Golden Rule

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob wrote:

Then you should not mind, in the least, if your disdain is reciprocated.

moralist wrote:

Oh, not at all, Bob...

I consider it a personal honor

to be hated by evil people.

I was speaking of a general principle. Bob took it personally.

Not at all. I simply pointed out that it is possible for good and reasonable people to find your attitude not to their liking. You seemed to imply that people who opposed your attitude were "evil". That need not be the case at all. You left out a possible alternative which is a logical fallacy. You should be more rigorous in your logic.

[anthony]

Greg, Although it is close to a self-contradiction, a person can say he disbelieves in God's existence but still think he is "evil".

It's what some men (not all) do with their concept of 'God' that is evil, that person may be indicating.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No reasonable humane person could worship or served the wretched potentate put forth by the strict adherents of the Abrahamic religions.

Bob,

I just finished reading the Bible, the Book of Enoch and The Koran. (I'm now doing the Book of Mormon.)

The Abrahamic religions where a step up, a step toward being reasonable compared to what people did back then.

Ever heard of Gehenna? Those folks took newborn males, set them in the arms of stone statues as they chanted uga uga shit and burned them alive. And that was to be virtuous as a tribe.

The call to One God was the start of the call to One Reality we humans now enjoy as we continue to evolve. And, as an added benefit, there was a gradual abandonment of sacrificing living beings.

I have nothing but admiration for those who developed the early Abrahamic religions, including Christianity (that story did one big sacrifice and it was over). Even the later Koran was a step in the right direction compared to what was around at the time (although I admire it to a much lesser extent--that's one clunky carrot-and-stick book with the same stories told over and over ). The Arab custom at the time was to bury female newborns alive.

The big contribution of the Abrahamic religions was centralizing spirituality into One God, making it personal and making it stick. The step on that path we are now living is merging God with Reality so there is only one existence to pursue in our minds and making that stick.

We live in good times.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

No reasonable humane person could worship or served the wretched potentate put forth by the strict adherents of the Abrahamic religions.

Bob,

I just finished reading the Bible, the Book of Enoch and The Koran. (I'm now doing the Book of Mormon.)

The Abrahamic religions where a step up, a step toward being reasonable compared to what people did back then.

Ever heard of Gehenna? Those folks took newborn males, set them in the arms of stone statues as they chanted uga uga shit and burned them alive. And that was to be virtuous as a tribe.

The call to One God was the start of the call to One Reality we humans now enjoy as we continue to evolve. And, as an added benefit, there was a gradual abandonment of sacrificing living beings.

I have nothing but admiration for those who developed the early Abrahamic religions, including Christianity (that story did one big sacrifice and it was over). Even the later Koran was a step in the right direction compared to what was around at the time (although I admire it to a much lesser extent--that's one clunky carrot-and-stick book with the same stories told over and over ). The Arab custom at the time was to bury female newborns alive.

The big contribution of the Abrahamic religions was centralizing spirituality into One God, making it personal and making it stick. The step on that path we are now living is merging God with Reality so there is only one existence to pursue in our minds and making that stick.

We live in good times.

Michael

Judaism was an advance for its time, but it was held back by the Orthodox until the Enlightenment. However in one respect Judaism shines. Then and now. It happened to generate the gold standard of ethical systems. This happened during the Babylonian Dispersion. The interaction between the Israelites and the followers of Mithra generated what became Orthodox Judaism or Pharisaic Judaism. Bingo Jackpot. The ethical system that emerged became the gold standard of ethical systems.

By the way Israelites (some of them) were sacrificing infants to assure good crops even as late as the period of Solomon/s reign. Judaism is we have come to know it was invented in Babylonia during the time of the dispersion. By the time Jews came back to the Holy Land that we completely quit is idol worship, Other gods and human sacrifice. No more after that.

The Greeks were not quite as advanced even as late as the time of Alexander the Great, Spartan were still exposing defective (by their standards) infants.

By the way the Jewish scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament) were not canon until the Babylonian Dispersion. So even the Jewish bible was written during the Babylonian dispersion.

[moralist]

William writes:

I do disagree that Atheism turns into Religion.

If religion is belief in God

Atheism is the religion of belief in no god.

The faith referenced for both is exactly the same.

Only the object or lack thereof is different.

Atheism goes hand in hand with the secular political religion of liberalism... belief in the State. Again exactly the same faith.

"When a man stops believing in God he doesnt then believe in nothing, he believes anything."

--Chesterton

Leftist secularism and faith in the leftist State both result from the same feminized insanity.

Greg

[moralist]

The step on that path we are now living is merging God with Reality so there is only one existence to pursue in our minds and making that stick.

We are so on the same page here, Michael.

Greg

[moralist]

Tony writes:

..."evil people", Greg, I have to ask the same: How do you know?

How can you tell?

Instantly, that is.

Conscience.

Silent sight precedes thought because it's instantaneous. The intellect is clumsy slow in comparison. Trouble is that people usually dismiss it and listen to their deceitful thoughts and irrational emotions instead.

The finest human acts are contrary to thought and emotion.

Greg

[moralist]

Bob writes:

 

I did not do any "making up". I am simply pointing to the god-thing that is preached by the leaders and founders of the Abramaic religions

You're nuts, Bob. I don't know any Christians or Jews who believe the utter nonsense that God was evil because He destroyed the thoroughly wicked people in Sodom and Gomorrah......although there are plenty of secularists like you whose sympathies lie with those evil people.Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Tony writes:

..."evil people", Greg, I have to ask the same: How do you know?

How can you tell?

Instantly, that is.

Conscience.

Silent sight precedes thought because it's instantaneous. The intellect is clumsy slow in comparison. Trouble is that people usually dismiss it and listen to their deceitful thoughts and irrational emotions instead.

The finest human acts are contrary to thought and emotion.

Greg

Such as? Can you give some personal examples? I ask because I can't.

--Brant

pppt = ppqt (piss poor prior thinking = piss poor quick thinking)

(lntae) let's not talk about emotions (pleeease!)

[moralist]

Brant writes:

Such as? Can you give some personal examples? I ask because I can't.

It's impossible to convince anyone with anecdotes. It's as silly as trying to convince anyone that God exists.

Next time you meet someone for the first time, just pay attention to what happens in the split second...

...BEFORE...

...you start thinking, and emoting on what you're thinking, and acting on what you're emoting.

Closest I can come to it with words is that it's an instantaneous perceptual packet of silent wordless moral information that your intellect will try to talk you out of if you do become aware of it at all.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The step on that path we are now living is merging God with Reality so there is only one existence to pursue in our minds and making that stick.

We are so on the same page here, Michael.

Greg,

Why do you think I get you when so many do not?

I see what your words mean, even when I find them inartful.

Often, I see others interpreting your words to mean what they mean, not what you mean.

On the other hand, rarely do I find you interested in their meaning.

btw - That's nobody's fault. We all choose the frames we use for thinking (or tacitly accept frames from our surroundings). Shifting mental frames, even if it is just to take a peek at a different perspective, is one of the hardest mental tasks we can do for stuff that is important to us.

Over time, more and more common ground gets formed with interaction. I see this happening on OL every day. And it makes me feel good. The reason? I believe the good in most people is stronger than the bad.

Michael

[moralist]

Michael writes:

Why do you think I get you when so many do not?

I get you.

God and Reality are synonymous as far as I'm concerned.

And the popular consensus of others is unreliable.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob writes:I did not do any "making up". I am simply pointing to the god-thing that is preached by the leaders and founders of the Abramaic religions

You're nuts, Bob.

I don't know any Christians or Jews who believe the utter nonsense that God was evil because He destroyed the thoroughly wicked people in Sodom and Gomorrah...

...although there are plenty of secularists like you whose sympathies lie with those evil people.

Greg

Oh those wicked infants!!!!

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob writes:I did not do any "making up". I am simply pointing to the god-thing that is preached by the leaders and founders of the Abramaic religions

You're nuts, Bob.

I don't know any Christians or Jews who believe the utter nonsense that God was evil because He destroyed the thoroughly wicked people in Sodom and Gomorrah...

...although there are plenty of secularists like you whose sympathies lie with those evil people.

Greg

Christians start with the premise that human beings on any age are born no god damned good and the only way they can be saved is by believed that Jesus died for their sins. It is called Original Sin. What a strange religion when one is presumed to be wicked and evil before one has even had a wicked or evil thought or done a wicked or evil deed.

Are you a Christian?

[BaalChatzaf]

William writes:

I do disagree that Atheism turns into Religion.

If religion is belief in God

Atheism is the religion of belief in no god.

The faith referenced for both is exactly the same.

Only the object or lack thereof is different.

Atheism goes hand in hand with the secular political religion of liberalism... belief in the State. Again exactly the same faith.

"When a man stops believing in God he doesnt then believe in nothing, he believes anything."

--Chesterton

Leftist secularism and faith in the leftist State both result from the same feminized insanity.

Greg

Not so. Mos atheists do not deny the existence of the god thing. They simply do not believe in the existence of the god thing for lack of evidence. There is not a shred, not a scintilla of substantial empirical evidence for the existence of the god thing. Nor is there any conclusive logical argument for the existence of the god thing.

I think it is logically possible for advanced intelligent beings to exist so far beyond humans that humans might mistake them for gods. Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps. But still there is no evidence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christians start with the premise that human beings on any age are born no god damned good and the only way they can be saved is by believed that Jesus died for their sins. It is called Original Sin. What a strange religion when one is presumed to be wicked and evil before one has even had a wicked or evil thought or done a wicked or evil deed.

Bob,

Let me paraphrase this:

Objectivists start with the premise that human beings on any age are born no god damned good and the only way they can be saved is by them converting to a certainty-belief in reason. This is called Original Sin. What a strange philosophy when one is presumed to be wicked and evil--although tabula rasa at birth, one is preprogrammed to evade reality through intrinsicism and subjectivism on autopilot--before one has even had a wicked or evil thought or done a wicked or evil deed.

Convert to reason by choice and be good or continue to be evil by default. (The fundamental choice is to think or not to think.)

After I became aware of this Objectivist Original Sin, I started having a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. But I worked it out.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Original sin? Ho, hum. You acquire real sin soon enough. Then the original can mentally chase the acquired or the acquired the original around in a circle to the point of pointless exhaustion. Nevertheless, everybody wants to get old enough as soon as possible to start doing that real original sinning again and again and again.

The human race flows down this river of "original sin." The way to stop it is to stop making babies--i.e., birth control. Since the Church is against birth control it must be in favor of original sin(ning). Isn't that sinful?

--Brant

no more people, no more sin

[moralist]

Bob writes:

Oh those wicked infants!!!!

For better or for worse, children are collateral damage of their parents values, because parents are responsible for their children. Guess you didn't know that.

You really should ask yourself why you want to damn your own false image of God so badly. Sick people don't ask. They need something to hate so badly they have to make it up. This is unbelievably poisonous.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Original sin? Ho, hum. You acquire real sin soon enough.

Brant,

The problem is the container and engine to acquire real sin is too slanted toward acquiring sin in the early years according to Rand's pronouncements.

If I remember correctly, to justify the importance she placed on volition as the saving grace, she even tried to make a case that a child learns to use its eyes by volition. Call that one nonvolitional choice.

(Can you imagine an infant choosing not to develop eyesight to distinguish objects? )

The point is she applied adult epistemology to early human stages (with a few specific exceptions) and borrowed the tabula rasa idea from Locke (without attribution) to justify doing that.

The result?

If the underbelly of the mind were as she wrote, man is born with mental equipment where he can ONLY grow hopelessly evil unless he chooses to make an intervention and focus his mind (embrace reason and fight off the innate evil urges).

The details are different, but the essence of this is the same as Original Sin at birth and a higher later process for salvation.

btw - Neuroscience is your friend. It makes all of this stuff irrelevant. Ethics and epistemology are still relevant (and boy, are they), but not as scientific and/or biological explanations of the brain.

Michael

[moralist]

Bob writes:Not so. Most atheists do not deny the existence of the god thing. They simply do not believe in the existence of the god thing for lack of evidence. There is not a shred, not a scintilla of substantial empirical evidence for the existence of the god thing. Nor is there any conclusive logical argument for the existence of the god thing.

You're lying to yourself, Bob. You're not neutral. You've ticked off your atheist laundry list of negative talking points why you believe God doesn't exist.

There is not a shred, not a scintilla of substantial empirical evidence for the existence of the god thing. Nor is there any conclusive logical argument for the existence of the god thing.

That is true for you. And is by the wisdom of a design that is beyond the government educated intellect you worship. To bend the knee to that idol you chose demands a sacrifice: Self awareness. You have none.And it is by virtue of that infinitely intelligent design which leaves everyone totally free to make that decision for themselves, and no one's personal decision can interfere with anyone else's choice.There is no coercion in love.We each have what we chose and will take it and all of its consequences to our graves.Greg

[KorbenDallas]

The idea of original sin can set someone on a malevolent universe premise very fast. I'm sure you guys are aware of Rand's explicit rejection of the idea of original sin, and the various forms it takes: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html

To chew on this a bit more, original sin would be considered an anti-concept in Objectivism, and the concept it would take out is the concept of man, that man is doomed to fail by his nature, rather than efficate.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob writes:

Not so. Most atheists do not deny the existence of the god thing. They simply do not believe in the existence of the god thing for lack of evidence. There is not a shred, not a scintilla of substantial empirical evidence for the existence of the god thing. Nor is there any conclusive logical argument for the existence of the god thing.

You're lying to yourself, Bob. You're not neutral. You've ticked off your atheist laundry list of negative talking points why you believe God doesn't exist.

There is not a shred, not a scintilla of substantial empirical evidence for the existence of the god thing. Nor is there any conclusive logical argument for the existence of the god thing.

That is true for you. And is by the wisdom of a design that is beyond the government educated intellect you worship. To bend the knee to that idol you chose demands a sacrifice:

Self awareness. You have none.

And it is by virtue of that infinitely intelligent design which leaves everyone totally free to make that decision for themselves, and no one's personal decision can interfere with anyone else's choice.

There is no coercion in love.

We each have what we chose and will take it and all of its consequences to our graves.

Greg

Do you attribute Intelligent Design to the Deity that gave us the lumbar section of the spine, the prostate gland and the vermiform appendix? If so you are indeed generous.

[moralist]

Bob writes:

Do you attribute Intelligent Design to the Deity that gave us the lumbar section of the spine, the prostate gland and the vermiform appendix? If so you are indeed generous.

Boo hoo.

Poor baby.

Can't rightly blame God for that, Bob.

You're the one who f**ked up your own body...

...so you're the one who has to live with the consequences of your own behavior.

Greg

[merjet]

Can't rightly blame God for that, Bob.

Typical religious claim. God gets lots/all credit, and no blame.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob writes:

Do you attribute Intelligent Design to the Deity that gave us the lumbar section of the spine, the prostate gland and the vermiform appendix? If so you are indeed generous.

Boo hoo.

Poor baby.

Can't rightly blame God for that, Bob.

You're the one who f**ked up your own body...

...so you're the one who has to live with the consequences of your own behavior.

Greg

Wrong, as usual. The human body is less than optimally structured. our spines are better fit for 4 legged animals than bipedal up right animals. The plumbing of the lower parts is dreadful. We are all going to get bad prostate glands if we live long enough. When humans died prior to age 40 as they did for most of our existence on the planet, the lumbar regions and the lower down plumbing gave less trouble than they do now. That is because we are living well beyond the structure limitations of the human body. Our low backs go out. Our knees wear out and our prostate gland becomes dicey and cancerous eventually. The appendix has no obvious use. If the risk of surgery were less than it is we could get our appendices removed as routinely as we used to have our tonsils removed. But cutting into the low gut is risky so we live and hope our appendix does not become inflamed.

Ba'al Chatzaf