant mindset as far as I'm concerned (though my primary reason for it is to strengthen myself via my own learning, as I think we're too late in trying to save this civilisation to make it the primary objective). Giving them pleasure and comfort would not. Even if I were to shower them in it, they would be able to repay me with nothing of worth.
"Greatness" in this discussion is going to vary in definition between us, of course. Those whom I consider great are those who are able to break away from the illusory aspects of our society and base their worldview around reality - the natural process of all things. This is very, very few in my experience. Also, my environment isn't particularly unusual yet my mindset is. This supports the theory that few are capable of thinking, as I trust that I do, in context to reality, which I consider "great". I believe in genes being our fundamental selves, too, and that they have a great part to play in the formation of one's attitude.
Perhaps everyone is capable of
your version of greatness, yet I'm even unconvinced by that. You state that "every stagnant mindset can be overcome", but what implies this? There being no evidence against something isn't a satisfactory argument for believing in anything. What reason founds your view? What is a "stagnant mindset" to you, for that matter?
In addition I'll add that the only way helping others
to make them happy will always self-serve is in a society where everyone has exactly the same values as yours. As this isn't the case, it instead becomes contextual, not of inherent worth. Most people do it simply to satisfy their own guilt/pity because they consider the pain of others a transcendent bad (thanks to moral enslavement). If anything, it's guilt + pity which are "bad" when looking at things in context to reality, because they make us tolerant of weakness, thus we stagnate (and end up hurting ---> dying out anyway, making us worse people even from the Christian perspective).
You seem to be saying that our culture would not have had ideas such as private property, prohibitions against murder, sexual taboos, etc. without Christianity. I'm sorry that's just flase, these ideas are to be found in just about every society on Earth, what makes you think that pre-Christian society in the West was any different?
In the pre-Christian west (ntm many other societies), murder without satisfactory cause may well have been considered unproductive and therefore punishable, but murder in itself was not considered to be some sort of ultimate "evil". The worth of the person's life was taken into account, and the reasons for it being taken away. Context mattered, and honour, killing and many other such modern taboos were not considered an intrinsic "bad".
Also why do you think there was any form of opression involved? Most cultures readily accepted Christianity in some form or another, and by the time the Catholic church was established it was a common religion.
Er, many Heathen natives were forcefully converted in America and Europe i.e. the Saxons in the 8th century, isn't this a widely accepted historical fact?
please.
