Who seriously can believe in bible?

[Silver Incubus]

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.

That is only an opinion and certainly not a fact.

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.

Apparently you left out the manipulation part of what I said. You can disagree that is fine. I really don't care if you agree with me or not. I also think it is natrual for humans to do that stuff, but unnatural to manipulate to control. OK?

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.

If religious people could do that, then they wouldn't have to blame GOD or Satan for everything thing that goes right or wrong in their life. Accepting the teachings of a clearly self destructive teaching is giving up not only on logic but also in thinking.

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.

First of all, please do not insult me.

OK, How about I pretend that you aren't talking down to me like you know more then me about anything. Then I will respond to this just to make you happy, because I know that it won't.

If you can strip down your belief system and rebuild it where would you start?
The golden rule of course. Why you ask? Well quite simply because its the most basic of social contracts to exist in a functioning society. To do harm to others and not expect it back is complete illogical. Then you start building your other beliefs based on things that fit with the golden rule. So, why don't I lie to people? Because I go against the grain. Because I know it is wrong to lie, for any reason. Do I really have to continue or do you get the point? People who are told to do things don't understand the 'why' behind why they do it, and that is the underlying problem with manipulating peoples minds to believe in a set of morals that they do not understand the reason for them.
I certainly will never let anyone set my morals, and no one else should either. Every situation is different and sometimes the area can be gray, but religion and dogmatic doctrine are strict and have clear fear based punishments. On a side note, I have always wondered why crime never goes away, or even why crime is so rampant. Its because its based on a fear system of punishment, much like religion. The mass media uses fear to keep the public in check, because they know it works from the centuries of religion based fear.
So sure, I get my morals by thinking about what works. By absobing my surroundings and experiences of not only a personal nature but also others experiences and learn from them. But, if it doesn't agree with the fundemental golden rule, to which I am harming others on purpose, then I will not participate. Our minds are born free, it is society that shapes and distorts what is right and wrong.

 

[Demiurge]

That is only an opinion and certainly not a fact.

What part of my statement do you dispute? Do you dispute that humans have greater intellectual capabilities than other species? Do you deny that the capabilities are natural? Do you deny that humans are able to exercise power in more subtle ways than by brute force? Do you deny that their ability to do so is a function of their heightened intelligence? By all means, tell me what you disagree with.

Apparently you left out the manipulation part of what I said. You can disagree that is fine. I really don't care if you agree with me or not. I also think it is natrual for humans to do that stuff, but unnatural to manipulate to control. OK?

Let's recap. First, you said it wasn't natural for humans to "manipulate" others. I disagreed. You said it was unnatural because trees and animals don't do it, then proceeded to call me a retard. You followed this up by complaining that I was bullying you. Now, after I have dispensed with your argument, you tell me it is as you say just because and I don't have to agree. Is this a joke?

 

[کوڈانشی]

…as far as i can gather, judaism already based most of its tenets on this so–called ‘golden rule’ which then received widespread secular adoption roundabout 16th century, common dating era (c·e)

 

[Norsemaiden]

…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

Women can't go around doing unto men what they (men) would like them to do unto them! That would be too Christian (of the women)!

The golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not exactly clear in that it can be interpreted in different ways. It needs further clarification. It could run into the same problem of someone wanting something done to them that the other person has no wish to take part in, just like the above situation of what a man might want a woman to do, assuming that the man initiates what he hopes will be reciprocated.

The ability to imagine yourself in the other person's position helps you to treat them in a way that you think is fair. So if someone harms you badly and you want to punish them, then that is okay as long as you think if you were guilty of having done the harm you would accept that the punishment was not unreasonable. In fact the person who harmed you would likely be outraged and annoyed that you didn't just let them walk all over you. But that is not part of the calculation of how you should respond. Everyone's personal judgement on how to react to this would be different, and there may be little agreement, but the point is simply that rather than lash out or behave selfishly and destructively, you would have tried to be just. It's like good karma because you have no reason to feel that you have done wrong.

 

[Silver Incubus]

What part of my statement do you dispute? Do you dispute that humans have greater intellectual capabilities than other species? Do you deny that the capabilities are natural? Do you deny that humans are able to exercise power in more subtle ways than by brute force? Do you deny that their ability to do so is a function of their heightened intelligence? By all means, tell me what you disagree with.



Let's recap. First, you said it wasn't natural for humans to "manipulate" others. I disagreed. You said it was unnatural because trees and animals don't do it, then proceeded to call me a retard. You followed this up by complaining that I was bullying you. Now, after I have dispensed with your argument, you tell me it is as you say just because and I don't have to agree. Is this a joke?

I think the joke is how badly you misquote me and put words in my mouth. I said trees and animals don't follow religion. Get it straight.

And I made the part of your post BOLD so you would know what I was replying to.
Edit: I never once called you a retard. SO please stop putting words in my mouth, once again.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Women can't go around doing unto men what they (men) would like them to do unto them! That would be too Christian (of the women)!

The golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not exactly clear in that it can be interpreted in different ways. It needs further clarification. It could run into the same problem of someone wanting something done to them that the other person has no wish to take part in, just like the above situation of what a man might want a woman to do, assuming that the man initiates what he hopes will be reciprocated.

The ability to imagine yourself in the other person's position helps you to treat them in a way that you think is fair. So if someone harms you badly and you want to punish them, then that is okay as long as you think if you were guilty of having done the harm you would accept that the punishment was not unreasonable. In fact the person who harmed you would likely be outraged and annoyed that you didn't just let them walk all over you. But that is not part of the calculation of how you should respond. Everyone's personal judgement on how to react to this would be different, and there may be little agreement, but the point is simply that rather than lash out or behave selfishly and destructively, you would have tried to be just. It's like good karma because you have no reason to feel that you have done wrong.

You certianly have a point, and that is why I usually follow the golden rule with the clarification that it shouldn't harm anyone in the process. Unless of course it is self defence of certain death.

 

[Demiurge]

I think the joke is how badly you misquote me and put words in my mouth.

I didn't misquote you. You have confused a refutation by analogy with a strawman. You argued that manipulation is unnatural because plants and animals don't do it. I stated that much like literature, art, and mathematics it is a function of our naturally heightened intelligence. I pointed out that by your argument these things, too, should be considered unnatural because trees and animals do not participate in them. Once and for all, I did not put words in your mouth. I simply showed you the implications of your argument.

I said trees and animals don't follow religion.

And therefore it is unnatural. That was your argument, no? I have already demonstrated it to be a flawed argument. Once again, you don't seem to be following.

Get it straight.

Get what straight? Could you possibly be more vague?

And I made the part of your post BOLD so you would know what I was replying to.

Are you denying that our heightened intelligence is natural? The ability to manipulate is a function of this intelligence. If you accept that our intelligence is natural, there is nothing to dispute.

Edit: I never once called you a retard. SO please stop putting words in my mouth, once again.

Fine, I will quote you some more.

Are you some kind of retard or something?

you idiot.

These are insults and I consider them uncivil. Unlike yourself, however, I'm not going to whine about it. I invite the gallery to browse the topic and see which of us has been tossing around insults, though.

 

[Silver Incubus]

That is a question not a statement. And yes religion is unnatural. So are you trying to get me to believe that christianity, islam, etc are all naturally occuring things and that mankind just all of a sudden knows this when it grows up, even if they are a tribe isolated in the amazon? I certainly think not, its all fabricated to control, and it is unnatural to do so.

 

[کوڈانشی]

The golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not exactly clear in that it can be interpreted in different ways. It needs further clarification. It could run into the same problem of someone wanting something done to them that the other person has no wish to take part in, just like the above situation of what a man might want a woman to do, assuming that the man initiates what he hopes will be reciprocated.

yes, i need to clarify further. obviously we all have boundaries which we will not cross. i simply meant that this golden rule in its original format (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) carries more scope for difficulty and selfishness than a version in which you would do unto others as they would have you do unto them. i can illustrate this better with examples:

original golden rule: i do unto someone else as i would want that person to do unto me. accordingly, i (a muslim) who want to see shariah law established in this country under a khalifah (caliph/caliphate) (i don’t, incidentally: i don’t believe we should vest spiritual and political supremacy in one person) would treat my fellow person as i would have islam do unto me. even though that fellow person may follow judaism or christianity. this means that when he wants to make a film portraying jesus’s life i take action to stop him because islam prohibits pictorial depictions of prophets. i would have expected him to do the same unto me

modified golden rule: i do unto that neighbour film director as i believe he would want me to do unto him. so i tell him that i cannot support his venture because it goes against my beliefs, but i give him freedom and non–interference to make his film depicting jesus.

does that make any sense whatsoever!?

 

[Demiurge]

That is a question not a statement.

Edit: I figured it out. You are so full of shit, man. It is clearly an insult even though it is not a direct statement. Furthermore, you called me an idiot. You're uncivil, not me. Face it.

And yes religion is unnatural. So are you trying to get me to believe that christianity, islam, etc are all naturally occuring things and that mankind just all of a sudden knows this when it grows up, even if they are a tribe isolated in the amazon?

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that religion is cultural and culture is a function of heightened intelligence. Another example is the ability to write, which is not an essential property and must be developed through education, but is not at all unnatural, as it is a function of our natural intellectual capability.

I certainly think not, its all fabricated to control, and it is unnatural to do so.

You are the message board equivalent of a tape recorder.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Are you some kind of retard or something?
is a question not a statement.

 

[Demiurge]

Are you some kind of retard or something?
is a question not a statement.

Yes, I know. Nevertheless, it is an insult, unless you seriously think my IQ is below 70. You can lie like the worm you are and say that is what you thought, but everyone knows it was a undisguised insult. As further evidence, you proceeded to call me an idiot in this very topic. You have the audacity to call me uncivil? I am laughing at your ineptitude right now.

 

[Silver Incubus]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that religion is cultural and culture is a function of heightened intelligence. Another example is the ability to write, which is not an essential property and must be developed through education, but is not at all unnatural, as it is a function of our natural intellectual capability.

Writing is a clear progression of using symbols to represent sounds which actually increases the ability to comunicate. How does religion really compare to that?

 

[Silver Incubus]

Yes, I know. Nevertheless, it is an insult, unless you seriously think my IQ is below 70. You can lie like the worm you are and say that is what you thought, but everyone knows it was a undisguised insult. As further evidence, you proceeded to call me an idiot in this very topic. You have the audacity to call me uncivil? I am laughing at your ineptitude right now.

Well I certainly wasn't the one who said animals are raped either. And all you did was reference some primate studies, which are not the only other animals and therefore has no relevence to the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

[Demiurge]

Writing is a clear progression of using symbols to represent sounds which actually increases the ability to comunicate. How does religion really compare to that?

It is obvious from my posts. Language and religion(and mathematics and art, etc.) are functions of natural human intelligence. That is, a natural capacity(heightened human intelligence relative to other animals) enables people to write, speak, create art, do mathematics, ponder ontology, etc.

 

[Demiurge]

Well I certainly wasn't the one who said animals are raped either.

I explained what I meant to the literate members of this forum.

And all you did was reference some primate studies, which are not the only other animals and therefore has no relevence to the rest of the animal kingdom.

It proves that animals use force against one another, which was my point, not that it wasn't obvious already.

 

[Silver Incubus]

It is obvious from my posts. Language and religion(and mathematics and art, etc.) are functions of natural human intelligence. That is, a natural capacity(heightened human intelligence relative to other animals) enables people to write, speak, create art, do mathematics, ponder ontology, etc.

I agree with the fact that humans have the hightened intelligence, but pondering ontological issues and creating religion are similar but do not lead to the same end. Philosophy isn't a religion, because it is thinking and pondering about issues, debating and rubuting, whereas religion ARE the answers and stop the pondering of these ontological issues, except for those who see through hypocracy and lies that religions claim to be ultimate devine truths. And that is why religion is bad for any society.

 

[Demiurge]

I agree with the fact that humans have the hightened intelligence, but pondering ontological issues and creating religion are similar but do not lead to the same end. Philosophy isn't a religion, because it is thinking and pondering about issues, debating and rubuting, whereas religion ARE the answers and stop the pondering of these ontological issues, except for those who see through hypocracy and lies that religions claim to be ultimate devine truths. And that is why religion is bad for any society.

You changed the subject. You said that "manipulation" is unnatural. You said that religion is manipulative and as such is unnatural. Your current post basically states that religion is dogmatic. This is a different matter. Am I to infer that we now agree that manipulation is not unnatural?

 

[Silver Incubus]

I just have to ask, is stopping the growth and learning of the answers to existence natural or unnatual? Considering that naturally we evovle our education and ways of thinking to the betterment of humanity as a whole, and since religion stops that, wouldn't that seem like unnatural manipulation of the mind to prevent this natural growth process?

 

[Cythraul]

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.

This may or may not be the case. Certainly one might not accept the whole of a religion, but what exactly constitutes the whole of a religion? That doesn't seem clear to me at all. My father, for example, is a Christian who rejects numerous passages in the bible as they seem to be straightforwardly contradictory to certain other tenets which cohere with what he sees as the more valuable teachings to be found in the bible. Am I not supposed to consider him a Christian? I just don't see a clear way to decide such things.

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.

Well, refer to my response above for my view on your first point here. As for your second point, I don't see any reason why any and every religious belief should be taken purely on faith. But if what you say is correct then we ought to consider rational enquiry and religion as two incommensurable domains. Thus, we really wouldn't have anything substantial to say about religious beliefs. As for your use of the notion of coincidence, I've already indicated that I don't think it strictly applies to what we're talking about. I don't think it's correct to say "I just happen to believe what you believe" in the same sense in which one would say "I just happened to be calling my friend on the phone at the same time she was calling me." What seems relevant to me is that the beliefs are the same, and that's it.

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.

I don't feel particularly inclined to disagree with you on this. But what seems relevant to me are the beliefs one has, not how one got those beliefs. Suppose I ask someone "Why do you believe in God?" and they proceed to give me some plausible argument for the existence of God (perhaps the argument isn't absolutely convincing, but how many of our beliefs are so certain?). Suppose I then ask somebody else the same question and they respond by saying they believe purely out of faith. How is the fact that they have completely different reasons for believing supposed to be relevent here? They believe in the same thing. You think that it's a requirement on religious belief that one takes their belief purely on faith. That seems rather peripheral to me, maybe it doesn't to you. But I have to ask once again, what exactly constitutes the whole of a religion? Why is unadulterated faith necessary and sufficient for religious belief? Why are good reasons impermissible?