RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 6:22:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad I was never discussing any The Divine... I was discussing my notions of my god... I'm a henotheist. The incarnate gods themselves are henotheists. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad You need to read more on karma. If there are inputs (awareness) and output (influence) and the entity is not immutable and stateless (dead or non-existent), then the connection entails a causal connection. Which is not to say that the causal relationship needs to be one that is consistently observable under controlled conditions, but to posit that it is not causally connected is to ignore the meaning of what causal connectivity is about. It's the foundation of the original karmic principle: the network of causal connection, centered on oneself. We use different definitions of the concept causal. Yours is flawed. [8D] The concept causal applies only to interactions within our universe where such concepts as energy, time, distance and mass are valid. In these conditions the causal concept of action causes physical consequence, as in a stone thrown into a body of water causes ruffles, applies. It does not apply to the interaction between that or whom which is within our universe and the Divine that is 'outside' our universe; that is not a causal interaction, but a spiritual interaction. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Depending on the truths you reference, that may well make me omniscient, so how about a better definition? [:D] Indications are that those with Asperger are reflections - lesser manifestations - of the Creator, being born with similar characteristics. So no: the description is apt. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: The Creator among those representing good, and Satan ... ...representing critical thinking? [;)] [:D] Only within the box. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Seriously, though, our paradigms differ. Likely, but there are many ways to get to Rome.

brainiacsub -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 8:26:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I think it's immoral to indoctrinate children religiously. Children are indoctrinated from birth, whether it is in a religious home or a secular one. Upon what objective standard of morality do you decide it is okay to indoctrinate them into one, but not the other? I know this was addressed to Sugar, but as someone who was exposed to heavy religious indoctrination as a child and who chose to take a different path with my own children, I'd like to answer this one. Sugar, feel free to jump in.... The objective moral guidelines for me were self-evident and based on perpetuating those teachings and values that proved useful to me, discarding those that weren't, and including others that were omitted. In order of importance: 1. Your mother is always right. 2. Have empathy for all living things. (This one covers at least 6 of the Ten Commandments. The Golden rule fits quite nicely here, too.) 3. Have respect for yourself and others. 4. Give more than you take. 5. Before you make up your mind about anything, question everything and always consider the other position. 6. Choose the behavior, choose the consequences. (Dr. Phil borrowed this one from my grandmother.) You see? It's simple. And no divine text was necessary. Although some of the guiding principles above are expressed in religious doctrine, one does not have to become indoctrinated to find these ideas useful.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 8:47:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule We use different definitions of the concept causal. Yours is flawed. [8D] Actually, mine is simply more generic. I do not specify a medium of interaction, merely the progression from an antecedent to a consequent, such that the state of the parts are not independent, but connected. That applies to any transfer of information, and includes your posited interactions. I think it's useful to simply specify the medium when that is relevant, but it wasn't in this case. quote: Indications are that those with Asperger are reflections - lesser manifestations - of the Creator, being born with similar characteristics. So no: the description is apt. You seem to assume I'm an aspie. My girl is one. As far as I know, I'm not. That will presumably remain inconclusive until there is a known etiology for such things. quote: Likely, but there are many ways to get to Rome. Correct. Perhaps that's not where I'm headed, though. [;)] Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 8:56:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub The objective moral guidelines for me were self-evident and based on perpetuating those teachings and values that proved useful to me, discarding those that weren't, and including others that were omitted. [...] You see? It's simple. And no divine text was necessary. Although some of the guiding principles above are expressed in religious doctrine, one does not have to become indoctrinated to find these ideas useful. Those are not all the principles you have indoctrinated your children with, I'd wager. Although they may, of course, be the only ones you have consciously included in the indoctrination process. Obviously, your community has probably also added a significant number of elements. Anyway, the point made wasn't the content of the indoctrination, but rather that it is, indeed, indoctrination; further, that it doesn't make an objective difference what the source is. Whether you derived them from a religious text, a secular text, life experience or somewhere else, isn't particularly important. It's still indoctrination. And it's still a matter of what the parent chooses, or what others will force upon the parents. No objective answers. No gold standards. Just choices and consequences. Health, al-Aswad.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 9:06:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub The objective moral guidelines for me were self-evident and based on perpetuating those teachings and values that proved useful to me, discarding those that weren't, and including others that were omitted. Actually, that is what I would call a "subjective moral standard" as it springs from your unique life experience and was influenced by whatever sources you found along your path. Regardless of whether the guidelines are shared or not, there is no source for these guidelines that resides outside individual human experiences ... ergo objectivity is impossible. quote: You see? It's simple. And no divine text was necessary. Although some of the guiding principles above are expressed in religious doctrine, one does not have to become indoctrinated to find these ideas useful. I hope you're not claiming you and your grandmother invented these ideas [;)] They had a source, most likely religious if traced back far enough. There are very few new insights. We inherit so much culture without even being aware of it as children. Then we regurgitate it dressed in new rhetoric later, and marvel and the profundity. But what is really occuring is the seeds that were planted in our youth bloom in our adulthood (or not, as some ideas never take root). It's part of what makes each of us unique.

brainiacsub -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 9:11:23 AM)
Aswad, you have missed the point again. The original statement by Sugar was that it is immoral to indoctrinate children religiously. I tend to agree. Religion is absolutist, creates an us and them mentality, is intolerant by it's very nature, and not only perpetuates but encourages ignorance. I answered the question to offer an objective standard of morality for acceptable indoctrination. I didn't say my list was inclusive. I also think we are confusing indoctrination and teaching. I have no problem teaching my children about religion, but indoctrination requires that they accept and adopt those beliefs as their own without question. I am not against indoctrination in principle, but some indoctrination is more harmful than others.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 9:58:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub The original statement by Sugar was that it is immoral to indoctrinate children religiously. Which is what I disagreed with, as I do not see it as any different from indoctrinating them secularly. quote: Religion is absolutist, creates an us and them mentality, is intolerant by it's very nature, and not only perpetuates but encourages ignorance. Right. I'm pretty much a priest. I oppose absolutism, and have for 14 years. I oppose the us/them mentality and the psychological phenomenon of the moral core, and have for about 10 years. I oppose intolerance, and have done so for as long as I can remember. I try to dispel ignorance, and have done so for about 20 years. These things are part of my religious convictions. They are also part of a significant number of religions. However, a lot of people don't take it to heart. And that is not limited to people who hold religious convictions. I have seen it just as frequently among secular humanists, if not more frequently. quote: I answered the question to offer an objective standard of morality for acceptable indoctrination. You failed to offer any evidence that it is objective, and I posit that it is not. It is merely meta-absolutist (in the sense that you posit it as being objective and acceptable, with other approaches being subjective and unacceptable; which, by the way, contradicts its contents to some extent, and undermines your argument). quote: I also think we are confusing indoctrination and teaching. You may be confusing them. I am not. Child rearing is indoctrination. The question is what we indoctrinate them with. quote: I have no problem teaching my children about religion, but indoctrination requires that they accept and adopt those beliefs as their own without question. I would have no problem teaching mine about nazism, communism, capitalism, secular humanism, or anything else. But I would not raise (indoctrinate) them with any values other than those I hold myself. Should I raise them to hold values I do not agree with? What values would that be, and who decides? quote: I am not against indoctrination in principle, but some indoctrination is more harmful than others. Define harmful, and provide evidence that *all* religious indoctrination is more harmful than other indoctrination. Otherwise, you may want to consider that what you're saying sounds remarkably like "I don't want my kids to go through what I did." Health, al-Aswad.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 10:54:22 AM)
The ethic of reciprocity is almost self-evident. If anyone ever feels like testing it out they find out in short order that punching someone in the face can result in that person beating one almost to death. Generally speaking, if one wishes for personal safety one starts by first not doing any harm to others - don't hit, don't get hit in return. Almost every other ethic is based upon this first observation alone. And that's an objective standard, not subjective. The experience is almost universal. Religion? I don't need it and don't want it. When people tell me about eternal salvation or pie in the sky, I check for my wallet.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 11:06:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub I am not against indoctrination in principle, but some indoctrination is more harmful than others. ...ok, let's call all ECE indoctrination. Contrast and compare these two doctrines..... A) your religion is the right one, others are wrong. B) your life will be about choices, choose wisely. The latter is pretty much the gist of what my mum taught me. i suppose we can call it indoctrination, but compared to A) it's clearly a different sort of indoctrination.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 11:13:11 AM)
Sugar, the entire history of the world shows that is not a objective thing. It is nothing close to universal. You have some pie in the sky thinking going my friend. And your way doesn't offer a fake eternal salvation, just a fake temoral salvation. I realise you are a walking death machine, and physically superior to all around you, ect. So no one would ever punch you. But the result of punching someone is almost never being beaten close to death. Often the results of punching someone are positive enough that the behavior gets repeated. What you are citing is a very recent religous concept (not just Christian, Bhuddism and others also). Perhaps it can stand without the religion behind it. Haven't seen any evidence of that so far. You believe what you just said is universal and objective, even self evident. Despite evidence to the contrary. I see you as having something that passes the "duck test" to be a religion. Meat even Quotes Dawkins like its a holy book.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 11:46:02 AM)
The ethic of reciprocity has a twin: the law of the jungle. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_psychology) and especially: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma Tit for tat = survival. You really don't know as little as that? You think people don't go around hitting you because of laws or religious principles? No, actually it's a survival tactic. [8\|]

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 11:55:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The intent in pushing a point was progress. May I suggest that a better definition of progress may be to simply open people's minds to the possibility of being wrong? «You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyway.» When I argue on the boards, it is rarely with the intent to sway opinions. Far more commonly, the point is to inspire thought or (at best) open people's minds to different perceptions (think of it as dilation play, except the mind is the opening being targetted; unlike physical ones, it rarely shrinks back to its original size), or to test my own views in the hopes that I may find flaws in them and correct those flaws (or simply find them expanded). Pushing a point is pointless, as I don't seek to control other people's lives or thoughts. I'm afraid it wouldn't do as a definition, but as an instance? I'll assume this is what you meant. I think something would be lost if either direct or indirect methods were neglected. I chose the direct method in my life, though, as it has another benefit: destroys the subject publically. Of course, we may differ in the view that religion is a bad thing. Still, I'm of the opinion that it is. It serves me to have an environment in which it isn't perceived as an okay thing. I mean, sure, even in such an environment with regards to rape or forced slavery, (this is, a hypothetical environment in which rape and forced slavery are okay) I could argue it's (rape/slavery/etc) a bad thing.. but how many people would care? Would it be the same, or are things seen as more acceptable due to their popularity? And what of children: will they hear intellectual arguments or the actions of society more loudly? And, perhaps most importantly: would it prevent the rape and oppression? As with several other things, I hope to kill this one socially. To kill religion, sexism, racism, acceptance for rape, child abuse, and other sorts of things in the public eye. While people may continue to practice them and/or believe in them, they're mortal and will eventually pass, but hopefully their behaviors will die with them and following generations. The world's still growing up. Hopefully, this brand of intellectual dishonesty can end in this age.

caitlyn -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:11:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro You think people don't go around hitting you because of laws or religious principles? No, actually it's a survival tactic. I think what he is saying, is that your view is narrow, in that not hitting someone, certainly offers very little protection from someone hitting you. Now, it might help matters, in fact it certainly does. So would never leaving your home. So would suicide, for that matter. But, there are no absolutes. People don't hit me, because: a) I don't hit them, b) I try not to place myself in harm's way, c) I carry a firearm. That said, I don't agree with your position on this, although you certainly have a right to profess it. To me, you are pointing out the defects in religion, the greatest of which is a feeling of superiority ... and being all superior in the telling. In truth, you do have a religion here ... the church of SugarMyChurro.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:22:53 PM)
Naw... You're completely blinkered on this topic because you found the idea of god useful at some point. BTW, B seems like variation of A to me, and C substantially makes my point: you intend to invoke fatal, or near fatal, lex talionis if anyone fuck's with you. The law of retribution. Tit for tat. Someone messes with you; you maybe put them down. I understand.

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Meat even Quotes Dawkins like its a holy book. No, I quote rational statements which mean I don't quote him like a holy book, holy books being completely irrational inventions of largely unrelated historic manuscripts, to which people cherry pick to create a truth that fits their view of the world.

caitlyn -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:30:04 PM)
Are you not the inverse, as someone that sees no value in something you have never experienced? The difference being, I never saw the need to worship myself on the alter of my beliefs here on this forum ... and you did. And yes, if someone "fucked" with me ... I would certainly defend myself. That is the only accurate and useful thing you have had to say in this entire hornet's nest thread. [;)]

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:35:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro The ethic of reciprocity is almost self-evident. Just like the wheel, yes? Ignoring prior knowledge is a challenge, but history can be helpful in the endeavour. And history tells us that the human species spent about 200.000 years before they discovered the ethic of reciprocity and the wheel. [qoute]If anyone ever feels like testing it out they find out in short order that punching someone in the face can result in that person beating one almost to death. Which is not reciprocal, per se. Reciprocal justice as an ideal in the West can be traced to the Old Testament. A more lenient, modern standard of justice can similarly be traced back to the New Testament, a continuation of the same vector. quote: Generally speaking, if one wishes for personal safety one starts by first not doing any harm to others - don't hit, don't get hit in return. By which theory, pacifism is the ideal starting point. However, it breaks down when some asshole thinks you've been picking his cherry tree. quote: Almost every other ethic is based upon this first observation alone. Almost every Western ethic can be traced to Judeo-Christianity. That was actually pretty much the subject of Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals." quote: And that's an objective standard, not subjective. The experience is almost universal. Karma is an objective thing, and pretty much universal: cause follows effect in an endless cycle. The ethic of reciprocity is a subjective thing, and mostly works when everyone else agrees to it, which not everyone does. quote: Religion? I don't need it and don't want it. No problem there. I never posited that you do. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Contrast and compare these two doctrines..... [...] The latter is pretty much the gist of what my mum taught me. i suppose we can call it indoctrination, but compared to A) it's clearly a different sort of indoctrination. Then contrast and compare these two doctrines: A) Male children should be circumcised as soon as their health allows. B) Intersex children should be assigned a gender immediately, based on surgical convenience. The former is practiced by Jews, the latter by secular Humanists. Care to provide an argument for either that does not hold equally well for the other when reduced to basic principles? Health, al-Aswad.

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:40:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: Almost every other ethic is based upon this first observation alone. Almost every Western ethic can be traced to Judeo-Christianity. That was actually pretty much the subject of Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals." I doubt that is at all true. What about the Greeks? What about the north Germanic tribes that inform western democracy? What about equality of the sexes which can be directly attributable to pre-Christian north European culture.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:42:04 PM)
There are some spiritual ideas that I find useful, but I go out of my way to keep them private. I occasionally hint about it here and there. But no, I don't have some path to salvation nor do I drink the same kool-aid as most around here. Spiritually, I try to walk in the middle between all things. But I do believe the terrible trinity of Mosaic faiths - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - are extremely dangerous to humanity. They preach superiority, intolerance, violence, and conversion. You join or you are deemed "other." These faiths share the myth of genocide. They are generally so intolerant, they each think of the other two faiths as a kind of heresy or at least as seriously misguided. I really can't recommend them. In fact, I actively oppose almost all of their traditional teachings.

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875