What authority does God have over non-believers?

[audible]

How do you know God is non-existent?

because rosa, he has no effect on my senses, something that exist does!.

You know what? I think that you, mustafakofi, mis-t-highs, pavlosmarcos, fahrenheit 451, the preacher and possibly some others have gotten together as a team and you have set out gainst religionists and theists and are challenging them to come up with a proof of God. A proof that the simplest person could understand.

your very astute rosa, it's called atheism.

This is another spin on the discussion, yes.
But the point is in the process of being addressed in my discussion with Stretched. The way he answered to the opening premises, it leads to think he believes there is possibly another authority.
Otherwise, we're again in the free will discussion.

ok, then I'll wait and see.

 

[water]

Marc,


They practically act as one person. The same kind of arguments. And if one begins it, another one easily continues. You can start having a conversation with misty, pavlosmarcos continues, then audible comes in to take over ...

 

[water]

sorry that's blatently obvious, what effect can the invisible and non-existent have on anybody

Look, I'm getting tired of this circularity of yours.

A non-existent thing certainly can have no effect on one; but first, one must know that the thing is non-existent, or one cannot make such claims.

You argument of the non-existence of God comes down to "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist."

I don't know what you are after or what you are trying to prove, but your whole anti-theistic argumentation rests on what you have set to be the axiom "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist."

What do you want us to do?
Prove God to you?
Are you waiting for God to come to you, tap you on the shoulder and say "I Am"?

Or do you want someone to dig down and analyze why people insist on "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist."? How this argument shows some repressed desire, an unfinished thought, a compensation of one's existential misery?

Do you want that someone elaborates a proof that "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist." can be said only by a god-like entity that is above God?


* * *

because rosa, he has no effect on my senses, something that exist does!.

Just for the kicks: What is your definition of God?


And stop calling me "Rosa".

 

[MarcAC]

They practically act as one person. The same kind of arguments. And if one begins it, another one easily continues. You can start having a conversation with misty, pavlosmarcos continues, then audible comes in to take over ...

I sincerely find it so interesting that I've sought to come up with explanations as to why their posts are so similar. Anyway, maybe I'll figure it out on my "pilgrimmage" away from this "place". All the best for the rest water. Defend rationality in relation to experience to the fullest! I'm off.

 

[audible]

Just for the kicks: What is your definition of God?

I'm sorry this aggravates you so much mrs rosa/water, I cant give you a definition as it does not exist to be, if you want the general opinion of a god, I could give you that, but that would be a waste.
if I so wish to put rosa, I will.
you will just have to live with it.
you could always switch on you ignore button.
infact why dont you just ignore everybody that has a different opinion to you then life would be great for you.

 

[water]

Just for the kicks: What is your definition of God?

I'm sorry this aggravates you so much mrs rosa/water, I cant give you a definition as it does not exist to be, if you want the general opinion of a god, I could give you that, but that would be a waste.
if I so wish to put rosa, I will.

Just because you don't have a definition of God, or because you don't agree with any of the existing, doesn't mean there is no definition of God.

you will just have to live with it.
you could always switch on you ignore button.
infact why dont you just ignore everybody that has a different opinion to you then life would be great for you.

Bleeding heart.

 

[audible]

Just because you don't have a definition of God, or because you don't agree with any of the existing, doesn't mean there is no definition of God.

there is most definitely a definition, however for me it would be foolish to think of it as real

Bleeding heart.

no rosa, quite well, I have got a cut on my head, got it under the sink doing repairs.
however thank you for caring.

 

[water]

The next question would be be, do you consider yourself “fulfilled” in this life? Do you need forgiveness?

I don't feel "fulfilled", but I don't feel like needing forgiveness either.

Remove alcohol?! Are you crazy?! Have you any idea how many would oppose?! How many would feel obstructed in their rights and freedoms?!

Alcohol is as much a tool for enslavement as is religion.

You know what the prohibition looked like.

Without getting into the conversation that Calvin divided Christianity itself, he also caused Servetus (the “alleged” heretic) to die a slow and grisly death on a pyre, this was the direct result of his religious belief. There are countless more examples. This one incident is enough to expose religion to moral scrutiny. The conclusion is that religion causes division. All religions. Period.

I categorically disagree.
Religion causes division? Then we could also say life causes death.

We are narrowing our conversation down to religion here. My statement: “Religion causes division in human society?”

Yes/No?

To answer this question would be a forced reduction.
Also, you are implying that division is something bad. How do you justify that?

Yes, I know the crusades argument is a tired one but, there was no real threat to the survival of Christianity at this time.

There was "no real threat to the survival of Christianity"? How would you know? Defense is always taking place upon PERCEIVED threat.

We can't argue what a "real" threat is, and what isn't a "real" threat -- that is, if we are to agree that it is alright that humans are different we can't argue about "real" threats and those that aren't "real".

In his wisdom, Pope Urban II launched a campaign to regain control of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Christian Holy Land from the Muslims. There might have been subsequent economic benefits. All “after the fact”. This was a endeavour in the name of religion.

Of course it was "in the name of religion" -- but this is just the surface.

Excuse me, I'm intrigued. How do I have "wonderful compassion"?

You seem offended. I apologise, this is my opinion based on general reading of your posts, especially as “Rosa”.

No, I'm not offended. I'm just surprised someone would say I have "wonderful compassion".

Aha. And how come capitalism and consumerism prosper so well?

Global finances are controlled by a small cadre of financiers. Consumerism seems to be a tool for enslavement as well. It prospers well because one is conditioned to seek happiness in material possessions.

Oh, poor one who is "conditioned to seek happiness in material possessions". Now, cry humanism!

It seems Christians are particularly prone to this behaviour.

Then they aren't Christians at all.

Alright. Let's turn this around: Do you think humans want humanism?

Humans want a Big Mac with extra fries. Humanism it seems, is reserved for idealists like myself. (I do not see myself as a “humanist” per se though.)

Alright. Then this humanism that you and Russell and some others advocate isn't something desirable anyway, you admit it. And yet you claim it to be superior to other ideologies. How, by what criteria?
If humans don't want humanism -- why advocate humanism?

Abortion is a separate issue.

My view is “life is sacred”, but religion should not influence rational decision-making.

Whose life is more sacred? Yours or the baby's?
The whole problem of abortion comes from this premise which proabortionists don't want to accept and say it out loud, even though they act on: "I am entitled to have sex without any consequences that I don't desire. If those consequences happen, then I am entitled, due to my right to have sex without any consequences that I don't desire, that I undo those consequences."
Where this supposed right comes from, I don't know.
Really, such humanism.

What is right today, may be wrong tomorrow, right? It's okay, there's no problem if you love your spouse today, you don't have to do so tomorrow, human standards change. Committment should be merely a word in the dictionary, a word that nobody uses anymore, since it is from those old times when religon still trampled around the world ...
Plead for the changing human standards, and you plead for moral relativism.

Unfortunately every moment stretching into the future is an unknown factor. And yes, love seems fleeting. And it seems commitment per se, is more frivolous today than in the near past. Fluctuating general human standards notwithstanding, the dark heart of man has not educated itself to achieve a more compassionate state.

No. Get a cat, love it for a few months, then throw it away -- for "human standards change" and it's alright if you don't keep to your commitments.
For after all, why have what you don't want anymore?

If everything is so relative, then so is humanism. You adhere to it today, but may not do so in a few months. Then how can anyone, in the name of this humanism -- which one practices with relativism -- condemn anything, be it religion or capitalism?!

I believe there is a power greater than man.

And this power would be?

I am still working on this. He, he. I have experienced catharsis and epiphanies. Chemical or metaphysical, that is the question. My relativism.

Audible asked:

" If one doesn't have to acknowledge God's authority over oneself, then what would you consider to have any authority over you?."

Your thoughts on this?

No worries. Christians say this god is all loving and all good. Can you spot the paradox? How do I reconcile this good god in the light of his cruel actions. *everything* about him as indicated in the canon, indicate an OT god, (not a nice guy) who metamorphoses into the NT god (who is remarkably silent) and becomes a Jewish instigator espousing very differing views and character as to the OT YHWH. Taken as a whole, “Everything” about this god is paradoxical, and flies in the face of common sense. Furthermore the OT god in particular lacks basic human compassion.

I have some issues with Christianity, but this is not one of them.

What would you like? A god that would be a senile, benevolent grandfather who is only concerned that at the end of the day, all are happy?

What makes you think God "didn't get it right the first time"?

The fact that there are lepers in the world.

Earth isn't Heaven.

And God surely has this "intent of compassion

At first glance it would seem so, but upon deeper scrutiny, the intent of this god is indeed mysterious and certainly questionable. An old soppy cliché comes to mind: “If you love someone set them free, if they return, they were yours in the first place”. Que?

I think you think that love is about complete lack of interference, a sterile disinterested liking that is more than willing to part with its object, if the object so wishes.
That's not love. That's connivance.

See also this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ving#post638341 , and the rest of the thread.

Now we are talking. I like you better already!

If you've read that thread -- do you agree that eventually, it all depends on the griever's general life philosophy?

If this “source” could find it in its/his heart to stop talking with a forked tongue, I would find it in my heart to be less selective.

Why a forked tongue? It is a different kind of love than what you are used to think love is.

Compare: The Old Romans had the moral principle that if you see your friend doing something harmful, and you do nothing to stop him, you are his accomplice, and are partially guilty of his crime. How nice is that to your ears and your humanistic sensibilities?

If Jesus is god and he condemns men to the “eternal flames” this being does not give eternal life. Period.

Non sequitur. He does not condemn *all* to "eternal flames".

Don’t let a god get in the way of your happiness.

If there is an omnimax god who created me -- then I cannot just "not let him get in the way of my happiness" ...

I believe your conscience is a product of your genes, biological balance, and life experience. Jean Valjean in “Les Miserables” is a fair example of conscience at work in the human condition.

Jean Valjean is a character in a book.

Has it ever occured to you that it is easy to be honest once one knows oneself, and knows one's priorities, values and preferences? How many people know themselves this way ...

It would seem religion and other forms of indoctrination stand in the way of this realisation.

Yes, and so do capitalism, consumerism ... uh, so many things standing in our way. So cruel and mean this world, ain't it? Doesn't let us be what we truly are.

And you know what the modern being burnt at the stake for heresy is?
Rejection of all kinds. Crucifixion with isolation (to use Skunk Anansie's thoughts).
Where will you go, where will you hide, when there is noone left like you?
If you are not politically acceptable -- face the consequences.
If you have the wrong colour of your skin -- face the consequences.
If you are from the wrong socio-economical class -- face the consequences.
If you're not beautiful, cool, smart enough -- face the consequences.
People don't get burnt at the stake -- they are tortured their whole life long.

F&*k `em all. Forget everything you’ve ever learnt about how to be, and be yourself. Look in the mirror and fall in love.

Really?
Let's see: On what grounds do you reject people? You don't go out with just anyone who asks you out, so you choose, and you choose by some criteria. What are these criteria?

Moreover, if you knew me, you would never say something as utterly stupid as " Look in the mirror and fall in love."
You're on a slippery slope here, and it is made of thin ice.

Yes, I am a silly idealist and a soppy romantic.

This doesn't excuse you from scientific rigorousness.

My truth is relative to me alone. Do I need to know what truth is?

If it is a truth about you, then it is better for you to know it. Or so it seems.

Is happiness a conclusion or a process?

For my take on this, see my signature.

This is impossible, you know. We all grow up in some society, we are all taught some language, we don't grow up in a vacuum. Some things have been chosen for us.

Then choose to change them if you want.

What should I do to make it clear to you that this wanting something is not a matter of course? You are taking it for granted. Some people have a will so weak and so formless that it never occurs to them to actually want to change something, and more frequently, there are such who might want to change it, but automatically reply "But I can't do it, it can't be done". They are in a vicious circle, and your advice doesn't break it.

 

[stretched]

Hi water,

This process and exploration is becoming most interesting.

Quote water:
"I don't feel "fulfilled", but I don't feel like needing forgiveness either."

*If I may ask, what would "fullfilment" mean to you?

Quote water:
"You know what the prohibition looked like.

*Slavery is most succesful, when the slave sees enslavement as freedom, and freedom of choice. Problem, reaction, solution. Interestingly America seems to be moving back to prohibition of more than just alcohol.

Quote stretched:
"We are narrowing our conversation down to religion here. My statement: “Religion causes division in human society?" Yes/No? ”

Quote water:
"To answer this question would be a forced reduction.
Also, you are implying that division is something bad. How do you justify that?"

*OK. Notwithstanding other factors, is Israel and Palestine united in common humanity? Fundamentally division is destructive to mankind. History clearly indicates this trend. So yes, when factors cause division in society at large, like religion does, it would seem to be a negative effect. The concept that division may encompass positive survival outcomes is worth considering.

Quote water:
"There was "no real threat to the survival of Christianity"? How would you know? Defense is always taking place upon PERCEIVED threat.
We can't argue what a "real" threat is, and what isn't a "real" threat -- that is, if we are to agree that it is alright that humans are different we can't argue about "real" threats and those that aren't "real". Of course it was "in the name of religion" -- but this is just the surface."

*Retrospectively, I tend to agree with your thinking here. But the fact remains, as indicated by all available information, the Crusades were instigated to reclaim the Biblical "Holy Land" from the non-Christian Muslims. Not to aquire the wealth of Jerusalem. Hence it is safe to claim that in this instance Christianity created suffering and division in the name of doctrine. What then was "above the surface"?

Quote water:
"No, I'm not offended. I'm just surprised someone would say I have "wonderful compassion"."

*The mere fact that you are trying to understand more than is readily observable is indicative of compassion. But there are other instances that I could find in your posts to demonstrate, if I had the time.

Quote stretched:
"Global finances are controlled by a small cadre of financiers. Consumerism seems to be a tool for enslavement as well. It prospers well because one is conditioned to seek happiness in material possessions.”

Quote water:
"Oh, poor one who is "conditioned to seek happiness in material possessions". Now, cry humanism!"

I am not sure I understand what you mean here?

Quote water:
"Alright. Then this humanism that you and Russell and some others advocate isn't something desirable anyway, you admit it. And yet you claim it to be superior to other ideologies. How, by what criteria?
If humans don't want humanism -- why advocate humanism?"

That is not quite what I said. I indicated "per se". Some quotes from humanists that inspire me, that I can honestly connect with, and compell me to remain hopefull:

"This is no simple reform. It really is a revolution. Sex and race because they are easy and visible differences have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups and into the cheap labour in which this system still depends. We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned. We are really talking about humanism."
(Gloria Steinem)

"In my view, humanism relies on reason and compassion. Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other people."
(Molleen Matsumara)

" If abuses are destroyed, we must destroy them. If slaves are freed, we must free them. If new truths are discovered, we must discover them. If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is done; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind; if the defenseless are protected and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of people. The grand victories of the future must be won by humanity, and by humanity alone."
(Robert Ingersoll)

Quote water"
"Whose life is more sacred? Yours or the baby's?
The whole problem of abortion comes from this premise which proabortionists don't want to accept and say it out loud, even though they act on: "I am entitled to have sex without any consequences that I don't desire. If those consequences happen, then I am entitled, due to my right to have sex without any consequences that I don't desire, that I undo those consequences."
Where this supposed right comes from, I don't know.
Really, such humanism."

*I was thinking along the lines of rape, incest and ignorence.

Quote water:
"If everything is so relative, then so is humanism. You adhere to it today, but may not do so in a few months. Then how can anyone, in the name of this humanism -- which one practices with relativism -- condemn anything, be it religion or capitalism?!"

*A good house is built on a foundation. The more solid the foundation, the more stories it can bear. Eventually it may become a mansion of great beauty and integrity. Personally I have always adhered to the principles of humanism. That does not mean my understanding has not blossomed, due to experience.

Quote water:
"Audible asked:
"If one doesn't have to acknowledge God's authority over oneself, then what would you consider to have any authority over you?."
"Your thoughts on this?"

*There need be no authority over me other then authority that I empower, out of rational reasoning and wisdom of experience. As an example, if someone treats me very kindly, that act of kindness would command authority over my behaviour towards the person.

Quote water:
"What would you like? A god that would be a senile, benevolent grandfather who is only concerned that at the end of the day, all are happy?"

No, simply a god that I can RELATE to. A god that would exhibit similar characteristics to myself, in areas such as consistancy, forgiveness, empathy, etc.

Quote water:
"Earth isn't Heaven."

*Indeed, as the Gnostics understood well. But earth is were we find ourselves, and if this god did create lepers, the best we can do is to alleviate some of their suffering. God, in his infinite, loving wisdom could help with a cure for AIDS. There is a bucketfull of prayers going out every second, so come on god, help out here! And still we have AIDS. Is this the hallmark of a perfect plan?

Quote water:
"I think you think that love is about complete lack of interference, a sterile disinterested liking that is more than willing to part with its object, if the object so wishes.That's not love. That's connivance."

*Love is unconditional. Connivance is threatening hellfire for disbelief.

Quote water:
"If you've read that thread -- do you agree that eventually, it all depends on the griever's general life philosophy?"

*I would agree.

Quote water:
"Why a forked tongue? It is a different kind of love than what you are used to think love is.
Compare: The Old Romans had the moral principle that if you see your friend doing something harmful, and you do nothing to stop him, you are his accomplice, and are partially guilty of his crime. How nice is that to your ears and your humanistic sensibilities?"

*Love is unconditional and consistent. How nice is it that in the eyes of Christian doctrine, I was born in sin? An innocent babe, merely one day old, but riddled with the sin of Adam and Eve. I hereby reaffirm my humanist sensibilities.

Quote water:
" Non sequitur. He does not condemn *all* to "eternal flames".

You are correct. According to some, 144 000 will escape the flames. I suppose the rest of us just are`nt worth it? The fact is, some will apparently burn. Those that blaspheme the Holy Ghost for example. Eternity is one hell of a long time to have regrets. That is if you can get your mind of the pain. Egads.

Quote water:
"If there is an omnimax god who created me -- then I cannot just "not let him get in the way of my happiness" ...

*Now water, you KNOW that you create your own reality! He, he. What you believe, will become your reality.

Quote stretched:
"I believe your conscience is a product of your genes, biological balance, and life experience. Jean Valjean in “Les Miserables” is a fair example of conscience at work in the human condition.”

Quote water:
"Jean Valjean is a character in a book."

This is just an example, and is essentially subjective to me and my experience.

Quote water:
"Yes, and so do capitalism, consumerism ... uh, so many things standing in our way. So cruel and mean this world, ain't it? Doesn't let us be what we truly are."

*What you are saying is much truer than you may understand.

Quote water:
"Really?
Let's see: On what grounds do you reject people? You don't go out with just anyone who asks you out, so you choose, and you choose by some criteria. What are these criteria?"

*The criteria built up from experience in the university of life, and what your genes require you to choose.

Quote water:
"Moreover, if you knew me, you would never say something as utterly stupid as " Look in the mirror and fall in love."
You're on a slippery slope here, and it is made of thin ice."

*I apologise if I have offended you. You are right, I don`t know you. What I meant was, acceptence of what you are, without having to meet criteria demanded by society, politics or religious belief. Enjoying good health, physically and mentally makes this choice a lot easier.

Quote stretched:
"Yes, I am a silly idealist and a soppy romantic.”

Quote water:
"This doesn't excuse you from scientific rigorousness."

No, but it makes everything more interesting.

Quote water:
"If it is a truth about you, then it is better for you to know it. Or so it seems."

One can choose to know it. Or not.

Quote water:
"What should I do to make it clear to you that this wanting something is not a matter of course? You are taking it for granted. Some people have a will so weak and so formless that it never occurs to them to actually want to change something, and more frequently, there are such who might want to change it, but automatically reply "But I can't do it, it can't be done". They are in a vicious circle, and your advice doesn't break it."

*My advice can break it. It is quite simple. One can choose to change, or not. There are a million good reasons to avoid change. Other than situations like being incarcerated in prison or other similar circumstances, one is free to change whatever circumstances one needs to. Unfortunately the consequences, positive and negative, are part of the choice.

Allcare.








Jean Valjean is a character in a book.

 

[water]

This process and exploration is becoming most interesting.

Do you have any particular goals, aims, intentions?
I'm just wondering.

*If I may ask, what would "fullfilment" mean to you?

I don't really don't know far ahead; right now, it is finishing college and finding work -- releasing the stress I am under now.

You know what the prohibition looked like.

*Slavery is most succesful, when the slave sees enslavement as freedom, and freedom of choice. Problem, reaction, solution. Interestingly America seems to be moving back to prohibition of more than just alcohol.

If there are slaves, there are also masters.
Who do you think should change/do something for things to "get better"?

*OK. Notwithstanding other factors, is Israel and Palestine united in common humanity? Fundamentally division is destructive to mankind. History clearly indicates this trend. So yes, when factors cause division in society at large, like religion does, it would seem to be a negative effect. The concept that division may encompass positive survival outcomes is worth considering.

As long as people are different, as long as everyone doesn't look the same and think the same and live the same, there will be division -- be it by religion, the socio-economic standard, politics, ...

People -- who are different -- will fight for division, for they want to preserve their identity.

There was "no real threat to the survival of Christianity"? How would you know? Defense is always taking place upon PERCEIVED threat.
We can't argue what a "real" threat is, and what isn't a "real" threat -- that is, if we are to agree that it is alright that humans are different we can't argue about "real" threats and those that aren't "real". Of course it was "in the name of religion" -- but this is just the surface.

*Retrospectively, I tend to agree with your thinking here. But the fact remains, as indicated by all available information, the Crusades were instigated to reclaim the Biblical "Holy Land" from the non-Christian Muslims. Not to aquire the wealth of Jerusalem. Hence it is safe to claim that in this instance Christianity created suffering and division in the name of doctrine. What then was "above the surface"?

You mean below the surface?

Yes, they went to reclaim what they thought is rightly theirs. How is this not an act of fighting for survival?
They, Christians, fought for survival, and in doing so, they did what they needed to do.

I'm not sure we understand eachother here. I'm saying that whenever someone fights, they fight for survival -- *whatever* they perceive necessary for that. Be it going to war, defending themselves, acquring new land and resources, destroying possible enemies in advance, forcefully converting heretics, ...

Hence it is safe to claim that in this instance Christianity created suffering and division in the name of doctrine.

It is always like that, with any war, it is always in the name of some "doctrine" or another.

Or do you think that a tribe can go fight another tribe under the flag of "We need to survive, so we will take their food and land!"?

This is how they think, but they don't say it so bluntly, so primitively. Each tribe has its culture, its identity, a "doctrine", and when they fight to survive, it then *looks* as if they are fighting in the name of this "culture/identity/doctrine".

Do you really think that, for example, Nazism was about a whimsical dislike or hate for the non-Arians because they are supposedly a "lower race"?
The Germans wanted to survive, they felt threatened, the state was in a crisis. They
couldn't dig themselves out of it, there were too many people and not enough food and work. Something had to be done, quickly. And historically, the best thing in such a situation is to acquire new territory and resources.

Of course, this cannot be done just like that when this potential new territory is already inhabited -- one cannot go to take without presenting any reasons. The Germans couldn't just say "We'll get rid of the Jews, the Slavs etc. because they are taking away our work and space" or "We'll expand to Poland and Russia because there's good land."

Some "reason" has to be presented -- some philosophy, some ideology that explains why they are *entitled* to fight this way. "Because we are a superior race," sad the Germans, and fought.
"Because the others are heretics and we have to do God's will," said the Crusaders, and fought.

When did you last see a tribe go fight another tribe just like that, with no explicit ideology to support their fighting? Those days are long gone.
We have now wrapped ourselves into ideologies, doctrines etc., but the primary reasons that move us are the same -- survival -- we just happen to have words for them and elaborate conceptualizations.

Global finances are controlled by a small cadre of financiers. Consumerism seems to be a tool for enslavement as well. It prospers well because one is conditioned to seek happiness in material possessions.

Oh, poor one who is "conditioned to seek happiness in material possessions". Now, cry humanism!

I am not sure I understand what you mean here?

Yes, cry, "Humanism!" in the face of consumerism and capitalism.

You keep on talking about choice, and how each individual can decide who to give authority over himself. The prospering of consumerism and capitalism says what then? Have people decided to give consumerism and capitalism authority over themselves?

You say: "It is quite simple. One can choose to change, or not."

On one hand you sympathize with people and are against consumerism and capitalism which condition people into seeking happiness in material possessions.
On the other hand, you advocate choice, and how one is free to choose.

If one has been ***conditioned*** to seek happiness in material possessions -- how is then one ***free*** to choose?

"This is no simple reform. It really is a revolution. Sex and race because they are easy and visible differences have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups and into the cheap labour in which this system still depends. We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned. We are really talking about humanism."
(Gloria Steinem)

Is it not already so??

If you insist that all we do, think is a matter of our choice, then the present situation (supposedly not humanistic) is a matter of our choice already anyway.

"In my view, humanism relies on reason and compassion. Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other people."
(Molleen Matsumara)

The tyranny of compassion! What about people who don't want to have compassion?

" If abuses are destroyed, we must destroy them. If slaves are freed, we must free them. If new truths are discovered, we must discover them. If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is done; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind; if the defenseless are protected and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of people. The grand victories of the future must be won by humanity, and by humanity alone."
(Robert Ingersoll)

And? This assumes humanity wants that. Does it really want that?

*There need be no authority over me other then authority that I empower, out of rational reasoning and wisdom of experience.

Charles Manson thought in roundabout the same way.

My point is that everyone can think about authority the way you do, but this doesn't mean that such individuals will form a stable society.

Unless they are all very much alike and empower the same authority over them, you'll get chaos.

If people are different, and empower different authorities, you can't have any justice in such a state.

If they are very much alike and empower the same authority, then this is in effect no different than any dictature. As soon as there is a minority of those who are different and empower a different authority, they will feel oppressed by the majority.

As an example, if someone treats me very kindly, that act of kindness would command authority over my behaviour towards the person.

That act of kindness would command authority over my behaviour towards the person?!
Why *command*?
There is no need to be kind to somene who has been kind to you.

What would you like? A god that would be a senile, benevolent grandfather who is only concerned that at the end of the day, all are happy?

No, simply a god that I can RELATE to. A god that would exhibit similar characteristics to myself, in areas such as consistancy, forgiveness, empathy, etc.

An omnimax God is hardly something a human could relate to anyway.
But Christianity offers you Jesus. Jesus you can relate to, can't you?

*Indeed, as the Gnostics understood well. But earth is were we find ourselves, and if this god did create lepers, the best we can do is to alleviate some of their suffering. God, in his infinite, loving wisdom could help with a cure for AIDS. There is a bucketfull of prayers going out every second, so come on god, help out here! And still we have AIDS. Is this the hallmark of a perfect plan?

This is a form of the "If God were good, there would be no suffering on earth" argument.

There is one thing you need to understand when it comes to diseases, esp. AIDS: People like to think, "If there's no cure, there's no help." But this is too simplistic.

The point is that people want to do whatever they feel like, without this having any undesired consequences for them. AIDS can be stopped by prevention -- and this means change of behaviour.

Expecting God to give a cure is the same as demanding of God that our actions would have no undesired consequences for us -- that we could go on doing whatever we like without this being bad for us.

Or in another metaphor, people want God to give the fish, but people consistently refuse to learn to fish.

Surely, many people have been infected without this being their fault, like newborns. But such are the effects of sin. When one person sins, this *does* affect other people, in one way or another.

"I think you think that love is about complete lack of interference, a sterile disinterested liking that is more than willing to part with its object, if the object so wishes.That's not love. That's connivance.

*Love is unconditional. Connivance is threatening hellfire for disbelief.

What do you mean by "Love is unconditional"?
If one loves someone who refuses to be loved or who has made himself unlovable -- then there can be little or no visible effects of this love.

And why this "threatening hellfire for disbelief"?! You don't have to believe! If you don't, then you are left to yourself. So?

If you don't believe, and claim to know better -- then suit yourself. Then those threats should mean nothing to you anyway. So why bother about these threats?

I really don't understand why some people have such a problem with these "threats of hellfire". If they discard Christianity, then why complain about these threats?!

*Love is unconditional and consistent.

What do you mean by "unconditional"? To love someone NO MATTER what they do, and I do mean NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.

If you love someone, but they constantly spit in your face, you will eventually give up. Whose fault is this? Does you giving up on such a person mean that your love has not been unconditional?

How nice is it that in the eyes of Christian doctrine, I was born in sin? An innocent babe, merely one day old, but riddled with the sin of Adam and Eve. I hereby reaffirm my humanist sensibilities.

First of all, there are different fractions in Christianity, and they view the state of a baby differently.

Secondly, as being human, you are born into the human race, and you face the consequences of the sins your ancestors did, back to Adam. It is inavoidable that living among humans, you will, at least up to some point, sin as well, being influenced by other humans, and by the effects of other people's sins.
It's not your fault, but you sin anyway, and that you indeed sin becomes clear to you when you become aware that you have sinned. It is then from this point on that ou decide what to do about this sinning.

To compare: A baby born into a Nazi family will, at least in his young years, also be a Nazi, whether he likes it or not, it is not his own doing. But when and if he realizes that Nazism isn't good -- this is when he has to decide for himself, and becomes responsible for insisting in Nazism even though he may be sure it is wrong.

You are correct. According to some, 144 000 will escape the flames. I suppose the rest of us just are`nt worth it? The fact is, some will apparently burn. Those that blaspheme the Holy Ghost for example. Eternity is one hell of a long time to have regrets. That is if you can get your mind of the pain. Egads.

What now?! Do you believe that you could burn in hell, or what? Have you not discarded Christianity? I should think that to someone who has discarded Christianity, the threat of hell should seem totally ridiculous!

It is really odd. You take the threat seriously, but you have discarded Christianity. This is a grave inconsistency on your part.

"If there is an omnimax god who created me -- then I cannot just "not let him get in the way of my happiness" ...

*Now water, you KNOW that you create your own reality! He, he. What you believe, will become your reality.

If I had truly believed thus, I'd be in the madhouse.
Should I think that "I create my own reality" -- should I think that this post by someone called stretched was actually written by me?

What I believe is a part of my reality, but another great part of my reality is the rest of the world. We do affect eachother, whether we believe that or not.

You don't have to believe that you have been robbed, but if you don't, you'll keep on looking for your bag as if it was you who has left it somewhere.

"Yes, and so do capitalism, consumerism ... uh, so many things standing in our way. So cruel and mean this world, ain't it? Doesn't let us be what we truly are."

*What you are saying is much truer than you may understand.

I think you are presenting humans to be greater weaklings than they actually are; more, you are willing to let them be greater weaklings than they actually are.

"Really?
Let's see: On what grounds do you reject people? You don't go out with just anyone who asks you out, so you choose, and you choose by some criteria. What are these criteria?"

*The criteria built up from experience in the university of life, and what your genes require you to choose.

Then how is this any different from

If you are not politically acceptable -- face the consequences.
If you have the wrong colour of your skin -- face the consequences.
If you are from the wrong socio-economical class -- face the consequences.
If you're not beautiful, cool, smart enough -- face the consequences.

F&*k `em all. Forget everything you’ve ever learnt about how to be, and be yourself.

?

Everyone acts by some criteria.
Say that someone would want to be with you, but you reject them because they aren't smart (or whatever) enough for you and you reject them.
It is the same principle by which a group accepts/rejects. It is just that when done on an individual level, it doesn't seem so strong and full of impact as when done on the level of a group or society.

"Moreover, if you knew me, you would never say something as utterly stupid as " Look in the mirror and fall in love."
You're on a slippery slope here, and it is made of thin ice."

*I apologise if I have offended you.

No, you haven't offended me. You were just being silly and inexact.

You are right, I don`t know you. What I meant was, acceptence of what you are, without having to meet criteria demanded by society, politics or religious belief. Enjoying good health, physically and mentally makes this choice a lot easier.

One has to meet one's own criteria. These criteria haven't fallen from the sky though. They can be found to be part of this or that already existing ideology. But this doesn't automatically mean that one lives under the dictate of this ideology.

By behaviour, I'd pass for a Christian, and someone could say my views agree with the Christian. But this doesn't mean that I think for myself that I have to meet criteria demanded by Christianity.

"If it is a truth about you, then it is better for you to know it. Or so it seems."

One can choose to know it. Or not.

This isn't true. One can choose to *accept* a knowledge, a truth, or not.
This is as good as it gets.

If you say that one can choose to know the truth about oneself, then you are implying that this truth already exists; and that the person already knows what it is, but then, by some "willful rebellion", "decides" not to know it.

You are making the same mistake as popular evangelizers, who brand every non-believer to be "wilfully rebelling against God". This is too simplistic, far too simplistic.

Just like some non-believers don't know what to think of God, whom to believe (and as such, their unbelief is not a willful rebellion), some people can't recognize the truth about themselves, can't get to it (for whatever reason) -- and you can blame neither for "choosing not to know".

*My advice can break it. It is quite simple. One can choose to change, or not.

How is your advice supposed to work on someone who has been *conditioned* into thinking that he cannot choose?!

 

[stefan]

Water I dont thing god has any authority over any non believers, how can a god, if they dont believe in it, it's that simple.
that was all I was going to say, then I saw this.

There need be no authority over me other then authority that I empower, out of rational reasoning and wisdom of experience.

Charles Manson thought in roundabout the same way.

and so did Benjamin Franklin,
Abraham Lincoln, Helen Keller, Carl E. Sagan, Russell Crowe, Ernest Hemingway, albert einstein, Mark Twain, Arthur C. Clarke, Billy Joel, Gene Roddenberry. but none of these became killers.
david koresh was empowered by god, so he thought.
and he did'nt think in that way.

My point is that everyone can think about authority the way you do, but this doesn't mean that such individuals will form a stable society.[
Unless they are all very much alike and empower the same authority over them, you'll get chaos.

duh, wrong those name above, are just a chosen few there are literaly thousands/millions of people like that and they aint gone mad yet.

If people are different, and empower different authorities, you can't have any justice in such a state.

rubbish, the best system is the one where no one has true power, then you have to work together.

That act of kindness would command authority over my behaviour towards the person?!
Why *command*?
There is no need to be kind to somene who has been kind to you.

I cant believe this was said, if this is true of you, then you are not a nice person.

 

[fadeaway humper]

Wow.

 

[stretched]

Hi water,

Quote water:
“Do you have any particular goals, aims, intentions?
I'm just wondering.”

*Apart from enabling my ongoing education at the university of life and learning more, I am trying to offer encouragement and a differing perspective. Is that ok?

Quote water:
“I don't really don't know far ahead; right now, it is finishing college and finding work -- releasing the stress I am under now.”

*Yes, and after the release of that stress, one moves on to the next stress? To me “fulfilment”, would be the achievement of happiness. And kissing the cosmos a little closer.

Quote water:
“If there are slaves, there are also masters.
Who do you think should change/do something for things to "get better"?”

*What should change, is that the superstitions mankind carries around with him, should be discarded. Religion, social norms, political systems, hierarchies, borders, etc. This can only occur when the system of indoctrination we currently live under, is rejected. For instance, have you ever questioned the education system that you find yourself in? You yourself are studying? Why? Has it ever occurred to you that science is as rigorously inflexible as is religion. And that they both indoctrinate? As much as they seem opposite, they are cut from the same cloth. For things to get better, the notion of the reward system needs to be rewritten. The carrot and the stick syndrome needs to be revisited. Am I asking for the reprogramming of human nature? Shake off the dust off religious legacies and return to the natural man. Our needs are simple. Food, shelter and love. Look at the world around you. Concrete, tar, belching fumes and unreal time frames. Ask yourself, what is the point? You are born, you live, you love (if you are lucky), and you die. What is the point? It seems the point is searched for in superstition. Is the point of existence to be found in superstition, or in being? It seems, once the illusion of “required norms” are rejected, the point of existence starts coming into focus.

Quote water:
“As long as people are different, as long as everyone doesn't look the same and think the same and live the same, there will be division -- be it by religion, the socio-economic standard, politics, ...
People -- who are different -- will fight for division, for they want to preserve their identity.”

*Divide and conquer. Tolerance is a requisite for leaving the accepted notion that “we all need to be different” behind. Religion, etc, is designed to engender intolerance. Once again discard superstition.

Quote water:
“Yes, they went to reclaim what they thought is rightly theirs. How is this not an act of fighting for survival?
They, Christians, fought for survival, and in doing so, they did what they needed to do.
I'm not sure we understand each other here. I'm saying that whenever someone fights, they fight for survival -- *whatever* they perceive necessary for that. Be it going to war, defending themselves, acquring new land and resources, destroying possible enemies in advance, forcefully converting heretics, ...”

*Acting on their superstitions , they wanted to change “others that were not like them” to conform to their own brand of “what we believe to be right”. They imposed a belief on others by force. In the name of Christianity.

Quote water:
“We have now wrapped ourselves into ideologies, doctrines etc., but the primary reasons that move us are the same -- survival -- we just happen to have words for them and elaborate conceptualizations.”

*If we were undivided, what would “survival” mean. So, by chipping away at the institutions that cause division, we would be moving in the right direction? There is an opportunity here to dig at Christianity. The start of division in the world according to Christianity:

Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

*The beginning of division, according to the good book.

Quote water:
“Yes, cry, "Humanism!" in the face of consumerism and capitalism.
You keep on talking about choice, and how each individual can decide who to give authority over himself. The prospering of consumerism and capitalism says what then? Have people decided to give consumerism and capitalism authority over themselves?”

*Consumerism and capitalism prosper due to the enslavement of the masses. Capitalism is the prosperity of the very few, at the expense of the masses. To keep the masses under control, the promise of an improved lifestyle achieved via work is the carrot. Look at mass advertising in general. Sell a look, sell a lifestyle, engender aspiration, and Bobs your auntie. If you empower consumerism, one has to play by the systems rules, climb the financial ladder and hope to live well. Of course the tax, etc. that you pay is the enslaving factor. Unfortunately as is apparent “happiness” is not guaranteed. The suicide rate is highest in the most affluent societies. One can choose to reject consumerism and eat out of garbage bins or live off the land. In the end it remains a choice.

Quote water:
“On one hand you sympathize with people and are against consumerism and capitalism which condition people into seeking happiness in material possessions.
On the other hand, you advocate choice, and how one is free to choose.
If one has been ***conditioned*** to seek happiness in material possessions -- how is then one ***free*** to choose?”

*You can make the system work for you. Break free from the conditioning, by scrutinising everything that you were raised to believe has value or contains truth. Religion, politics, patriotism, medication, morals, science, etc. Decide for yourself what is important. Maybe what’s` important is lying around in the shade dozing, instead of going for job interviews.

“We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned. We are really talking about humanism."
(Gloria Steinem)

Quote water:
“If you insist that all we do, think is a matter of our choice, then the present situation (supposedly not humanistic) is a matter of our choice already anyway.”

*To the extent that you believe your tax dollars are going to benefit your quality of life, or fund the war in Iraq.


“In my view, humanism relies on reason and compassion. Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other people."
(Molleen Matsumara)

Quote water:
“The tyranny of compassion! What about people who don't want to have compassion?”

*He, he. Hit me with the soft pillow! Harder! Do you honestly oppose humanistic principles? Why?

Quote stretched:
*There need be no authority over me other then authority that I empower, out of rational reasoning and wisdom of experience.” ”

Quote water:
“Charles Manson thought in roundabout the same way.”

*I am not Charles Manson. Last I checked, I don’t drug, and I don’t do psychosis. But yes, I get your drift. Once again rejecting ingrained superstitions may have a wondrous effect on morality. Manson was deeply into religion. Dig?

Quote water:
“My point is that everyone can think about authority the way you do, but this doesn't mean that such individuals will form a stable society.
Unless they are all very much alike and empower the same authority over them, you'll get chaos.
If people are different, and empower different authorities, you can't have any justice in such a state.
If they are very much alike and empower the same authority, then this is in effect no different than any dictature. As soon as there is a minority of those who are different and empower a different authority, they will feel oppressed by the majority.”

*Good parents tend to raise good children into becoming good parents who tend to raise good children who tend to become good parents etc.
This is a great way to avoid outright chaos. But unfortunately parents who were taught this themselves, teach children about a wrathful god who will punish them for sinning, etc, so their little mind are contorted quite early on into becoming little weirdoes. The shepherd wields his crook, and the sheep are safe.

Quote water:
“That act of kindness would command authority over my behaviour towards the person?!
Why *command*?
There is no need to be kind to somene who has been kind to you.”

Ah, but this is where unconditional choice comes in. Free will if you will. I want to reciprocate because it is honestly meaningful to me.

Quote water:
“An omnimax God is hardly something a human could relate to anyway.
But Christianity offers you Jesus. Jesus you can relate to, can't you?”

*How can I relate to Jesus? If Jesus is god, and therefore they are one and the same, he was a pretty nasty piece of work in the OT. And then how come not only did he change so much as to become a fairly nice guy in the NT, but why did he need a NT in the first place? An omnipotent god should not need contingency plans. Nor would blood, pain and torture be necessary to invoke my sympathy to believe that he was some god in the flesh. So, no Jesus is not somebody I can relate to. Can you?

Quote water:
“There is one thing you need to understand when it comes to diseases, esp. AIDS: People like to think, "If there's no cure, there's no help." But this is too simplistic.
The point is that people want to do whatever they feel like, without this having any undesired consequences for them. AIDS can be stopped by prevention -- and this means change of behaviour.”

*Try telling that to someone infected by a blood transfusion. But the point is really, if people are praying for whatever, god ain’t hearing.

Quote water:
“Expecting God to give a cure is the same as demanding of God that our actions would have no undesired consequences for us -- that we could go on doing whatever we like without this being bad for us.
Or in another metaphor, people want God to give the fish, but people consistently refuse to learn to fish.
Surely, many people have been infected without this being their fault, like newborns. But such are the effects of sin. When one person sins, this *does* affect other people, in one way or another.”

*I reject the notion that sin transcends the sinner. This is a dangerous notion designed to enslave the masses. Problem, reaction, solution.

Quote water:
“What do you mean by "Love is unconditional"?
If one loves someone who refuses to be loved or who has made himself unlovable -- then there can be little or no visible effects of this love.”

*Now this is where it gets interesting. Are you saying we “love” with the expectation of an outcome? The epiphany of love is the realisation that real unconditional love expects absolutely nothing in return. It is an one way projection of connection and empathy. The “love” that we have been conditioned to believe, is the Hollywood romance kind of love, where the earth stand still when you meet Mr or Miss Right. This version is genetic, survival of the fittest.

Quote water:
“And why this "threatening hellfire for disbelief"?! You don't have to believe! If you don't, then you are left to yourself. So?
If you don't believe, and claim to know better -- then suit yourself. Then those threats should mean nothing to you anyway. So why bother about these threats?
I really don't understand why some people have such a problem with these "threats of hellfire". If they discard Christianity, then why complain about these threats?!”

*Pardon me if I am confusing, I was merely observing Christian belief. I do not lose sleep over this silliness.

Quote water:
“What do you mean by "unconditional"? To love someone NO MATTER what they do, and I do mean NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.”

*Yes. But this is relative. For example, I love my son. If he commits a sadistic murder, I would utterly hate what he did, but I would still love him, as I know him as my son. I witnessed his birth and life. This does not mean I need support him.

Quote water:
“First of all, there are different fractions in Christianity, and they view the state of a baby differently.
Secondly, as being human, you are born into the human race, and you face the consequences of the sins your ancestors did, back to Adam. It is inavoidable that living among humans, you will, at least up to some point, sin as well, being influenced by other humans, and by the effects of other people's sins.
It's not your fault, but you sin anyway, and that you indeed sin becomes clear to you when you become aware that you have sinned. It is then from this point on that ou decide what to do about this sinning.
To compare: A baby born into a Nazi family will, at least in his young years, also be a Nazi, whether he likes it or not, it is not his own doing. But when and if he realizes that Nazism isn't good -- this is when he has to decide for himself, and becomes responsible for insisting in Nazism even though he may be sure it is wrong.”

*Original sin is a Christian creed. I don’t accept the concept of “sin”. This seems like a blanket term. I prefer “wrongs”. These wrongs are commonly determined by societal norms and is a debate in itself. I agree there comes a turning point at which time one knows what is the right thing or the wrong thing to do. Conscience is the key here. This would seem to be a survival mechanism.

Quote water:
“What now?! Do you believe that you could burn in hell, or what? Have you not discarded Christianity? I should think that to someone who has discarded Christianity, the threat of hell should seem totally ridiculous!
It is really odd. You take the threat seriously, but you have discarded Christianity. This is a grave inconsistency on your part.’

*I am observing here not stating my belief. Sorry to be so confusing. You should try to live with it!

Quote stretched:
“Now water, you KNOW that you create your own reality! He, he. What you believe, will become your reality.” ”

Quote water:
“If I had truly believed thus, I'd be in the madhouse.
Should I think that "I create my own reality" -- should I think that this post by someone called stretched was actually written by me?
What I believe is a part of my reality, but another great part of my reality is the rest of the world. We do affect eachother, whether we believe that or not.
You don't have to believe that you have been robbed, but if you don't, you'll keep on looking for your bag as if it was you who has left it somewhere.”

There always seems more to these things than meet the eye.
Quote:
“The idea "Creating your own reality" arose when physicists realized that quantum physics accurately predicted probabilities for events but not actualities of events.”

See here: (http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9808&L=quantum-mind&P=R9474&I=-3)

Quote water:
“I think you are presenting humans to be greater weaklings than they actually are; more, you are willing to let them be greater weaklings than they actually are.”

*When you realise that there are billions of Christians who believe implicitly in a superstition, without bothering, or being to scared to question supposed facts and inconstancies, just in case they are marginalised, yes I consider them to be weak.

Quote water:
“One has to meet one's own criteria. These criteria haven't fallen from the sky though. They can be found to be part of this or that already existing ideology. But this doesn't automatically mean that one lives under the dictate of this ideology.
By behaviour, I'd pass for a Christian, and someone could say my views agree with the Christian. But this doesn't mean that I think for myself that I have to meet criteria demanded by Christianity.”

*What are these Christian views?

Quote water:
“This isn't true. One can choose to *accept* a knowledge, a truth, or not.
This is as good as it gets.
If you say that one can choose to know the truth about oneself, then you are implying that this truth already exists; and that the person already knows what it is, but then, by some "willful rebellion", "decides" not to know it.
You are making the same mistake as popular evangelizers, who brand every non-believer to be "wilfully rebelling against God". This is too simplistic, far too simplistic.
Just like some non-believers don't know what to think of God, whom to believe (and as such, their unbelief is not a willful rebellion), some people can't recognize the truth about themselves, can't get to it (for whatever reason) -- and you can blame neither for "choosing not to know".

*Pardon, what I mean is, you can choose whether it effects you or not.


Quote stretched:
“My advice can break it. It is quite simple. One can choose to change, or not.”

Quote water:
“How is your advice supposed to work on someone who has been *conditioned* into thinking that he cannot choose?!”

*Hopefully, my advice can penetrate the conditioning enough to plant a seed. At some stage, the mighty oak we see today was nothing but an acorn. Fortunately I am in a position where I am able to make a difference, undoing the damage caused by various types of “conditioning”. I also enjoy a fair success rate. Ultimately, even when we are exposed to a wider range of choices, we still choose to back the wrong horse.

Allcare.

 

[stretched]

Pope John Paul II loves dinosaurs.

And you will too.

Love,

the Spirit of God
God of Genesis

WTF?

 

[water]

*Apart from enabling my ongoing education at the university of life and learning more, I am trying to offer encouragement and a differing perspective. Is that ok?

Depending on how consistent and how persistent you are.

If there are slaves, there are also masters.
Who do you think should change/do something for things to "get better"?

*What should change, is that the superstitions mankind carries around with him, should be discarded. Religion, social norms, political systems, hierarchies, borders, etc. This can only occur when the system of indoctrination we currently live under, is rejected.

If that system is rejected -- what is to come into its place?

For instance, have you ever questioned the education system that you find yourself in? You yourself are studying? Why? Has it ever occurred to you that science is as rigorously inflexible as is religion. And that they both indoctrinate? As much as they seem opposite, they are cut from the same cloth.

If you want some first class science bashing, go here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43398

For things to get better, the notion of the reward system needs to be rewritten. The carrot and the stick syndrome needs to be revisited. Am I asking for the reprogramming of human nature? Shake off the dust off religious legacies and return to the natural man. Our needs are simple. Food, shelter and love. Look at the world around you. Concrete, tar, belching fumes and unreal time frames. Ask yourself, what is the point? You are born, you live, you love (if you are lucky), and you die. What is the point? It seems the point is searched for in superstition. Is the point of existence to be found in superstition, or in being? It seems, once the illusion of “required norms” are rejected, the point of existence starts coming into focus.

Return to the natural man ...
How?
Why?
Define "natural man".

*Divide and conquer. Tolerance is a requisite for leaving the accepted notion that “we all need to be different” behind.

It is not so much about being "different" -- it is about identity.
The simplest way to establish identity is to say "X is not (like) Y" -- "X is different than Y".
Humans seem to have a need to have an identity. Depending on how this identity is defined, is how they will treat others whose identity is not defined the same way.
But here, the self-preservation instinct sets in: When there are several social groups, each of them having their identitiy defined differently than the other -- and even if they have the most peace-full definitions, when it comes to survival, they will fight.
Both fighting parties can be prp-eace, pro-tolerance, but if there isn't enough food or space, they will fight.

Religion, etc, is designed to engender intolerance. Once again discard superstition.

"Superstition", in all its many forms, is inavoidable.
It would now qualify for superstition, what was once believed about spinach and the high levels of iron it contains.

*Acting on their superstitions , they wanted to change “others that were not like them” to conform to their own brand of “what we believe to be right”. They imposed a belief on others by force. In the name of Christianity.

Exactly what you are doing. Only the names are different. If what you are saying to me now, you would be saying to a more militant capitalist, he would say that you are trying to impose communistic ideas on him, and make him a feely touchy twat like yourself ...

We have now wrapped ourselves into ideologies, doctrines etc., but the primary reasons that move us are the same -- survival -- we just happen to have words for them and elaborate conceptualizations.

*If we were undivided, what would “survival” mean.

Fight for food, territory, resources, mates. As always.

Note that for us to be undivided, we would have to have a relatively primitive state of technology. Hi-tech as we know it demands different kinds of labour, and some have to do the dirty work, and some rule. Hence your division.

So, by chipping away at the institutions that cause division, we would be moving in the right direction?

Yeah, the right direction is a primitive society with the life expectancy of about 30 years, and infant death rate around 60%.
Then, then we could all be happy and undivided.

There is an opportunity here to dig at Christianity. The start of division in the world according to Christianity:

Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

*The beginning of division, according to the good book.

Your point?

*Consumerism and capitalism prosper due to the enslavement of the masses. Capitalism is the prosperity of the very few, at the expense of the masses. To keep the masses under control, the promise of an improved lifestyle achieved via work is the carrot. Look at mass advertising in general. Sell a look, sell a lifestyle, engender aspiration, and Bobs your auntie. If you empower consumerism, one has to play by the systems rules, climb the financial ladder and hope to live well. Of course the tax, etc. that you pay is the enslaving factor. Unfortunately as is apparent “happiness” is not guaranteed. The suicide rate is highest in the most affluent societies. One can choose to reject consumerism and eat out of garbage bins or live off the land. In the end it remains a choice.

Then promote eating out of garbage cans or living off the land. Imagine EVERYONE would choose to live this way. All 6 billion people.

It's not even possible!

Not anymore.

*You can make the system work for you. Break free from the conditioning, by scrutinising everything that you were raised to believe has value or contains truth. Religion, politics, patriotism, medication, morals, science, etc.

Again, something that is not possible for everyone.
If, within a very short time, all 6 billion people would decide to break free from the system, and make it work for them -- would that be possible?

Your suggestion is vile as it is based on the supposition that a certain amount of people has to sustain the system as it is (and remain enslaved in it), so that you can then see yourself in a particular antagonistic relation to it.

Decide for yourself what is important. Maybe what’s` important is lying around in the shade dozing, instead of going for job interviews.

Maybe isn't good enough.

The tyranny of compassion! What about people who don't want to have compassion?

*He, he. Hit me with the soft pillow! Harder! Do you honestly oppose humanistic principles? Why?

I honestly oppose humanistic principles.
While they may be possible to put into practice, and a free, humanistic society may be possible -- it is not humanism that will lead to that sort of society.

If you enforce (!) humanism, you have to get rid of all those who oppose it -- and considering the capitalists and the consumers and those depending on that system, the numbers are huge. They have their identities that are, according to humanism, just as worthy of existing like any other.
To get rid of those who refuse humanism -- in order to establish humanism world-wide -- would be very unhumanistic, don't you think?

*There need be no authority over me other then authority that I empower, out of rational reasoning and wisdom of experience.

Charles Manson thought in roundabout the same way.

*I am not Charles Manson. Last I checked, I don’t drug, and I don’t do psychosis. But yes, I get your drift. Once again rejecting ingrained superstitions may have a wondrous effect on morality. Manson was deeply into religion. Dig?

Total miss.

Your There need be no authority over me other then authority that I empower, out of rational reasoning and wisdom of experience. can apply to anyone, *whatever* their motives.

Your There need be no authority over me other then authority that I empower, out of rational reasoning and wisdom of experience. is so general that it applies to a humanist as well as to Charles Manson.

In other words, There need be no authority over me other then authority that I empower, out of rational reasoning and wisdom of experience. is so general that it is useless.

Moreover, it is dangerous to foster this kind of thinking. By it, potential killers feel as encouraged in their killer motives, as potential humanists feel encouraged in their humanist motives.

Say There need be no authority over me other then authority that I empower, out of rational reasoning and wisdom of experience., and you are saying Anything you think is right, is right.

Think sharper.

Like I said: “My point is that everyone can think about authority the way you do, but this doesn't mean that such individuals will form a stable society.
Unless they are all very much alike and empower the same authority over them, you'll get chaos.
If people are different, and empower different authorities, you can't have any justice in such a state.
If they are very much alike and empower the same authority, then this is in effect no different than any dictature. As soon as there is a minority of those who are different and empower a different authority, they will feel oppressed by the majority.”

*Good parents tend to raise good children into becoming good parents who tend to raise good children who tend to become good parents etc.
This is a great way to avoid outright chaos.

While this may be true, and it tends to be true, in each society there is a percent of people who go against what they were raised.
It is this albeit small percent that takes care of instigating chaos, demanding a clarification of social rules.

But unfortunately parents who were taught this themselves, teach children about a wrathful god who will punish them for sinning, etc, so their little mind are contorted quite early on into becoming little weirdoes. The shepherd wields his crook, and the sheep are safe.

What makes you think that you are normal, while they are weirdoes?!

That act of kindness would command authority over my behaviour towards the person?!
Why *command*?
There is no need to be kind to somene who has been kind to you.

Ah, but this is where unconditional choice comes in. Free will if you will. I want to reciprocate because it is honestly meaningful to me.

To you. But it is not universally true.

*How can I relate to Jesus?

Have you tried? Have you read the Bible, spoke to Christians?

If Jesus is god, and therefore they are one and the same,

You can relate to God when He was Jesus.
God is not just what Jesus' service on earth was, but Jesus is someone you can relate to.

And then how come not only did he change so much as to become a fairly nice guy in the NT, but why did he need a NT in the first place? An omnipotent god should not need contingency plans.

Do you believe that to God, humans are puppets?

Nor would blood, pain and torture be necessary to invoke my sympathy to believe that he was some god in the flesh.

I'm not sure that "blood, pain and torture" were meant to invoke sympathy -- that would be sheer emotional blackmail.

So, no Jesus is not somebody I can relate to. Can you?

Actually, I can.

*Try telling that to someone infected by a blood transfusion. But the point is really, if people are praying for whatever, god ain’t hearing.

How do you know that God doesn't hear those prayers?
You think that if God would hear them, He would immediately grant them?

*I reject the notion that sin transcends the sinner. This is a dangerous notion designed to enslave the masses. Problem, reaction, solution.

You can reject the notion that the sin transcends the sinner all you want -- but it won't help you one bit.

I read that some SoutAfrican black men believe sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS. So they rape. And infect their victims. Those victims may reject the notion that sin transcends the sinner -- but they still have to live with being infected with HIV. They have to live with the consequences of another person's sin.

What do you mean by "Love is unconditional"?
If one loves someone who refuses to be loved or who has made himself unlovable -- then there can be little or no visible effects of this love.

*Now this is where it gets interesting. Are you saying we “love” with the expectation of an outcome?

We love with the HOPE of an outcome. We don't expect it. If we'd expect it, then love would merely be a means to an end -- and wouldn't be love anymore. But if we hope for an outcome, then love itself is what we are hoping for.

The epiphany of love is the realisation that real unconditional love expects absolutely nothing in return. It is an one way projection of connection and empathy.

Kant and his disinterested affection. Bah. If it is affection, it can't be disinterested.

When one loves, one doesn't expect something in return, one hopes for something in return.

The “love” that we have been conditioned to believe, is the Hollywood romance kind of love, where the earth stand still when you meet Mr or Miss Right. This version is genetic, survival of the fittest.

This is to "love" and *expect* an outcome.

*Pardon me if I am confusing, I was merely observing Christian belief. I do not lose sleep over this silliness.

If you lose no sleep over it, then you maybe haven't devoted enough time to it. And by paying it little attention, it certainly appears silly to you.

What do you mean by "unconditional"? To love someone NO MATTER what they do, and I do mean NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.

*Yes. But this is relative.

Unconditional love is relative? Hm?

For example, I love my son. If he commits a sadistic murder, I would utterly hate what he did, but I would still love him, as I know him as my son. I witnessed his birth and life. This does not mean I need support him.

But God should support His children, no matter what?

*Original sin is a Christian creed. I don’t accept the concept of “sin”. This seems like a blanket term. I prefer “wrongs”. These wrongs are commonly determined by societal norms and is a debate in itself. I agree there comes a turning point at which time one knows what is the right thing or the wrong thing to do. Conscience is the key here. This would seem to be a survival mechanism.

And so what if it is a survival mechanism?

“The idea "Creating your own reality" arose when physicists realized that quantum physics accurately predicted probabilities for events but not actualities of events.”

See here: (http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin...nd&P=R9474&I=-3)

And? It's not like I experience myself on the quantum level. I don't think of myself as being some fancy mess of quantum particles.

“I think you are presenting humans to be greater weaklings than they actually are; more, you are willing to let them be greater weaklings than they actually are.”

*When you realise that there are billions of Christians who believe implicitly in a superstition, without bothering, or being to scared to question supposed facts and inconstancies, just in case they are marginalised, yes I consider them to be weak.

No no no. You were speaking about the poor poor consumers, conditioned into seeking happiness in material things. And this is what I referred to.

Otherwise, how do you know that QM is not superstition?
Really, how do you prove that QM is not superstition? Is not like you can see, touch, smell, hear, taste any of QM, can you?

One has to meet one's own criteria. These criteria haven't fallen from the sky though. They can be found to be part of this or that already existing ideology. But this doesn't automatically mean that one lives under the dictate of this ideology.
By behaviour, I'd pass for a Christian, and someone could say my views agree with the Christian. But this doesn't mean that I think for myself that I have to meet criteria demanded by Christianity.

*What are these Christian views?

You mean what me and Christianity have in common? That I don't lie, I don't murder, I respect my parents, I don't sleep around, I don't drink alcohol or do drugs. You noticed I was compassionate, some say I am loving.
They aren't exclusively Christian views, Christianity doesn't have monopoly over certain views.

This isn't true. One can choose to *accept* a knowledge, a truth, or not.
This is as good as it gets.
If you say that one can choose to know the truth about oneself, then you are implying that this truth already exists; and that the person already knows what it is, but then, by some "willful rebellion", "decides" not to know it.
You are making the same mistake as popular evangelizers, who brand every non-believer to be "wilfully rebelling against God". This is too simplistic, far too simplistic.
Just like some non-believers don't know what to think of God, whom to believe (and as such, their unbelief is not a willful rebellion), some people can't recognize the truth about themselves, can't get to it (for whatever reason) -- and you can blame neither for "choosing not to know".

*Pardon, what I mean is, you can choose whether it effects you or not.

Oh. If someone hits you with a hammer, it is up to you to choose whether your bones will break under the blow?

“My advice can break it. It is quite simple. One can choose to change, or not.”

“How is your advice supposed to work on someone who has been *conditioned* into thinking that he cannot choose?!”

*Hopefully, my advice can penetrate the conditioning enough to plant a seed.

Planting the seed is far from enough. It is actually not much at all. You need to water it, and take care of it. The seed can't do that itself.

Ultimately, even when we are exposed to a wider range of choices, we still choose to back the wrong horse.

Why is this so?

 

[stretched]

Hi water,

Persistense is my middle name, time is my nemesis.

Quote water:
"If that system is rejected -- what is to come into its place?"

Tabula rasa. Unfortunately to undo the indoctrination that has been impacted over the millennia, (read same religious mindset, different names) would seem an almost impossible task. The reality of the information age should be fomenting free untethered thought, but if we look at the resurgence of Fundamentalist thought, especially in the US, along with the presidents apparent Christian stance, the present religious worldview seems deeply entrenched. Unfettered thinking is the key.

Quote water:
"If you want some first class science bashing, go here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43398"

Chewing on that, but raging against the machine, and I will not go gentle into that good night.

Quote water:
"Return to the natural man ...
How?
Why?
Define "natural man".

*Natural man as in: "I eat to live, not live to eat". As in: "now is all I have, yesterday is gone, tomorrow is but a possibility". From this perspective, springs forth the redefinition of motivation in all aspects of life. If not redefined, the question will remain: "where does the present road lead?", and because the answer is unknown, superstition will be the consistant outcome.

Quote water:
"It is not so much about being "different" -- it is about identity."

*I am the son of my father, but I do not need to like or even love my father. What then defines my identity? Why would I need others to agree with me. The ego is the culprit, the conscious control of ego is the key.

Quote water:
"Both fighting parties can be prp-eace, pro-tolerance, but if there isn't enough food or space, they will fight."

*Alas this is the state of affairs, but what of the mindset that thinks, " if we gather food together, we can provide more!" Religious doctrine has caused the divide that prevents this mindset. The Jews are gods "chosen people", before modern Israel was established, there was no Middle Eastern conflict. Now there is not enough space. Que?

Quote water:
"Superstition", in all its many forms, is inavoidable.
It would now qualify for superstition, what was once believed about spinach and the high levels of iron it contains."

*Superstition as in "tradition" is probably unavoidable. But even this has a natural progressive evolution. But superstition as in "indocrination" is silly. Rational scrutiny exposed the spinach fallacy. Testable in the lab.

Quote stretched:
"*Acting on their superstitions , they wanted to change “others that were not like them” to conform to their own brand of “what we believe to be right”. They imposed a belief on others by force. In the name of Christianity."

Quote water:
"Exactly what you are doing. Only the names are different. If what you are saying to me now, you would be saying to a more militant capitalist, he would say that you are trying to impose communistic ideas on him, and make him a feely touchy twat like yourself ...

*No, I am obeserving life and commenting. There is no imposition. There is no consequence for disagreeing with my thinking. Feely, touchy twat! Off with her head! No, rather burn the heretic! The book says it is ok!

Quote water:
"Fight for food, territory, resources, mates. As always.
Note that for us to be undivided, we would have to have a relatively primitive state of technology. Hi-tech as we know it demands different kinds of labour, and some have to do the dirty work, and some rule. Hence your division."

*Ah, so the way we are conditioned to think, is that the only way to lessen division, is to go primitive. Heh. Hi-tech should technically (he, he) improve the lot of the underpriviledged. Once again, disparity in wealth, a byproduct of consumerism is the gremlin. So if human nature could find a way to embrace "sharing", which has to do with compassion and empathy, why do we need to go primitive to achieve unity? Religion inhibits sharing as it creates division. Share, yeah, but only within out own church.

Quote water:
"Yeah, the right direction is a primitive society with the life expectancy of about 30 years, and infant death rate around 60%.
Then, then we could all be happy and undivided."

*The concept that primitive is undesirable is open to debate. The societies that flourished around the globe, before the white man tainted them with disease and religious imposition, were generally "happy". The infant death rate was an accepted part of life. Westeners have a terrible habit of assuming that our mores are universal. Is a happy life of 30 years equal to a unhappy life of 80 years? If I ask honestly, how many days of the month are you truly happy water?

Quote water:
"Your point?"

*Religion creates division. Period.

Quote water:
"Your suggestion is vile as it is based on the supposition that a certain amount of people has to sustain the system as it is (and remain enslaved in it), so that you can then see yourself in a particular antagonistic relation to it."

*I see your point but I talk from my experience.

Quote water:
"I honestly oppose humanistic principles.
While they may be possible to put into practice, and a free, humanistic society may be possible -- it is not humanism that will lead to that sort of society.
If you enforce (!) humanism, you have to get rid of all those who oppose it -- and considering the capitalists and the consumers and those depending on that system, the numbers are huge. They have their identities that are, according to humanism, just as worthy of existing like any other.
To get rid of those who refuse humanism -- in order to establish humanism world-wide -- would be very unhumanistic, don't you think?"

*Fair enough, I am not into enforcing any "ism" onto anybody. I am in favour of advancing humanistic principles, based on what I see around me. My motivation is pure empathy.

Quote water:
"you are saying Anything you think is right, is right."

*Yes, this is essentially what I am saying. "Do as thy wilt, shall be the whole of the law".

Quote water:
"What makes you think that you are normal, while they are weirdoes?!"

*I am normally wierd, and they are wierdly normal. But yes, This is my POV only, as is all my observations. I try to think objectively.

Quote stretched:
"Ah, but this is where unconditional choice comes in. Free will if you will. I want to reciprocate because it is honestly meaningful to me.”

Quote water:
"To you. But it is not universally true."

*Test it for yourself. If you smile at someone, they generally smile back.

Quote water:
"Have you tried? Have you read the Bible, spoke to Christians?"

*I have studied religion, and the psychology of religion for many, many years, and on a certain level I can identify with the persona called Jesus. But this would have to be in isolation. When one brings the entire Christian belief system into the picture, there is no way I can identify with Jesus the Christ.

Quote water:
"You can relate to God when He was Jesus.
God is not just what Jesus' service on earth was, but Jesus is someone you can relate to."

*As above. Unfortunately to find faith in the Christian religion, all the aspects of God and Jesus need to be reconciled.

Quote water:
"Do you believe that to God, humans are puppets?"

*Yes, if you mean the Christian god, no if you mean my understanding of god.

Quote water:
"I'm not sure that "blood, pain and torture" were meant to invoke sympathy -- that would be sheer emotional blackmail."

*Have you seen Mel Gibsons "The Passion"? If you did, how did it make you feel?

Quote water:
"Actually, I can."

*Good for you water. Do you find comfort in this relating?

Quote water:
"How do you know that God doesn't hear those prayers?
You think that if God would hear them, He would immediately grant them?'

*In a nutshell, people are still suffering.

Quote water:
"I read that some SoutAfrican black men believe sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS. So they rape. And infect their victims. Those victims may reject the notion that sin transcends the sinner -- but they still have to live with being infected with HIV. They have to live with the consequences of another person's sin."

*This is another sad example of the power of superstition. This is not the same concept of "original sin" as per the Christian religion.

Quote water:
"We love with the HOPE of an outcome. We don't expect it. If we'd expect it, then love would merely be a means to an end -- and wouldn't be love anymore. But if we hope for an outcome, then love itself is what we are hoping for."

*Yes, you are right. So the love remains conditional, upon the outcome of love reciprocated. If no reciprocation, the potential relationship would probably die, and thus the conditional nature of this love. In my experience there are higher levels of love, that transcend this type. Maybe love for the sake of itself. Even in spite of itself.

Quote water:
"Kant and his disinterested affection. Bah. If it is affection, it can't be disinterested.
When one loves, one doesn't expect something in return, one hopes for something in return."

*See above, in a sense yes, but not necessarily. One may feel love for someone who invokes admiration or respect. This type of loves needs no outcome. It feeds off itself.

Quote water:
"If you lose no sleep over it, then you maybe haven't devoted enough time to it. And by paying it little attention, it certainly appears silly to you."

*It appears silly to me because I have devoted more than enough time to reach that honest conclusion. That does not mean I cannot gain more knowledge on the subject, and thus my conclusions are subject to change if need be.

Quote water:
"Unconditional love is relative? Hm?"

*Relative to the following. I am not sure how much love I can find for someone who harms me or my kin.

Quote water:
"And? It's not like I experience myself on the quantum level. I don't think of myself as being some fancy mess of quantum particles."

*No? Whats wrong with you water? I think I was just trying to say that the possibilities are endless. In terms of "infinity", anything that you can think or imagine is possible.

Quote water:
"No no no. You were speaking about the poor poor consumers, conditioned into seeking happiness in material things. And this is what I referred to.
Otherwise, how do you know that QM is not superstition?
Really, how do you prove that QM is not superstition? Is not like you can see, touch, smell, hear, taste any of QM, can you?"

*Pardon, I am with you now. Right one does not need a new fridge if the old one works. OK. QM may well be a superstition, but at least it is a harmless superstition. I don`t mind those at all. Furthermore it is not a groundless superstition, and certain verification as to its fundementals are available. No amount of mathematics can verify one iota of the Bible.

Quote water:
"You mean what me and Christianity have in common? That I don't lie, I don't murder, I respect my parents, I don't sleep around, I don't drink alcohol or do drugs. You noticed I was compassionate, some say I am loving.
They aren't exclusively Christian views, Christianity doesn't have monopoly over certain views."

*See, I told you, you are a nice person! How can such a person be born in sin?

Quote water:
" Oh. If someone hits you with a hammer, it is up to you to choose whether your bones will break under the blow?"

*I can choose to a certain degree of accuracy, how close I allow that hammer, and the circumstances surrounding the hammer, to get to me. If the hammer still gets to my skull, I can choose to become a victim, or to grow from the experience.

Quote water:
"Planting the seed is far from enough. It is actually not much at all. You need to water it, and take care of it. The seed can't do that itself."

*Without the seed, you have nothing. Once the tree takes root, a forest becomes a distinct possibility. This is not complicated.

Quote stretched:
"Ultimately, even when we are exposed to a wider range of choices, we still choose to back the wrong horse. ”

Quote water:
"Why is this so?"

*Human nature at first seems to be as unfathomnable as seeing eternity in a wild flower. On closer inspection we may find that superstition compells us to make the wrong choices.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

*Have you seen Mel Gibsons "The Passion"? If you did, how did it make you feel?

Really? After that ordeal, all you could muster was sympathy? You did not leave the cinema asking "Why?"

 

[Silvertusk]

Quote from Stretched.

“ I believe your conscience is a product of your genes, biological balance, and life experience. Jean Valjean in “Les Miserables” is a fair example of conscience at work in the human condition. ”

Probably irrelevent now but the character Jean Valjean in Les Miserables was driven by his conscience because of his belief in God. It is a theme that runs all the way through.

 

[audible]

is it I never noticed it, it was a bit vague if it was.

 

[Silvertusk]

is it I never noticed it, it was a bit vague if it was.

Fair enough. I was only going from the musical, so feel free to mock me on that, as it is deserved. Couldn't quite get into the book.

Anyway - in the musical the character gets taken in by a priest when he is suffering, and then steals some silver. When he was brought back by the police the priest surprises him by giving him more silver and tells Valjean that he has brought his soul for God. Valjean then spends the rest of the Muscial trying to do the right thing by God. e.g., saving a convict from wrongful imprisonment, taking in Cosette etc...... If fact at the end he asks whether he has done the right thing by God and is told that he has.

So accorrding to the muscial (I know I know... ) His consciousness is driven my his belief in God.