Questions...

[WANDERER]

water

“ Originally Posted by WANDERER

I don’t even know you. ”

And yet you have said:

“ You, and those like you, prefer the gentle breezes of feelings with no conceptual definition. ”

So much for your consistency.

There’s no inconsistency.
That was an evaluation based on what evidence was available.
There was no hate in it.

How can you supprt this claim?
It suggests that the primary principle by which people think and have thought by ever since the begining of religion, is that of sour grapes. With a lot of cynicism.

I support it by looking at the gods proposed and the ideals taught and emulated.

How? How can one earn god/God?
Or, how can one earn an ideal?

Through emulation.

We deserve both the leaders that govern us and the gods that we worship.

How can love be earned?
By what means?

By becoming worthy of the one that loves you.
It depends from whom you seek love.
If you seek love, for example, from an authoritarian you make yourself a follower.

And if those means can't be put to work for some reason for some time, love is not justified anymore?
For example, someone has earned your love, but then gets hit by a car and lies in the hospital in a coma. He now can't do anything to earn your love. Will you cease to love him?

Sadly, and against popular sentiment, that is exactly what happens.
In these cases the mate remains with the injured loved one because of social and cultural reasons.
The love, whatever it is, changes.

I agree with beyondtimeandspace though. You might have a different understanding of what "deeper religious conviction" is though.

Having a deeper religious conviction and being open-minded does not mean that one's religious conviction is *weaker* in comparison to those who are less open-minded.

No, but if you cannot defend or support or explain your religious convictions and rely on mysticism and mystery to remain disciplined to them, then you are weak.
If your religious conviction entails a demand for capitulation or rules that force you to go against your very nature and your immediate personal interests, then yes.
Any faith that tells you to turn the other cheek to someone that slaps you or that your neighbor, no matter how vile and disgusting he/she is, deserves your love and compassion is a faith for imbeciles. It’s a faith more interested in social harmony and cultural stability. A faith out to protects itself and not interested in the individual it is speaking to.

What do you consider to be a "strong religious conviction"? Going around telling everyone what you believe, and condemning them if they refuse to believe what you do?

No, but I expect them to be able to defend themselves against my affronts if they’ve truly thought the issues through.
When they cannot, I assume that they are imbeciles and make no further inquiries as to what they believe.

But I really haven’t made any statement as to what I believe.
I’ve presented a question as to what should be believed and commented on the responses.

A belief is only as good as the mind believing it.

If one isn't going around telling everyone what one believes, and condemning them if they refuse to believe what one does does not mean that one's religious conviction is weaker or more shallow.

I’ve never said what I believe. I’ve only insinuated what I don’t believe.

So, according to you, all people who are not potentially willing to renounce everything they believe qualify as "closed minded and obtuse, also the most immoral and hypocritical humans on this planet"?

Yes.

So are yours.

Yes.

According to you, if you do not wish to be "closed minded and obtuse, also the most immoral and hypocritical human on this planet", you have to be willing to completely deconstruct and rebuild yourself anytime.

Or all the time.
Truth isn’t something you suddenly find and stick to. It’s something you construct over time, re-evaluate and rebuild with every instance of new information or moment of enlightenment.
We are not ‘beings’ we are ‘becomings’.

If I still held the same opinions I did when I was a teenager then I am truly closed-minded and obtuse.

How can they be tested -- when they are self-fulfilling prophecies?!

They're “self-fulfilling” only when held absolutely.
Opens up the free-will issue.

But scientific methodology, skepticism and debate, is how one tests anything.
The sensual world being the only template accessible to us.

So is survival. Wars may be fought "in the name of god", but all wars are fought for survuval.

Exactly. Now combine the two.

The absence of hope, as well as indifference, eventually end up in despair.

Depends on the mind and its character.

For most yes, for others it leads back to liberty and joy.

And? You have thereby *not* discarded the concept of love.

The human heart is made of cells -- so what to it ... nothing. But without it, there is no us.

I haven’t discarded anything.
I’ve attempted to be honest about it and not overly-romanticize and mystify it.

I’ve also attempted to give back value to an emotion that has been glorified and degraded.

*Which* Communism/Christianity/Islam should have been different *in regards* to what?

To its stated ideal and its motive.

Should the Communist Manifesto/The Bible/The Quran be rewritten?
Or should people lead different ways of lives?

I think that firstly they should not be taken literally when they speak allegorically.
Then they should be understood and the decision should be made if their ideal can be lived with and towards what type of man it results in.

Are these ideals realistic or do they propose behaviours that go against fundamental instinctual drives?

I am a firm believer in self-discipline and control but not of a complete mutation of primordial drives.
I'm a naturalist.

If one wants to become an ideal, if one wants to become Discipline -- one will necessarily fail. And the problem isn't in the ideal. The problem is in the way the ideal is approached.

Perhaps.
It also depends in if you are taught to feel ashamed or guilty for failing.

Is hell a fitting place for those you fail? Or is this life a good enough hell for them?

This may seem obvious -- but since you are arguing from perfectionism of performance, this is exactly what your argument comes down to -- Ideal X is bad if one cannot become X.

Exactly.
So why propose an ideal X when it can never be practiced?
It can only result in a sense of failure, disgrace and self-loathing.

Maybe this is exactly what is intended.
Just a thought.
It is the dejected and those that have lost self-worth that become more controllable.

Propose an ideal that will obviously lead to failure and self-loathing, then pick up the by-products and offer them redemption through surrender.

Quit ingenious, really.

Not gods should be so -- the way we *treat* God should be more approachable, more earthly and real.

How do you make omnipotence and omniscience more real and earthly?

God and Christianity, for example, have become ridiculous and dogmatic exactly because they were approached as something foreign. They were approached with the demand of being the panacea -- and discarded when they didn't work as a panacea, or accepted out of despair.

What can be more foreign to man than the concept of perfection and absolute authority that can never and should never be surpassed?

 

[VossistArts]

I wouldn’t normally post in a forum dedicated to a subject so restricting and repetitive and the entire idea of religion seems so infantile and simplistic a concept as to merit no further thought from me.

It would be like debating the existence of a hypothetical Santa, endlessly and trying to prove an assumption with no evidence or logical structure, except for the crude cause/effect prejudices of limited minds, projections of self-interest into the void of ignorance and the influence of fear and hope on a mind that must create its own.

Sure, imaginative speculation can be interesting and satisfying on some level, but religious debates are always limited to a specific two three fates that dominate the world stage, not because of their validity but because of historical circumstance and psychological manipulations.

Nevertheless the idea of belief in god or gods is an essential part of the human condition.
There exists a need, in each man, to reach out into the unknown and to offer sacrifices in return for some consideration and good fortune.
In times of trouble and of suffering each mind screams out into the darkness and listens for a response.
The easiest way to define religious fervour is with one word: Hope.

The question is: What type of deity will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is?

Do the current religious systems benefit or hinder human ascension?

What sort of God would exemplify mankind’s desire to become master of his own domain and willing inheritor of eternity and the responsibility contained in it?

i dont think a God needs to do anything more than make us suffer to inspire us to raise above what we are.

i dont scream in the silence for answers either. i dont feel the need to believe in a deity. i do feel a need for connection tho and to believe in myself.

 

[Silas]

The New Commandments
1. Thou shalt not waste any time in worshipping me. Follow my precepts to live a good live, but do not put aside any time just to stand or sit in rows and repeat how great I am.
2. Thou shalt not SIN. Sin is defined as follows: whatever causes harm, physical or mental, or results in any kind of unearned deprivation of goods or assets or any kind of object of value, to any fellow human being. Let me make this clear regarding sexual morality: whatever you want to do with any part of your body, in private, on your own or with another consenting adult person is pretty much up to you.
3. Thou shalt treat every fellow human being as you would wish to be treated. That is to say, you will not prejudge any other person on any basis whatsoever. Race. Sexual Orientation. Not even (especially not even) if they do not believe in Me. Upon meeting another human being you will treat them with the respect you hope to get in return.
4. Thou shalt not devote any time to futile re-interpretation of My Commandments. Everything I say is clear and unambiguous. When I say "Thou shalt not harm another human being" I mean literally just that. I do not mean "Thou shalt harm those who do not believe in me." Quoting of that line out of context of the whole Commandment is the only crime for which you will go to Hell for all eternity. I hope that's clear.
5. Smiting of one's enemies is right out. I am not kidding about this. No smiting!
6. There is no such thing as Hell. There is no such thing as Heaven, or Paradise. There is, in point of fact, no form of life after death of any kind. This is it, you only have one shot at this life and no other. The only form of immortality consists in having worked throughout your life to make the world a better place for your children to grow up in, and their children after them, and so on.
7. No individual human being is to set herself or himself up in authority over other human beings except by consent of those to be so governed.
8. All Legislation to be drawn up must be to make the world a better place for its inhabitants and must in no wise be altered or modified in any way by any reference or otherwise to My existence.
9. Likewise, all Education of the young must be upon a rational basis. No teacher is to teach solely on the basis of any kind of external Authority, but everything a child is taught must be shown in such a way that the child can see that the learning is true and justified, and no reference to Me or My existence is to alter any part of the Education of a human.
10. There are no such things as nations. There is only Humanity. Live together as friends and neighbours.

You do know that this is possible only for people who are extremeley alike and have the same set of values and preferences?

As soon as there are those who don't approve of the suggested commandments -- per commandment nr. 5 they do exist and are called "enemies" -- this pretty model created by the mentioned commandments collapses. So those enemies come and smite you. What do you do? Do you defend yourself? When you get attacked and harmed, and find yourself having to mend the consequences -- what do you do? Who pays for the harm done to you? If your enemies don't abide by the Commandments, you can't hold them to your laws, and you can't judge them. They are free to do anything to you, while you are bound by your commandments to "Upon meeting another human being you will treat them with the respect you hope to get in return." and "Live together as friends and neighbours."

I'm sorry, water, I'm not quite sure where my Commandments differ from any other set of religious laws in that respect.

 

[Perfect]

Sure. But that takes discipline to learn, for one, and for two, for someone to develop this kind of approach to frustration, one has to grow up in a safe home with attentive parents etc. In a relatively frustration-free environment.

I don’t think pampered individuals develop better resistances or coping mechanisms when facing antagonisms of self-reliance. Actually, I rather think that being raised in a ‘safe’ environment where emotional wounds are preserved would harm ones self-image. How throughout can you truly know yourself without having ever been impoverished mentally/physically?

A boy goes to university and faces torment because he has been guarded against emotional wounds his whole life. Boy comes back with angst ridden scratch marks in wrists.

By the way, I’m augmenting into the premise of this ‘frustration’ thingy, for I don’t want to argue about definitions of words- which most likely would occur.

Go tell the people starving in Africa, or those left homeles after the tsunami that they should "vent their frustration with means that inhabit value, or intellectual avocation".

It doesn't work that way. Your suggestion is nice, but inapplicable once the frustration already exists.

And about that Africa/tsunami argument..

That is a question of lacking/being deprived the most fundamental needs; food and shelter. What I’m talking about is more about being lost in ones mind. A tribesman might call deities to help him find food for his family; but the tribesman still goes out and hunts. He does not place his trust completely upon something he deep inside knows wont happen.

Why do you think it is so?

Mostly because of poor knowledge about the intangibles of self. You can not solve something when you can’t perceive its origin (or it?). You turn to the external; and voila, it’s out of your hands, an easy way out.

It all depends on what you understand by "hope and guidance". If what one really means by that is that God should live their lives for them -- then such people shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't happen.

I did not talk about blind faith here, I meant the medium of god as something that an intelligent individual deep inside knows to be false, but still chooses to interact with- for it helps to ease his life.

And by this I was posing a question; why not step out from the circle of fallacies. It is a way more districting medium when in comparison with analytical problem solving abilities

Do you believe that there is a clearly drawn line between "fantasy" and "creativity"?
For one must be creative in order to come up with "means that inhabit value, or intellectual avocation".

I was conjoining the word fantasy with the idea of external medium of gullibility. I was not defining the fucking word to meet any absolutes.

 

[water]

There’s no inconsistency.
That was an evaluation based on what evidence was available.
There was no hate in it.

So you do claim to know something; something that enables you to say "You, and those like you, prefer the gentle breezes of feelings with no conceptual definition." -- and then you deny having this knowledge by saying "I don’t even know you."

...

I support it by looking at the gods proposed and the ideals taught and emulated.

It is *your* understanding of those gods and those ideals.

For example, do you believe that respecting someone else necessarily comes at the cost (or at least some loss) of self-respect?

How can love be earned?
By what means?

By becoming worthy of the one that loves you.

It depends from whom you seek love.
If you seek love, for example, from an authoritarian you make yourself a follower.

To list more examples to make this clearer:

A child has to become worthy of parental love? Parental love has to be earned, or it is worthless? How does a newborn, or even an unborn, *earn* love?


"By becoming worthy of the one that loves you." -- By this you suppose that you are already loved.

To turn the perspective around: People earn your love by becoming worthy of you, while you already love them.
?

What does it take for you to love someone?
How does one earn your love?
By becoming worthy of you?

How do you earn other people's love? By becoming worthy of them?

And if those means can't be put to work for some reason for some time, love is not justified anymore?
For example, someone has earned your love, but then gets hit by a car and lies in the hospital in a coma. He now can't do anything to earn your love. Will you cease to love him?

Sadly, and against popular sentiment, that is exactly what happens.
In these cases the mate remains with the injured loved one because of social and cultural reasons.
The love, whatever it is, changes.

So you would cease to love someone whom you once loved, but now lies in a coma? You would leave them?

What about less complete disruption of communication -- Your loved one has a flu and can't go skiing with you. Will you stop loving her?

No, but if you cannot defend or support or explain your religious convictions and rely on mysticism and mystery to remain disciplined to them, then you are weak.

First of all, what does it mean to "defend or support or explain your religious convictions"?

Secondly, what does it mean to "rely on mysticism and mystery"? For example, astrophysics or nuclear physics are by those who have studied that by no means mystical or mysterious -- the matter itself may be, but the theories aren't. However, I know next to nothing about nuclear physics, and if you show me those theories, they will be to me mysterious and mystical. It is on faith, since I am told they are scientific, that I take that those theories are not "mysterious and mystical", while I myself have no way of developing my own opinion on that.

The field of science is vast. We accept *on faith* that scientific theories are scientific. There is no way an individual could actually go and test each scientific theory for himself, he just has to take it on faith that they are scientific and valid.

The social consensus about the validity of science has the nature of hearsay, and can be discarded on this basis.

If your religious conviction entails a demand for capitulation or rules that force you to go against your very nature and your immediate personal interests, then yes.

In this case, you are thinking of people who regret certain things about their religion?
I once met a Mormon convert, and she said that the only thing she regrets about becoming a Mormon is that she isn't allowed to drink vine anymore.

I think those people are only institutionally religious; to them, their own religion is a form they follow, while they don't really agree with it.

Personally, I think such religiousness is of little worth. And to use this kind of religiousness as an argument against religion in general is a strawman.

Any faith that tells you to turn the other cheek to someone that slaps you or that your neighbor, no matter how vile and disgusting he/she is, deserves your love and compassion is a faith for imbeciles. It’s a faith more interested in social harmony and cultural stability. A faith out to protects itself and not interested in the individual it is speaking to.

First of all, for an individual to be able to live a what he considers a decent life, a certain social harmony and cultural stability are necessary.
It does not happen that one could live happily in one's smug little house, while the world outside is at war.

Secondly, what would you like to do with that neighbour who is vile and disgusting?

Thirdly, what does it mean for you to have compassion for someone?

What do you consider to be a "strong religious conviction"? Going around telling everyone what you believe, and condemning them if they refuse to believe what you do?

No, but I expect them to be able to defend themselves against my affronts if they’ve truly thought the issues through.

When they cannot, I assume that they are imbeciles and make no further inquiries as to what they believe.

Who are you to them that they should care what you think of them?

But I really haven’t made any statement as to what I believe.
I’ve presented a question as to what should be believed and commented on the responses.

On what grounds can you make any assertions about what should be believed?

So, according to you, all people who are not potentially willing to renounce everything they believe qualify as "closed minded and obtuse, also the most immoral and hypocritical humans on this planet"?

Yes.

So are yours.

Yes.

According to you, if you do not wish to be "closed minded and obtuse, also the most immoral and hypocritical human on this planet", you have to be willing to completely deconstruct and rebuild yourself anytime.

Or all the time.
Truth isn’t something you suddenly find and stick to. It’s something you construct over time, re-evaluate and rebuild with every instance of new information or moment of enlightenment.
We are not ‘beings’ we are ‘becomings’.

Can you be trusted?
Do you trust anyone?

How can they be tested -- when they are self-fulfilling prophecies?!

They're “self-fulfilling” only when held absolutely.
Opens up the free-will issue.

But scientific methodology, skepticism and debate, is how one tests anything.
The sensual world being the only template accessible to us.

And when do you actually *live* what you believe?

And as far as scientific methodology, skepticism and debate go: They are neverending, they are circular and always pulling the rug from their own feet. You never can really prove anything that way; all that is proven that way is valid only until further inquiry proves otherwise. Which is to say that all is relative.

But when we make our choices in everyday life, we do not act relatively, we do choose somehow, in accordance with some values and preferences.
But, according to scientific inquiry, we should not, as these values and preferences may not be the optimal ones. So what does that make of us and life?

So is survival. Wars may be fought "in the name of god", but all wars are fought for survuval.

Exactly. Now combine the two.

Explain.

Just because someone does something in the name of God does not mean that God approves of this, or that God has ordered it. It also doesn't mean that those actions done in God's name can be put against God.

And? You have thereby *not* discarded the concept of love.

The human heart is made of cells -- so what to it ... nothing. But without it, there is no us.

I haven’t discarded anything.
I’ve attempted to be honest about it and not overly-romanticize and mystify it.

All you've done is that you have offered a certain biological theory of what love is.
Are scientific explanations the only ones you would accept as valid?

*Which* Communism/Christianity/Islam should have been different *in regards* to what?

To its stated ideal and its motive.

I asked *which* -- and then developed my thought further:

Should the Communist Manifesto/The Bible/The Quran be rewritten?
Or should people lead different ways of lives?

I think that firstly they should not be taken literally when they speak allegorically.
Then they should be understood and the decision should be made if their ideal can be lived with and towards what type of man it results in.

When talking about any ideology, we always have to distinguish between what the texts supposedly propose and what has been declared as that ideology by historically existing people.

For example, Christianity is often looked down on because people who call themselves Christians aren't what the Bible supposedly says they should be. Those are arguments made from perfectionism of performance.

And that's just it: Just because someone calls himself to be Christian does not make him one, and we should not simply blindly accept everyone to be what they say about themselves.

Yet a popular argument against Christianity is based excatly on this fallacy: "If someone calls himself a Christian, then he is a Christian. If this person lies, cheats, etc., then this means that Christianity approves of lying and cheating etc. Therefore, Christianity is to be discarded as immoral." -- This is fallacious thinking, based on the avoidance of personally finding out whether a person is what they proclaim to be.

Are these ideals realistic or do they propose behaviours that go against fundamental instinctual drives?

Any limited living social system eventually develops self-organizing principles that make it a living system.
When these self-organizing principles are taken out of context and scrutinized, they are often such that they seem to contradict the very basic principles that make the system alive. We get sets of opposing values and preferences: the Bible says both love your enemy, and kill your enemy, for example.

As far as I know, no established, historically existing religion "proposes behaviours that go against fundamental instinctual drives". They all suggest ways of organizing the fundamental instinctual drives so that the social system is alive and prospering.

Of course, the very idea that the instinctual drives are to be organized goes against the instinctual drives. But it is a part of self-preservation to not let self-preservation go wild. A population that multiplies without any regard to the environment, eventually drains the environment and thereby terminates its own existence.
In order to survive, there is an antagonism of actions in which the instinctual drives are applied.

This has nothing in particular to do with specific ideologies. An ideology is good if it enables the society keeping that ideology to prosper without endangering the environment they live in.

If one wants to become an ideal, if one wants to become Discipline -- one will necessarily fail. And the problem isn't in the ideal. The problem is in the way the ideal is approached.

Perhaps.
It also depends in if you are taught to feel ashamed or guilty for failing.

"Shame" and "guilt" are certain ways of conceptualizing into words that one hasn't lived up to one's values and preferences.
Nobody concerned with their survival will be indifferent towards failing to live up to their values and preferences (V&P). Ideally, if one doesn't live up to one's V&P, this encourages to seek further and not be content with failure.

If a bear does not find food, it cannot just sit there and be content with that failure -- it will be driven to look further.
And other V&P function by the same principle as seeking food, shelter and a mate.

For example, if one's V&P is discipline, and one fails to live up to it some day -- if one would be indifferent to that failure, that V&P would decay and slowly disappear. Continuity of identity is endagered, as well as survival.

Is hell a fitting place for those you fail? Or is this life a good enough hell for them?

Explain.

This may seem obvious -- but since you are arguing from perfectionism of performance, this is exactly what your argument comes down to -- Ideal X is bad if one cannot become X.

Exactly.
So why propose an ideal X when it can never be practiced?
It can only result in a sense of failure, disgrace and self-loathing.

No no no. For example, discpline can be practiced, and practicing it does have its benefits. But I don't see why temporarily failing to live up to it should end in "disgrace and self-loathing". This happens only if the ideal is to be held to be more important than the person holding that ideal.

Maybe this is exactly what is intended.
Just a thought.
It is the dejected and those that have lost self-worth that become more controllable.

Propose an ideal that will obviously lead to failure and self-loathing, then pick up the by-products and offer them redemption through surrender.

Capitalism perfected this.

Quit ingenious, really.

QuitE.

Not gods should be so -- the way we *treat* God should be more approachable, more earthly and real.

How do you make omnipotence and omniscience more real and earthly?

I don't see why that would be needed. I said "the way we *treat* God should be more approachable, more earthly and real". Instead of treating God like a foreigner and something unknowable, God shouldbe treated as something that can be known.
You left out my next paragraph.

What can be more foreign to man than the concept of perfection and absolute authority that can never and should never be surpassed?

As for "absolute authority that can never and should never be surpassed" -- unless a society agrees to hold eachother to an authority that is the highest, unsurpassable and absolute, there can be no concept of justice. Social systems, if they are to survive, develop such concepts of justice (in one form or another), or they decay and die.


* * *

I'm sorry, water, I'm not quite sure where my Commandments differ from any other set of religious laws in that respect.

In that they are nice. Religious laws of historical religions are guided by the rule It is a matter of life and death. They are mostly merciless against those holding different laws. These are the expressions of the self-preservation mechanism. When fighting for survival, they don't turn the other cheek.

Your set is lovey-dovey and is applicable only as long as nobody seriously harms you. When fighting for survival, you are suggesting to turn the other cheek. Do that, and you will perish.

 

[Jenyar]

Your set is lovey-dovey and is applicable only as long as nobody seriously harms you. When fighting for survival, you are suggesting to turn the other cheek. Do that, and you will perish.

I just want to add this: "survival" can be an ideal, but it needs further clarification. Survival of what?

When everybody is fighting for his own survival and self-preservation, chaos will reign, because a person's sense of 'self' is never only evolutionary or biological. They are never fighting only against natural threats. A biological definition of who we are - of the identity and sitz im leben of homo sapiens - is certainly scientific. But I can echo your question: Are scientific explanations the only ones you would accept as valid?

Sometimes we are fed this vision of "humanity" or "life" "striving for survival" in some common utopian harmony. But that is already not natural. It betrays an anthropocentric bias, that we see ourselves apart from the rest of nature - the forces of death, decay and entropy. When we see some people as friends and others as enemies, we are making a distinction that isn't just based on "nature", but on our perception of the world - of how it is and how we think it should be.

That's why, when fighting for survival, some people indeed see wisdom in turning the other cheek. Their sense of self - of who and what they are fighting to preserve - allows for that, even requires it. What they include in their identities also determines what they will fight against, what they will resist.

Someone who cares for a friend will include the friend in their own identity, "carry them in their heart", and might sacrifice a certain amount of pleasure for their sake. They will resist something that threatens the friendship, maybe even in the friend's absence. But someone who loves another enough to devote their life to them, may give heart, mind and soul for them. Not even "serious harm" or death will outweigh such love. The survival of the relationship becomes a matter of life and death.

 

[Silas]

I'm sorry, water, I'm not quite sure where my Commandments differ from any other set of religious laws in that respect.

In that they are nice. Religious laws of historical religions are guided by the rule It is a matter of life and death. They are mostly merciless against those holding different laws. These are the expressions of the self-preservation mechanism. When fighting for survival, they don't turn the other cheek.

Your set is lovey-dovey and is applicable only as long as nobody seriously harms you. When fighting for survival, you are suggesting to turn the other cheek. Do that, and you will perish.

Well, not to overstate the obvious, but my intention was to get away from the contradictory, xenophobic, hatred filled religious laws that most of us are used to.

I mean, duh, those other religions have failed to answer WANDERER's question, why would I come up with the same sort of thing as them? You may think my laws are namby-pamby nicely-nicely "everything in the Garden is lovely" but I assure you that they nontheless hold the key to humanity's future happiness and prosperity. Altruism, mutual respect and cooperation has not resulted in some backward economic island while distrustful nations build walls and prosper. It works, and it needs to be made the global attitude.

I personally have no problem at all with the moral relativism of my, politically liberal, outlook. Whether it's based upon religion or not, other cultures' mores which do not accord equality to women and vilify homosexuals and hate other nations on no basis other than they are other nations or religions, are bad and those cultures must be eradicated, as we are now doing in Iraq.

 

[Jenyar]

8. All Legislation to be drawn up must be to make the world a better place for its inhabitants and must in no wise be altered or modified in any way by any reference or otherwise to My existence.

Better for whom? For those who love rules or those who don't? Do your laws make provision for anarchists and criminals? How will they be judged, if they are part of this world of Humanity, if they are to be your friends and neighbours?

 

[Silas]

8. All Legislation to be drawn up must be to make the world a better place for its inhabitants and must in no wise be altered or modified in any way by any reference or otherwise to My existence.

Better for whom? For those who love rules or those who don't? Do your laws make provision for anarchists and criminals? How will they be judged, if they are part of this world of Humanity, if they are to be your friends and neighbours?

What a bizarre question! Let me see if there's an answer in my Commandments to your worries about criminals and anarchists.

8. All Legislation to be drawn up must be to make the world a better place for its inhabitants and must in no wise be altered or modified in any way by any reference or otherwise to My existence.

How people are to be judged is, rather like in the real world, up to the people. The only difference is that unlike JudeaoChristianIslamity, it being up to the people is itself implied by my Commandments.

 

[Jenyar]

What a bizarre question! Let me see if there's an answer in my Commandments to your worries about criminals and anarchists.

Unless your laws only apply in fantastical world where nobody is driven by greed and selfishness, and where power never corrupts, then it's not bizarre at all. It isn't bad laws that make people do bad things.

How people are to be judged is, rather like in the real world, up to the people. The only difference is that unlike JudeaoChristianIslamity, it being up to the people is itself implied by my Commandments.

People don't evaporate after they have been judged by people. They end up in prisons and correctional facilities, from where they can and will escape (if they weren't succesful at evading your authorities). Your world will look no different than this one, except that the only justice will be up to the ruler in power, and will only apply to those who get caught.

 

[water]

Well, not to overstate the obvious, but my intention was to get away from the contradictory, xenophobic, hatred filled religious laws that most of us are used to.

And you saying this:

"...and those cultures must be eradicated, as we are now doing in Iraq."

is not contradictory, xenophobic, hatred filled?

I mean, duh, those other religions have failed to answer WANDERER's question, why would I come up with the same sort of thing as them?

And who is Wanderer that what he thinks would determine whether a religion is worthy of following or not?

You may think my laws are namby-pamby nicely-nicely "everything in the Garden is lovely" but I assure you that they nontheless hold the key to humanity's future happiness and prosperity. Altruism, mutual respect and cooperation has not resulted in some backward economic island while distrustful nations build walls and prosper.

And this:

"...and those cultures must be eradicated, as we are now doing in Iraq."

is an expression of "altruism, mutual respect and cooperation"?

It works, and it needs to be made the global attitude.

"Needs to be made". Your system is just as dictatorial as any other ideological system.

I personally have no problem at all with the moral relativism of my, politically liberal, outlook. Whether it's based upon religion or not, other cultures' mores which do not accord equality to women and vilify homosexuals and hate other nations on no basis other than they are other nations or religions, are bad and those cultures must be eradicated, as we are now doing in Iraq.

And this eradication is the cost for your altruistic, cooperative, mutually respectful system to come true.

And when you have eradicated all those whom you do not like, then you will be happy and prosperous.

What a bizarre question! Let me see if there's an answer in my Commandments to your worries about criminals and anarchists.

“ Originally Posted by Silas
8. All Legislation to be drawn up must be to make the world a better place for its inhabitants and must in no wise be altered or modified in any way by any reference or otherwise to My existence. ”

How people are to be judged is, rather like in the real world, up to the people. The only difference is that unlike JudeaoChristianIslamity, it being up to the people is itself implied by my Commandments.

Yes, and being it up to the people, as long as there are people who do not think the same way, means that wars will go on, until the last man standing.

If you say that it is "up to the people", you have said as much as nothing. It is up to the people anyway, always has been.


Your system is no different than any other dictatorial system, only that you are so shameless as to call yours to be about "humanity, altrusim, cooperation".


* * *

I just want to add this: "survival" can be an ideal, but it needs further clarification. Survival of what?

When everybody is fighting for his own survival and self-preservation, chaos will reign, because a person's sense of 'self' is never only evolutionary or biological.

Chaos never reigns for a long time. All systems where its elements are interdependent eventually come up with some kind of order.

Sometimes we are fed this vision of "humanity" or "life" "striving for survival" in some common utopian harmony. But that is already not natural. It betrays an anthropocentric bias, that we see ourselves apart from the rest of nature - the forces of death, decay and entropy. When we see some people as friends and others as enemies, we are making a distinction that isn't just based on "nature", but on our perception of the world - of how it is and how we think it should be.

That's why, when fighting for survival, some people indeed see wisdom in turning the other cheek. Their sense of self - of who and what they are fighting to preserve - allows for that, even requires it. What they include in their identities also determines what they will fight against, what they will resist.

Someone who cares for a friend will include the friend in their own identity, "carry them in their heart", and might sacrifice a certain amount of pleasure for their sake. They will resist something that threatens the friendship, maybe even in the friend's absence. But someone who loves another enough to devote their life to them, may give heart, mind and soul for them. Not even "serious harm" or death will outweigh such love. The survival of the relationship becomes a matter of life and death.

Like I said, chaos never reigns for a long time. All systems where its elements are interdependent -- and the human society certainly is such a system -- eventually come up with some kind of order.
This also means that some actions, even though justified by the immediate needs, are omitted. Like remaining a friend to someone even after you haven't spoken to them for a couple of days -- when the only rational action would be to discard that person as a friend.
To make order means to sacrifice a certain chaos, and also to sacrifice answering needs immediately.

What they include in their identities also determines what they will fight against, what they will resist.

Exactly. The popular psychology is that of exclusivistic individualism, treating each individual as if he were as special as if he indeed had fallen from the moon. For so separate from society is the individual seen by those theories, while society is seen as some dreadful monster.
(But when you think: a group of exclusivistic individuals make a monstrous society.)

Needless to say, people who perceive themselves to be exclusivisticly individualistic do not make a viable social system.

 

[Silas]

But that wasn't the question, was it? The question was "What type of deity will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is?"

Unless your laws only apply in fantastical world where nobody is driven by greed and selfishness, and where power never corrupts, then it's not bizarre at all. It isn't bad laws that make people do bad things.

People don't evaporate after they have been judged by people. They end up in prisons and correctional facilities, from where they can and will escape (if they weren't succesful at evading your authorities). Your world will look no different than this one, except that the only justice will be up to the ruler in power, and will only apply to those who get caught.

What the hell are you even talking about? My Commandments are the rules, that's all. The rules are undoubtedly going to be broken. People who break the Commandments are breaking the Social Contract and will be dealt with in accordance with the best principles of Justice. How on earth is any of that less true of the Judeo-Christian Commandments or the Muslim Commandments or any other religious commandments?

My rules are different in kind and have a different outlook. But there's nothing in the rules or in my having defined them that will actually make the rules themselves ineluctable, any more than the current Commandments are ineluctable.

Commandments are a guide to morality - my morality may be different, but I think it's a good morality.

 

[Silas]

And you saying this:

"...and those cultures must be eradicated, as we are now doing in Iraq."

is not contradictory, xenophobic, hatred filled?

Actually it isn't. I'm talking about eradicating a culture by means of education, not the people who make up that culture. But let's say that it is - I, Silas, am a human being and like all human beings I am filled with conflict and contradiction. I, personally, am not the God I posited who sets down those Commandments.

And who is Wanderer that what he thinks would determine whether a religion is worthy of following or not?

Uh, he's the topic author? He asked the question? My contributions here are an attempt to answer a question put by a forum contributor, as are yours to answer mine? What the hell kind of question was that?? This is a FORUM.

And this:

"...and those cultures must be eradicated, as we are now doing in Iraq."

is an expression of "altruism, mutual respect and cooperation"?

See above.

"Needs to be made". Your system is just as dictatorial as any other ideological system.

Did I say that it wasn't? The Commandments I suggested are just that - written rules which express some of my personal morality and what I would like to see in the world. However, I am in fact anti-Authoritarian by instinct and would automatically reject any such deity (and any deities actually worshipped in real life) no matter what the Commandments were. That does not mean I would go out of my way to flout them. I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, but that does not mean I routinely kill people, commit adultery (chance would be a fine thing!) or fail to honour my parents.

And this eradication is the cost for your altruistic, cooperative, mutually respectful system to come true.

And when you have eradicated all those whom you do not like, then you will be happy and prosperous.

Again, eradicating bad beliefs is what I was talking about, not eradicating bad people. And I am not in the position to try to eradicate those beliefs. And if I were in such a position I would not try to eradicate those beliefs in any way that I found morally repugnant. This is because I believe in my Commandment about treating people with respect.

Yes, and being it up to the people, as long as there are people who do not think the same way, means that wars will go on, until the last man standing.

For the last time, water and Jenyar, why the hell are you attacking my Commandments on the basis that not everybody thinks the same way and people will carry on fighting? I already know that! How is that different from the current Commandments!!?

If you say that it is "up to the people", you have said as much as nothing. It is up to the people anyway, always has been.

Whereabouts? You're falling into the trap of thinking that your own freedoms are and always have been Universal. Look around the world, water, and take in a couple of history books - this is very far from the case.

Your system is no different than any other dictatorial system, only that you are so shameless as to call yours to be about "humanity, altrusim, cooperation".

It's certainly no different from any other religious dictatorial system in that it imposes certain rules. On the other hand, it's considerably different from dictatorial systems in that the only thing it really dictates is "Do not be dictated to".

Needless to say, people who perceive themselves to be exclusivisticly individualistic do not make a viable social system.

I think the vast majority of Americans would violently disagree.

 

[Jenyar]

Chaos never reigns for a long time. All systems where its elements are interdependent eventually come up with some kind of order.

That depends on the scale of your perspective. Simply from the perspective of entropy, chaos has been ruling for millions of years. The universe is running down, moving from order into disorder. From the perspective of human harmony, chaos has ruled on earth since the first sin.

Like I said, chaos never reigns for a long time. All systems where its elements are interdependent -- and the human society certainly is such a system -- eventually come up with some kind of order.

They did come up with some kind of order. We call it justice. Left to itself, everything will eventually return to the way it was, but like an engine that keeps on running while its fuel last, people can perpetuate disorder as long as they have a will to. People only settle when they're dead. Death is nature at rest, since itself is a temporary suspension of chaos. Since we're not isolated systems, we can only reach such equilibrium spiritually (some would prefer to say 'psychologically') - when we reach it naturally, we die.

This also means that some actions, even though justified by the immediate needs, are omitted. Like remaining a friend to someone even after you haven't spoken to them for a couple of days -- when the only rational action would be to discard that person as a friend.
To make order means to sacrifice a certain chaos, and also to sacrifice answering needs immediately.

That comes with the benefit of having faith in the order and the relationship. In knowing that the immediate is not all there is. For someone who does not believe in the firendship, the rational action is to discard it as soon as things become difficult; for someone who does believe in it, the rational action is to trust it, especially during chaotic times.

 

[WANDERER]

water

So you do claim to know something; something that enables you to say "You, and those like you, prefer the gentle breezes of feelings with no conceptual definition." -- and then you deny having this knowledge by saying "I don’t even know you."

I don’t know Bush either but I can still make evaluations about him.

Is this all part of some Socratic method, a-la-water?

For example, do you believe that respecting someone else necessarily comes at the cost (or at least some loss) of self-respect?

Everything comes with a cost.
Analysis consists in evaluating the cost/benefit balances.

But it depends on the situation.
Some respect does come at a high cost to self-respect but it must compensate the loss with another gain, if it is healthy.

A child has to become worthy of parental love? Parental love has to be earned, or it is worthless? How does a newborn, or even an unborn, *earn* love?

In this case the parent loves the potential in the child or loves himself/herself through the child; it being a representation or an extension of self.
Many human acts of altruism, compassion and cooperation can be better explained from a gene perspective.

What does it take for you to love someone?

A bottle of vodka and an erection.

How does one earn your love?

By paying $200

By becoming worthy of you?

By becoming my bitch

How do you earn other people's love? By becoming worthy of them?

Well I guess it depends if we are talking about Eros or Agape.
There is purely instinctual emotion and then emotion born of reason.

I would say that being as close to their ideal or fulfilling a need, whether physical or psychological, is how one earns love.

Again a cost/benefit analysis is necessary.

So you would cease to love someone whom you once loved, but now lies in a coma? You would leave them?

Other factors come into play here.
But, yes if the cost to me was detrimental to my well being I would still maintain my emotions that attracted me to them in memory but they would no longer apply in the present.
Love, from my experience, doesn’t fade or go away if it is real and pure. It lingers and persists, even if reason pushes it back and represses it.

Would you stay with him?

What about less complete disruption of communication -- Your loved one has a flu and can't go skiing with you. Will you stop loving her?

No, I would probably give her a back rub.

First of all, what does it mean to "defend or support or explain your religious convictions"?

Since we’re playing 200 questions… It’s when you can offer rational, logical arguments or empirical evidence in support of….

Secondly, what does it mean to "rely on mysticism and mystery"? For example, astrophysics or nuclear physics are by those who have studied that by no means mystical or mysterious -- the matter itself may be, but the theories aren't. However, I know next to nothing about nuclear physics, and if you show me those theories, they will be to me mysterious and mystical. It is on faith, since I am told they are scientific, that I take that those theories are not "mysterious and mystical", while I myself have no way of developing my own opinion on that.

Exactly. So ignorance results in the sense of mystery and creates the mystical.
Now imagine a faith where not even the “experts” can offer you anything but this.
There you have religion.

The field of science is vast. We accept *on faith* that scientific theories are scientific. There is no way an individual could actually go and test each scientific theory for himself, he just has to take it on faith that they are scientific and valid.

The social consensus about the validity of science has the nature of hearsay, and can be discarded on this basis.

And it explains why science has often replaced religion as a faith.

Most science can be personally verified and explored but when it can’t it depends just as much on faith as anything else.

Where two opposing theories, which cannot be directly verified, struggle for your belief then one considers the source of the information, its past success or failure, and its overall performance.

In this case, you are thinking of people who regret certain things about their religion?
I once met a Mormon convert, and she said that the only thing she regrets about becoming a Mormon is that she isn't allowed to drink vine anymore.

I think those people are only institutionally religious; to them, their own religion is a form they follow, while they don't really agree with it.

Personally, I think such religiousness is of little worth. And to use this kind of religiousness as an argument against religion in general is a strawman.

From my perspective most religious thinkers or the faithful in general don’t live up to the rules of their faith. They expect all the benefits and gifts but always fall short in paying for them or for sacrificing for their attainment.

First of all, for an individual to be able to live a what he considers a decent life, a certain social harmony and cultural stability are necessary.
It does not happen that one could live happily in one's smug little house, while the world outside is at war.

In other words, most popular religions depend on a utopian environment and speak to an idealized human.
Out of touch with reality.

Secondly, what would you like to do with that neighbour who is vile and disgusting?

Uh…kill him...If I had my way.

No, I would have him be inebriated with mythology and kept under control with fear and hope.

But we aren’t talking about him. We are talking about us in relation to him.

Thirdly, what does it mean for you to have compassion for someone?

It means placing my self in his shoes and extrapolating all the emotions associated with his plight. Then, if there is a connection with him, acting upon this feeling.
Offering what I would want to be offered if I were in his place.
Again cost/benefit.

Who are you to them that they should care what you think of them?

Who are you to me, to ask?

Who are they to me, for me to care if they care?

On what grounds can you make any assertions about what should be believed?

A question is not an assertion.

I am a thinking human being.
On what grounds do you not make assertions or ask questions?
Why are you even here, then?

Can you be trusted?

It depends.

Do you trust anyone?

With difficulty and in time.

And when do you actually *live* what you believe?

I struggle to daily.
But most of my anger is focused on the mechanisms that prevent me from living as I believe.
This is why most of my postings involve social, cultural and psychological issues.
I become repetitive but, for me, if a subject has no practical and immediate application it isn’t worth wasting too much time over.

If there were an accessible frontier to escape into, I would have left a while ago.

And as far as scientific methodology, skepticism and debate go: They are neverending, they are circular and always pulling the rug from their own feet. You never can really prove anything that way; all that is proven that way is valid only until further inquiry proves otherwise. Which is to say that all is relative.

But when we make our choices in everyday life, we do not act relatively, we do choose somehow, in accordance with some values and preferences.

Of course, there is discordance between what we think and how we act.

Even a nihilist lives as if the world matters.
A sceptic acts as if there are absolute truths, even if he might reject them intellectually.

Physically we are stuck in certain dimensions and within specific sensual boundaries.
Mentally we are able to transcend these limits - using imagination and abstraction - with uncertainty and speculation. Our mind isn’t temporally or physically restricted whereas the vehicle it exists within is and the instruments feeding it are.

In the end the mind must decide if it will reconcile itself with the immediate reality and enjoy it or if it will live out its time in uncertainty.

But, according to scientific inquiry, we should not, as these values and preferences may not be the optimal ones. So what does that make of us and life?

Prisoners.

Explain.

So why not have a god that exalts warfare and bloodshed?

Just because someone does something in the name of God does not mean that God approves of this, or that God has ordered it. It also doesn't mean that those actions done in God's name can be put against God.

Why should man seek anyone’s approval to live out his nature or to create his own ideals? You are speaking from the perspective of a belief in a God that disapproves of violence and hatred. A Christian god.

All you've done is that you have offered a certain biological theory of what love is.
Are scientific explanations the only ones you would accept as valid?

No, but they are the only explanations, thus far, that satisfy my logic.

When talking about any ideology, we always have to distinguish between what the texts supposedly propose and what has been declared as that ideology by historically existing people.

For example, Christianity is often looked down on because people who call themselves Christians aren't what the Bible supposedly says they should be. Those are arguments made from perfectionism of performance.

And that's just it: Just because someone calls himself to be Christian does not make him one, and we should not simply blindly accept everyone to be what they say about themselves.

Yet a popular argument against Christianity is based excatly on this fallacy: "If someone calls himself a Christian, then he is a Christian. If this person lies, cheats, etc., then this means that Christianity approves of lying and cheating etc. Therefore, Christianity is to be discarded as immoral." -- This is fallacious thinking, based on the avoidance of personally finding out whether a person is what they proclaim to be.

I come to it from the perspective of acquiring an ideal’s or an ideology’s worth by observing its results.

Sure, Christianity and Communism are systems better suited for ant-like creatures but should we then make humanity into this ideal and should we expect humans today to live up to these standards?

Any limited living social system eventually develops self-organizing principles that make it a living system.
When these self-organizing principles are taken out of context and scrutinized, they are often such that they seem to contradict the very basic principles that make the system alive. We get sets of opposing values and preferences: the Bible says both love your enemy, and kill your enemy, for example.

The Bible is purposefully written in ambiguous and easily reinterpreted language.

As far as I know, no established, historically existing religion "proposes behaviours that go against fundamental instinctual drives". They all suggest ways of organizing the fundamental instinctual drives so that the social system is alive and prospering.

Why should the social system take precedence over the single individual?
What will become of the individual, in time, if this social pressure persists?
Why do larger social constructs exude more influence over us than smaller more immediate social groupings?

Of course, the very idea that the instinctual drives are to be organized goes against the instinctual drives. But it is a part of self-preservation to not let self-preservation go wild. A population that multiplies without any regard to the environment, eventually drains the environment and thereby terminates its own existence.
In order to survive, there is an antagonism of actions in which the instinctual drives are applied.

And here is the problem: rampant procreation, a defence of the weakest within the herd, and an absence of frontiers.
Rats trapped in a cage.

Then certain ideologies and faiths become important to the harmony of the whole.

A recipe for disaster.

This has nothing in particular to do with specific ideologies. An ideology is good if it enables the society keeping that ideology to prosper without endangering the environment they live in.

I’m more concerned about the individual member within the system.

Explain.

I mean life itself punishes stupidity and uncooperative behaviour.
The group chastises and quarantines disruptive individuals without the need for greater retribution.
The creation of a Hell is only essential for people that cannot be controlled through reason because they have so little of it, and so require a greater threat.
It itself is the result of a weakening herd.

You allow weakness to procreate, you defend it and offer it rights and you get a population dominated by individuals with no self-discipline or little rational thought.
This leads to the requirement for more powerful methods of coercion.

But I agree that most people have to be controlled and kept stupid. I’m not speaking on their behalf.
I’m speaking about a certain distinct element within humanity that needs no promise or threat to have integrity and act rationally.
I’m talking about a segment where the mind has some control over the instinct.

No no no. For example, discpline can be practiced, and practicing it does have its benefits. But I don't see why temporarily failing to live up to it should end in "disgrace and self-loathing". This happens only if the ideal is to be held to be more important than the person holding that ideal.

And isn’t this what the popular religions do?

I don't see why that would be needed. I said "the way we *treat* God should be more approachable, more earthly and real". Instead of treating God like a foreigner and something unknowable, God shouldbe treated as something that can be known.

How can such an alien creature ever be known?

How can the imperfect even attempt to define perfection?
There’s nothing earthly about the Christian God, for instance.
They had to come up with Jesus to make him more real, more human.

As for "absolute authority that can never and should never be surpassed" -- unless a society agrees to hold eachother to an authority that is the highest, unsurpassable and absolute, there can be no concept of justice. Social systems, if they are to survive, develop such concepts of justice (in one form or another), or they decay and die.

One mans justice is another’s injustice.

But it’s true that any social organization entails the need for discipline to particular ideas.

The question is which ones will lead to better results?

That’s why I posited the question about which type of god would best serve mankind’s aspirations.

 

[water]

"...and those cultures must be eradicated, as we are now doing in Iraq."

is not contradictory, xenophobic, hatred filled?

Actually it isn't. I'm talking about eradicating a culture by means of education, not the people who make up that culture.

Bah. If I am from that other culture and you come to me with the idea to eradicate my culture -- by whatever means -- why should I accept you, welcome you?

And education to what? By whose standards?
To become slaves to some other nation?

But let's say that it is - I, Silas, am a human being and like all human beings I am filled with conflict and contradiction. I, personally, am not the God I posited who sets down those Commandments.

You certainly aren't that god who posited those commandments, but you are acting in their name. And yet you are taking your own responsibility out of your hands.
Unless those rules actually came from God, and this is accepted, your rules are still the rules of a man, no matter what they say, and as such carry no more value and importance than any other man's rules. -- That is, those commandments do not carry any kind of real obligation.

Did I say that it wasn't? The Commandments I suggested are just that - written rules which express some of my personal morality and what I would like to see in the world.

If it means that all the citizens of the world are first to be made equal to eachother, holding to the same value system, even by means of force, then I fail to see where the "altruism, mutual respect and cooperation", the "Live together as friends and neighbours." is.


Your commandments are applicable only AFTER people would become all lovey-dovey.

However, I am in fact anti-Authoritarian by instinct and would automatically reject any such deity (and any deities actually worshipped in real life) no matter what the Commandments were.

So would others. So where is the "happy and prosperous" human society then?

My point is, there is nobody who would actually follow those commandments you have proposed, and feel obliged by them.

Again, eradicating bad beliefs is what I was talking about,

Define "bad beliefs".

If the world where your commandments would be the rule would exist, your belief about not wanting to accept a deity would qualify as "bad".

And I am not in the position to try to eradicate those beliefs. And if I were in such a position I would not try to eradicate those beliefs in any way that I found morally repugnant. This is because I believe in my Commandment about treating people with respect.

What does it mean to "treat people with respect"? "Respecting them being different than you"? And letting them be?

What is "morally repugnant"? By whose morality?

For the last time, water and Jenyar, why the hell are you attacking my Commandments on the basis that not everybody thinks the same way and people will carry on fighting? I already know that! How is that different from the current Commandments!!?

It just shows that your commandments would not *lead* to a happy and prosperous world where people would live together as friends and neighbours. For in order to create a situation where those commandments could and would be actively applied, you'd first have to destroy a large part of the human population. If you (by "you" and don't mean you personally) cannot really bring that situation to be, your commandments are useless.

If you say that it is "up to the people", you have said as much as nothing. It is up to the people anyway, always has been.

Whereabouts? You're falling into the trap of thinking that your own freedoms are and always have been Universal. Look around the world, water, and take in a couple of history books - this is very far from the case.

What are you talking about?
It is always "up to the people", it's not like some unearthly entity comes and regularly gravely interfers with people's lives.

It's certainly no different from any other religious dictatorial system in that it imposes certain rules. On the other hand, it's considerably different from dictatorial systems in that the only thing it really dictates is "Do not be dictated to".

This is an absurd requirement.

First of all, it is of the type "Do not be so obedient!"
Such orders cannot be coherenetly followed, if given by another person. If a person says that to himself about obeying other persons, then it works. But such principles can work only after they have been internalized.
But how can you teach a child to internalize that? Certainly not by telling him "Do not be so obedient".


Secondly, "Do not be dictated to" is like saying "Don't let the sun shine" or "Don't let others call you names".
One nolens volens finds oneself in the position of being dictated to (or being called names), this cannot be prevented. The turning point here is how one responds to that.

But to stay with your "Do not be dictated to" -- this already implies that dictature is possible in the given situation, and just has to be prevented. How? It is only by another dictature.

Needless to say, people who perceive themselves to be exclusivisticly individualistic do not make a viable social system.

I think the vast majority of Americans would violently disagree.

Yes, they would violently disagree. Which doesn't automatically mean that exclusivistic individualism is viable.


* * *

The question was "What type of deity will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is?"

What does it mean that man would be "raised above what he is"?

For this, it first needs to be defined what "man" is now. Define.

 

[WANDERER]

-More unconsciousness than consciousness.
-An animal, training itself.
-A wonderful hypocrite.
-Nobility, pretending.
-A beast with table manners, a silk coat or gown and manicured fingers.
-A potty-trained pet.
-A fucking-machine with an overzealous imagination.
-A clown with a painted-on serious face.
-A great King, with a sock stuffed down his pants.
-Struggling neurosis, beneath; calm, confidence, on the surface.
-A zit waiting to be popped.
-A thespian that forgot his lines.
-A whore with dignity.
-A horrified imbecile hiding behind the walls he erects.
-An evolutionary experiment gone wrong.
-A terrible mistake gone right.
-A quadruped, standing on its hind legs raising its head to the air in arrogance and flashing its genitals.
-A poet with fetishes.
-A busy-body.
-Ennui creating its own entertainment.
-A genetic freak.
-An intellectual infant searching for a teat.
-Blind instinct, using what mind it has to explain itself.
-A puzzle solver that cuts his own pieces.
-A pawn thinking itself special because it sits one square in front of the queen.
-A barbarian with a sense of style.
-Hormones with humour.
-A shit-hole, calling it fertilizer.
-A moron with attitude.
-A dancer in an invisible ballet.
-God/Satan in the making.
-A wishing well.
-A road builder with a made-up destination.
-Neurons with too much time on their hands.


……………………………………………………

Whatever man is, it must be changed. Hopefully into something better.
Unless, of course, you are content with what you are, in which case, please feel free to stay just the way you are.

How someone defines himself/herself is an individual matter, as is what one wants to become.
We’re only comparing notes here.

Back into the void I go.
What is a wanderer if he does not wander?

 

[water]

Whatever man is, it must be changed. Hopefully into something better.

Why must man change?
Give a compelling rational reason why man must change.
(The answer to this should also help to define the kind of deity you are after.)

How someone defines himself/herself is an individual matter, as is what one wants to become.
We’re only comparing notes here.

Sure, but the thing is that you are thinking in terms of deity here -- a somehow pre-defined discourse. Enter socialization and culturation. Enter society. Enter common obligatory preferences and values. Exit exclusivistic individualism.

One thing is to propose a solution that is applicable to grown-up people who have some life experience and a good general education, and preferably no children to raise. They can indeed pursue exclusivistic individualism.

But what about those who are raising children? They have to have some consistent philosophy that they can veritably present to the children -- such a consistent philosophy is then for the children the predefined discourse. It can then easily be argued that those children aren't free to choose, and the possibilities of what they "want to become" are actually prescribed by this discourse. -- And thus, this discourse is inherently discriminatory.

Looking for a "deity /that/ will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is" includes answering the question at which point is the discourse about this deity to enter an individual's life, and in what way.


* * *

I'll reply to your previous post later.

Back into the void I go.
What is a wanderer if he does not wander?

Why void?

 

[Bells]

Wanderer
Interesting thread Wanderer...

It would be like debating the existence of a hypothetical Santa, endlessly and trying to prove an assumption with no evidence or logical structure, except for the crude cause/effect prejudices of limited minds, projections of self-interest into the void of ignorance and the influence of fear and hope on a mind that must create its own.

My dear boy, debating religion or the existence of any deity is like debating the existence of Santa, the Toothfairy and the Easter Bunny for that matter.

Sure, imaginative speculation can be interesting and satisfying on some level, but religious debates are always limited to a specific two three fates that dominate the world stage, not because of their validity but because of historical circumstance and psychological manipulations.

Religion is power. Lets face it, the three dominant religious faiths that exist in our time are the richest and most powerful entities known to man. For example, the Christian Right has the power to make Bush dance and do as they bid.

Nevertheless the idea of belief in god or gods is an essential part of the human condition.
There exists a need, in each man, to reach out into the unknown and to offer sacrifices in return for some consideration and good fortune.
In times of trouble and of suffering each mind screams out into the darkness and listens for a response.
The easiest way to define religious fervour is with one word: Hope.

Hmmm, I once heard a fanatical relative of mine comment that religion is what binds us all. I sometimes think that maybe the fool was correct. Some feel the need to belong, to be as one, to be part of the group. Religion and a belief in God allows them to fulfil that need.

Take individuals from every country on this planet who believe in the same entity and put them all together and they will have at least 2 things in common. The first is that they are human beings and the second is that they believe in the same deity. I actually find that frightening. It frightens me that so many people can allow themselves to be ruled by something that is totally unproven and frankly hearsay of the beliefs of others. But for them, it means they all belong. It means that their pitiful life on this planet will end and paradise awaits them behind the pearly gates.

Religion and a belief in a deity gives them something to look forward to and it also gives them something and someone to blame when it all goes invariably wrong.

The question is: What type of deity will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is?

Personally, I think none. Mankind can only benefit itself when it frees itself from the shackles of religion and sees the potential to exist and improve by its own hands and means. Religion is a constraint preventing mankind from reaching it's full potential. We are restricted by religious dogmas.

Do the current religious systems benefit or hinder human ascension?

Refer to above..

What sort of God would exemplify mankind’s desire to become master of his own domain and willing inheritor of eternity and the responsibility contained in it?

Heh... none. No God would ever allow mankind to become master of his own domain because man's God has mankind on a short leash. After all, mankind sees God as being the final judge and jury to their own acts and actions. They may strive to become master of their own domain and some may even think they've achieved it, but in the back of their mind will always be the thought of that final judgement.

Man created and invented God to keep man in check.

Water

And who is Wanderer that what he thinks would determine whether a religion is worthy of following or not?

And who are you to determine or critique any other religion?

It is defnitely the Mormons and their interpetation of the "workings of the Spirit" that you can accuse of such charlatanism and superstition.
Water.. page 1

Wanderer asked a question and one that is entirely valid. The fact that he does not participate in the religious forum does not deny him the right or ability to ask the question. On the contrary, he is approaching the subject with open eyes, untainted by the psychotic religious fervour that we are always witness to in this forum. If you believe a religion is worthy of following then you follow it because you are free to do so. If Wanderer disagrees, he is free to voice that opinion. Just as you have your prejudices of others and their religion, does not mean that others will not critique you and your own.

Chaos never reigns for a long time. All systems where its elements are interdependent eventually come up with some kind of order.

Sigh... Chaos is constant Water.

Like I said, chaos never reigns for a long time. All systems where its elements are interdependent -- and the human society certainly is such a system -- eventually come up with some kind of order.

Give me one example where human society has come up with some kind of order? Just one. An appearance or semblance of order does not mean that order exists. There is always a constant flow of chaos. After all, without chaos, we would never be able to recognise even a semblance of order. Order is a wish, a want for a calm in the storm that is life and society. But while order may be placed in one aspect of society, next door chaos reigns.

It is always "up to the people", it's not like some unearthly entity comes and regularly gravely interfers with people's lives.

That's where you are wrong. Some unearthly entity does regularly interfere with people's lives. It is the person's belief in such an entity that makes the interference in their own lives and the lives of others. I'll give you an example. I don't believe in religion or in any religious deity for that matter. I was brought up a Catholic by very strict Catholic parents and when I began to regonise and understand the world around me, I realised that I did not 'just believe'. I have other family members who've converted to all these other faiths that I've lost count. But that's their concern and I'm happy being an atheist. It's who I am. Now 2 months ago, I found out that my boyfriend of 3 years and myself were expecting a child. It came as a shock to us as I was not supposed to be able to have a child, but it's become a welcome shock (morning sickness aside that is) and we are now getting our home ready and prepared for this child of ours. However this is where 'some unearthly entity comes and gravely interfers with' my life. I have one cousin who's unfortunately married to a religious fanatic who now thinks that his farts are blessings from his God. This man has become the bane of my existence. Last week, I was resting after some complications with the pregnancy and short and constant hospital stays and my significant other had gone to buy some grapes as they are the only thing that I can currently keep down. So there I was lying in bed, trying to will myself into thinking that I really did not want to throw up regardless of what my stomach was doing, when someone knocked on my apartment door. I stumbled to said door and opened it to find my dear fanatical relative standing there with Bible thrust forward as though it were a shield and his nostrils flared like a bull in heat. To say I was shocked to the point of forgetting that I wanted to vomit would be an understatement. I attempted to shut my door in his face when he barged in and pushed me aside and started screaming that I was an evil heathen who needed to be prayed on to ensure that the poor child I'm carrying would not be a devil heathen like myself. I asked him to leave and he refused and the next thing I knew all these other people started streaming into my apartment, people I'd never met before, telling me that I must let God in. He'd bought half of his equally fanatically religious prayer group to my house to drive God into me. My attempts to get to my phone to call the police were prevented when they grabbed hold of me and forced me to sit on my couch and they then tried to 'lay their hands on me'. Usually I'd have been kicking and screaming like a wild animal at this point but I was in a lot of pain and frankly not my best at that point... they'd caught me at my weakest. My neighbour who'd often in the last few weeks seen me leaving in an ambulance due to complications with this pregnancy thankfully heard them ranting and my repeated pleas for them to leave and came rushing into my flat with a cricket bat. My neighbour is a sweet 70 year old gentleman who thankfully managed to appear maniacle enough to drive them out of my house. I have reported the incident to the police and thankfully they're treating it seriously. I can laugh about this now, but these freak's beliefs in that unearthly entity and what their particular religion dictates is what drove them to interfer with my life and my freedom to live my life as I see fit. Their belief in that deity is what dictated their actions. Therefore in a way, that unearthly being did interfer with my life. While we can say yes it is up to the people, people are also driven by their beliefs in their God and their religion and will act as what their religion says their God dictates. Do you see the connection there? While a God or deity does not interfer directly in people's lives, it and belief in it interfers in other ways through the actions of others.

Why must man change?
Give a compelling rational reason why man must change.

Man always changes. We would not have evolved if it were not for change. You'd still be rubbing two stones together in a cave if your ancestors did not change and adapt to that change.

 

[cole grey]

There’s not much to keep my interests alive, here.
Children wallowing away the moments and wanting to maintain the distances that offer them anonymity and comfort.

Watch yourself.

Giggling girls and witty boys, exchanging ‘private messages’ and thinking they’re socializing.
An interactive role-playing game. You choose your character, an image to represent you and you go off to fight the dragons.

There is a concept in gnosticism called the 'seven mirrors'. You should check it out, because you tend to see in others the thing which you also exhibit. That is why these things are presented to you, not to fix them in others, but to show you about yourself. Pay attention.

Also, earned love is not the only valid love. Without unearned love a human baby would die of cold and starvation. The species wouldn't even be around. The planet would be ruled by cockroaches.

Your point that humans need to evolve, and our perspectives of God must evolve is correct. That doesn't show that God must change, by any means.