Who seriously can believe in bible?

[Demiurge]

You have said nothing. "It's wrong just because" is not an argument.

 

[Silver Incubus]

You have said nothing. "It's wrong just because" is not an argument.

I hope your not talking to me, otherwise, you need to re-read my post as I pointed out that manipulation of people is wrong at a fundamental level.

 

[Demiurge]

I hope your not talking to me, otherwise, you need to re-read my post as I pointed out that manipulation of people is wrong at a fundemental level.

I am talking to you. To say it's wrong "at a fundemental(sic) level" and leave it at that is equivalent to saying "it's wrong just because." It's an empty remark and bears no resemblance to an argument of any sort.

 

[Silver Incubus]

No, my point is that people should never be manipulated. Why is it wrong? Do I really have to explain that forcing people to do things they don't want to do is against thier will, and thus is wrong? People should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't interfere with the well being or happines of others. Without the fear of burning in hell or not getting into a heaven. Using fear to manipulate is not only bad in general but it can have some lasting effects on peoples conscious and unconscious minds.

I thought you were suppose to be smart.

Oh and wrong at a fundamental level literally means it is wrong at the most core of who and what we are as human beings. ANd by wrong I mean it goes against what is natural.

 

[Demiurge]

No, my point is that people should never be manipulated. Why is it wrong? Do I really have to explain that forcing people to do things they don't want to do is against thier will, and thus is wrong? People should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't interfere with the well being or happines of others. Without the fear of burning in hell or not getting into a heaven. Using fear to manipulate is not only bad in general but it can have some lasting effects on peoples conscious and unconscious minds.

That is pure fluff. If anyone can discern an argument in that paragraph, please tell me. Look, if I wanted to be harangued with emotional oubursts, I'd be talking to a female right now, not posting on this forum.

Oh and wrong at a fundamental level literally means it is wrong at the most core of who and what we are as human beings. ANd by wrong I mean it goes against what is natural.

That is an empirical claim. I request proof that nature is as you say it is.

 

[Silver Incubus]

That is pure fluff. If anyone can discern an argument in that paragraph, please tell me. Look, if I wanted to be harangued with emotional oubursts, I'd be talking to a female right now, not posting on this forum.



That is an empirical claim. I request proof that nature is as you say it is.

how about you join in the conversation and read the rest of the thread for your so called proof. I don't see you contributing anything at all once again to this conversation.

And actully, I want proof that nature ISN'T as I say it is. Now post something relevant or don't fucking post.

 

[Demiurge]

how about you join in the conversation and read the rest of the thread for your so called proof. I don't see you contributing anything at all once again to this conversation.

I am contributing to this conversation by subjecting the posts of others to scrutiny. You are misleading yourself by believing that you are making well-reasoned arguments when you're really making unsubstantiated assertions. You've moved on from that and now you're just derailing my inquiry.

And actully, I want proof that nature ISN'T as I say it is. Now post something relevant or don't fucking post.

I didn't say what nature was. You did. You need be prepared to support your assertions with evidence when approprate.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Animals don't follow religions. Trees don't follow religions. Isolated people don't follow religions. Is that proof enough to you that it isn't natural to be manipulated to do things you don't want to do. Are you some kind of retard or something? If you have ever read this thread, then maybe you might understand that my previous post was in reply to another post and not as stand alone argument in itself. But that is besides the point. I don't feel the need to post trivial proofs in my post as I assume people understand what I am talking about when I say fundamental and natural. Those in themselves being the proofs you have been looking for in the first place. I am not going to quote some website or book to prove my point, because just like everything else it is all subjective and opinions. I hope you can understand at least that much.

 

[کوڈانشی]

…i would prefer to render this ‘golden rule’ more as: “do unto others as they would have you do unto them”. that makes more sense to me

 

[Demiurge]

Animals don't follow religions. Trees don't follow religions.

Animals and trees do not do mathematics, create art, write literature, etc. For you, these things are unnatural and therefore should be abandoned. For me, they are pursuits facillitated by a higher intelligence bestowed by nature.

Isolated people don't follow religions.

Not sure what you mean here - feral children? They don't speak, either...

Is that proof enough to you that it isn't natural to be manipulated to do things you don't want to do.

It is proof of nothing. In nature, animals force one another to do things they don't want to do. What do you figure rape is? Animals live by force. Humans, due to their heightened intellectual capacity, are able to coerce one another to do things in a more subtle way than by brute physical force.

Are you some kind of retard or something?

No, should I be?

I've opted not to respond to the bulk of your post.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Animals and trees do not do mathematics, create art, write literature, etc. For you, these things are unnatural and therefore should be abandoned. For me, they are pursuits facillitated by a higher intelligence bestowed by nature.



Not sure what you mean here - feral children? They don't speak, either...



It is proof of nothing. In nature, animals force one another to do things they don't want to do. What do you figure rape is? Animals live by force. Humans, due to their heightened intellectual capacity, are able to coerce one another to do things in a more subtle way than by brute physical force.



No, should I be?

I've opted not to respond to the bulk of your post.

You have proved nothing and therefore said nothing. :Smug:

AND you actully proved my point, if you didn't even realize it. That is all correct except the first paragraph, which is completely unrelated. Animals use brute force, and don't manipulate.

Well then prove to me that we should be manipulated against our will to believe in superstition and vengeful gods. Humans controlling other Humans is unnatural.

RAPE is a word invented by humans and doesn't exist in the world of animals because they do not comprehend it as being wrong you idiot.

IF you can prove to me that mathematics, liturature, art is unnatural to human behavior then I will listen, otherwise stop posting made up things and factless assumptions on what I consider to be natural or unnatural.

 

[speed]

Ok you two, lets calm down before it gets worse.

 

[Silver Incubus]

It's not my fault he tries to bully me on this forum.

 

[speed]

It's not my fault he tries to bully me on this forum.

Now come on here. You are just as guilty as him. Instead of ignoring him or arguing with him on a substantive level, you sit snugly and believe you are right--which further encourages his "bullying". We've all done it before, and I've done it countless times--thus my knowledge of this argument going nowhere.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Now come on here. You are just as guilty as him. Instead of ignoring him or arguing with him on a substantive level, you sit snugly and believe you are right--which further encourages his "bullying". We've all done it before, and I've done it countless times--thus my knowledge of this argument going nowhere.

I was not criticizing his posts or belittling him before. Saying my posts had no point was truly insulting and as such I was trying to clarify what I had intended only to get more flak from him. He asked for proof but at the same time never gives any himself. It's just not very civil.

 

[speed]

I was not criticizing his posts or belittling him before. Saying my posts had no point was truly insulting and as such I was trying to clarify what I had intended only to get more flak from him. He asked for proof but at the same time never gives any himself. It's just not very civil.

I understand. But I hope you are man enough to ignore him, and abort this increasingly personal argument. ITs hard to do when these things become personal.

Or, you guys could go back to having a heated but somewhat susbtantive argument without baiting or insulting each other.

 

[Demiurge]

AND you actully proved my point, if you didn't even realize it. That is all correct except the first paragraph, which is completely unrelated. Animals use brute force, and don't manipulate.

What did I say? I said that humans, as a result of their greater intellectual capabilities, are able to wield power over one another without using physical force. This is natural.

Well then prove to me that we should be manipulated against our will to believe in superstition and vengeful gods.

Very briefly, my position on organized religion is that it is anodyne for the masses and a control mechanism for the system. Religion gives purpose to the disadvantaged and also keeps them in check through the normative morality underlying its myths. I do not hate religion per se, but only certan religions. This, however, is not the subject of our current discourse. You have stated that manipulation of one by another is unnatural. I dispute this statement.

Humans controlling other Humans is unnatural.

Repeating your position ad nauseam does not advance it.

RAPE is a word invented by humans and doesn't exist in the world of animals because they do not comprehend it as being wrong you idiot.

You misunderstand. Primatologists have described the intercourse forced upon female orangutans by sexually suppressed males as being like rape, not insofar as it is immoral, but that it is accomplished by force, not passive consent. My point here is that animals use physical force against others, against the wills of the others.

IF you can prove to me that mathematics, liturature, art is unnatural to human behavior then I will listen, otherwise stop posting made up things and factless assumptions on what I consider to be natural or unnatural.

Once again, you have no idea what the fuck is going on in this discussion. It is not my position that mathematics, literature, and art are unnatural. I clearly stated that they are a function of heightened human intellectual capacities, which are entirely natural. It is your argument that indicates they are unnatural. After all, trees and other animals do not participate in them.

I was not criticizing his posts or belittling him before. Saying my posts had no point was truly insulting and as such I was trying to clarify what I had intended only to get more flak from him.

When your posts have no content, I am not insulting you personally by saying so. I am merely making an observation.

 

[Cythraul]

Someone on level 6 might by cooincidence agree with some points from various religions (although this is questionable and there is no doubt that one sole religion would not be favoured exclusively) but the heaven and hell concept would be rejected because,by definition, being influenced by reward/punishment is level 1 morality. If the level 6 person just happened to agree with an idea in a religion, it would not be taken as instruction to them, but just as something they found agreeable.

I take issue with Kohlberg about level 6 being universal morality, as there is no real universal morality and if there were then it would be commonplace and therefore level 6 morality would generally be universally achievable. In fact level 6 morality, being rare and being something the majority can never understand, is actually quite likely to come into conflict with the values of the majority and even to be seen as immorality by them!

My overarching point is that religious tenets don't have to be construed merely in terms of instruction or what have you. If one finds a particular belief plausible on grounds independent of what is "instructed" or propounded by the given religion that would give one good enough reason to accept those religious tenets. If somebody told me that there's a strange fat guy hanging around outside of my house I don't have to take his/her word for it. Would I take his/her word as establishing the truth of the claim? Definitely not. But if I established the truth of the claim independently of what he/she says then that gives me good enough reason to accept the claim. But what gives me the right to suppose that his/her reasoning towards assent to the claim is wildly different from mine or that it's just some conjecture? Even if the person's claim was just a wild conjecture the only thing barring me from being warranted in believing the claim is if I assented to it on the grounds of his/her word. But after I establish the reasonableness of the person's claim then I've already got good reason to suppose that the claim accurately describes the way the world is. In that case I wouldn't be going by the person's word on the matter but that doesn't make it unreasonable for me to agree with this person even if said person's claim was just a wild conjecture. We're both led to the same conclusion, but I'm warranted in my belief. Whether some particular religious belief is actually true, however, is another matter entirely. What I don't agree with is this view that to agree with some religion is just to allow oneself to be instructed in what to believe.

As for the universal morality thing. There are several issues here. Are there some universal moral principles in the first place, independently of what anybody thinks? Well, that's a subtle issue and I'm not interested in tackling it here. Another issue concerns the question "Are there universal moral principles that everybody agrees upon?" This one is probably easier to answer. I think there aren't any. But if there were, then yes, it would seem that agreement over moral issues would be much more prevalent than it actually is. Another issue concerns whether or not such principles are even attainable. I'm not really sure. Anyway, I don't have any original thoughts on these matters so I'll just stop.

 

[Cythraul]

I'm sorry that you can't use your brain to think of the best results of your actions. That you can't grasp the concept that one could think how their decisions not only effect themselves but also how it will effect the people around them and choose based on the solution what to do.

Your polemic is getting awfully tiresome. I can grasp these sorts of things, and so can many religious people. That many religious people can grasp them may just happen to provide the very reasons for their accepting a given religiously-derived moral tenet. See my previous post for why this would be good enough reason to accept the religious moral tenet, and why it doesn't have to be construed as mere coincidental agreement between ideas.

I don't think people really need a book to tell them that they shouldn't steal, they know it is wrong if they consider the fact that if someone was stealing from them, they wouldn't like it much either.

The golden rule is the only one that matters everything else is a form of mental manipulation to control people. That is wrong, and that is evil, because forcing someone to do something they don't want to do is at a fundamental level wrong.

Here's a pertinent question for you: Where did you get such a moral intuition? Did you learn it from your parents? Society? Is it naturally ingrained in your psyche? If it is any of those then what makes you think your moral belief is valid by purely rational considerations? After all, it looks like you're claiming that you value such considerations pretty highly (even though it doesn't quite show in the actual content of your posts). Have you gone to the trouble of wholly establishing the plausibility of your claims by yourself, just thinking really hard about them? I doubt that you have, given the fact that you have, so far, simply repeated these platitudes. It seems to me that you take the golden rule as prima facie correct. Please humor me with your reasons for this. If you're unable to provide a satisfactory answer, I have no choice but to regard you as no better than the people you criticize.

 

[Norsemaiden]

My overarching point is that religious tenets don't have to be construed merely in terms of instruction or what have you. If one finds a particular belief plausible on grounds independent of what is "instructed" or propounded by the given religion that would give one good enough reason to accept those religious tenets. If somebody told me that there's a strange fat guy hanging around outside of my house I don't have to take his/her word for it. Would I take his/her word as establishing the truth of the claim? Definitely not. But if I established the truth of the claim independently of what he/she says then that gives me good enough reason to accept the claim. But what gives me the right to suppose that his/her reasoning towards assent to the claim is wildly different from mine or that it's just some conjecture? Even if the person's claim was just a wild conjecture the only thing barring me from being warranted in believing the claim is if I assented to it on the grounds of his/her word. But after I establish the reasonableness of the person's claim then I've already got good reason to suppose that the claim accurately describes the way the world is. In that case I wouldn't be going by the person's word on the matter but that doesn't make it unreasonable for me to agree with this person even if said person's claim was just a wild conjecture. We're both led to the same conclusion, but I'm warranted in my belief. Whether some particular religious belief is actually true, however, is another matter entirely. What I don't agree with is this view that to agree with some religion is just to allow oneself to be instructed in what to believe.

As for the universal morality thing. There are several issues here. Are there some universal moral principles in the first place, independently of what anybody thinks? Well, that's a subtle issue and I'm not interested in tackling it here. Another issue concerns the question "Are there universal moral principles that everybody agrees upon?" This one is probably easier to answer. I think there aren't any. But if there were, then yes, it would seem that agreement over moral issues would be much more prevalent than it actually is. Another issue concerns whether or not such principles are even attainable. I'm not really sure. Anyway, I don't have any original thoughts on these matters so I'll just stop.

If a religion, for eg Christianity, had some religious tenets that a non-religious person could agree with and didn't see it as instruction, but just as good ideas, then one would accept the ideas - but not subscribe to the whole religion. To subscribe to the religion you have to take the whole package and it is a faith based adherence, rather than a cooincidental concurrence with the tenets of the faith.

If there was a religion full of ideas I agreed with, but it asked of people that they take it on faith (and especially if it threw in the reward/punishment in the afterlife part) then I would not consider being a believer of that religion. It takes away your logic from yourself and says that your logic is sourced from this bible (or other external source). That would be like giving up thinking about issues because you were married to someone who already seems to have the same, or better, ideas than you do. It takes away a large part of your mental autonomy. Instead, you could agree with them all the time, but still think independently.