human stupidity- the curse of mankind

[Muslimwoman]

I am sorry I disappoint you..

Hi Tao

Apologies I meant my post to be funny not rude. You never disappoint me, I find you to be a good person with a good heart, that is quite a rare commodity these days. Your current mode of thinking is very personal and you know I don't try to convert people or expect them to believe as I do.

I think if you were to look back this process of shedding off the last remaining threads of possibility of me finding "faith"

You are still a young man and nothing is beyond possibility.

I hope that I can continue to add a little to the discussions here and all remain friends

I jolly well hope you will continue to add to discussions here and as for remaining friends - I am not that easy to get rid of!!!!

Salaam

 

[Ahanu]

"Some pagans came to Hillel and told him that they would convert to his faith if he could recite the whole of Jewish teaching while he stood on one leg. So Hillel obligingly stood on one leg like a stork and said: 'Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you. That is the Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and learn it.'"

But how could Hillel say that his Golden Rule represented the whole of Jewish teaching?

That everything else was just commentary?

What about faith?

What about believing in God?

What were those pagans supposed to believe?

This quote from a Jew and these questions from Karen Armstrong make me think beyond organized religion and the differences in theological beliefs. I believe I can spend my whole life trying to learn more about the golden rule and never master it. It never made sense to me that a person could be excommunicated from a congregation of people based on their theology, unless it is radically extreme/dangerous. The best theologians do not have to elaborate or spend too much time talking about Him, because God leaves us all speechless and in awe. When "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" appears, He is not a self-delusion, but rather a self-realization. I don't think Moses, a realist, was delusioned when God summoned him from the burning bush. I believe in God, who is truth, and I love to read scripture, but I have come to dislike the poplular literal interpretation of many scriptures that churches cling to. Because if I do not believe in these interpretations, then I might not be able to openly share them, especially the interpretations of the resurrection and the end of days. I prefer the Baha'i interpretations. I think I am actually a Baha'i. I believe faith is simply believing in what is unseen.

I just want you to know were I stand. I do not wish to get into a debate. This is all I am saying in this thread.

 

[Snoopy]

Re: Can atheists and religious people have a real dialogue?

Atheism is a cold word in the perception of most here and myself. So I adopt it reluctantly. It is cold for no small reason. It means giving up that warm comfort blanket of a super-daddy out there somewhere assuring us that it is all gona be ok in the end.
Regards

Tao

Happy that you're happy to have shed what you wanted to, Tao. Only wanted to comment that I personally do not feel that the only two "options" are atheism or a "super-daddy" type concept.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

OK, getting a little serious now. Yes wil, if this is all about anything these days, the increasingly disruptive tossing about of people, societies, and their beliefs, it is about what is flowing through us all in a relentless fashion. It is a set of universal energies in flux that are pushing us all towards changes that have been needed for some time, but which must, of necessity come slowly lest there be more and more chaotic episodes, more often.

One side of the human species equation says," no we must have predictability, reliability, stability, determinism at any cost, because anything else will lead to anarchy." My opinion is that these, what might otherwise be labeled fascist tendencies, are advocated most vehemently thru traditionally male-controlled, institutional frameworks of world governance, including some of the major religious institutions.

The other side are the more earth-bound , female oriented attitudes of embracing change as it comes and to make new ways of living and continuance by selecting the best of what is embedded in these energies and using that to power the engines of the future, which are the children. These voices say, "we must harmonize ourselves with what is natural and not artifice, for that is where we come from, and that is where we all must remain now and in the future, so rooted to guarantee our collective well-being. Now I realize that I am overly generalizing the basic conflict here, and there is considerable crossover everywhere, but this, IMHO, is the foundation. Men are from Mars and women are from Venus...if you will.

flow....

Oh flow, you’ve gone all yin and yang on us!!!

There is indeed no such thing as permanence and unchanging constancy. Impermanence and hence constant change is the only definite in the universe. The universe is Indra’s net.

s.

 

[wil]

I went through an atheist stage....a couple times...

What I really discovered was that what was counter to my intelligence was the conventional image of G!d. Once I shed that (took years), the multiverse opened. And then it took years returning to Christianity to listen to the word (both the word G!D and the Word) and not regress.

 

[flowperson]

Hi Snoopy...this all just goes to show you that even when people like us wave their arms over their heads and smile, strange things may happen.

Of course I was only trying to outline the framework for conflict that has emerged in our minds as a result of what has transpired since the homo species began to evolve on this particular planet. And, although many would like to deny the fact, it still constantly goes on every day, week, month, year that we exist here. What I wrote doesn't speak to my universal views which are the irrevocable truths of change and transformation wherever a sentient being is able to make observations.

In other words, yin-yang viewpoints might suffice in describing local environments and situations, but these sorts of dualistic views always break down and fail in analyzing universal and non-local situations. See...we agree.

By the way, did you catch the photos of Pamela Anderson's tatooed upper arm on the web this am ? The blonde Canadian beauty was married to a Mr. Rick Solomon whose nickname is "scum", between shows last evening just a few blocks from where I live. That legally makes her fair game again...eh Sibu ?

flow....

 

[cyberpi]

Absolutely!!!....And this is why I can say with such confidence that religion is superfluous baggage.

Would you say the same of marriage since people can have relationships and babies without a marriage? Would you say the same of employment since people could work for themselves instead of for others? Would you say the same for education, since people could seek answers from the world all on their own?

I am afraid I have, despite i think being genuinely open to such revelation, never encountered this God of which you hint.

I've been open to sex with a few celebrities but the relationship has yet to happen. Go figure.

Anything can be approached with science.

Everything except free will... and my wife.

Other than that, and this time i genuinely do not attempt to counter your opinion, I really do not understand these two sentences in the context of this thread. Sorry.

I was merely defending a definition and the value of 'faith' with the relationships that you do recognize. I think it is better to claim no relationship and see the value of 'faith' than it is to have any relationship whatsoever and not have 'faith' in it.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I believe in God, who is truth, and I love to read scripture, but I have come to dislike the poplular literal interpretation of many scriptures that churches cling to. Because if I do not believe in these interpretations, then I might not be able to openly share them.

That is certainly ringing a bell in my head Baptist.

Salaam

 

[Leafblade]

Stupidity and natural selection?

The Evangelicals and Muslims that harp on about the end of days and cite their prophecies from their respective tomes go to great lengths to quote how precise these age old writing are in predicting current events. But the most momentous events in the history of mankind are not mentioned at all. the first man to leave Earth and the first man on a foreign sphere, the moon, play no part in any prophesy. Why? Because these ancient writings were not prophesy but earlier evangelical "the end of the world is nigh" headcases. All we see is the same tripe repeated again and again...... usually pushed by some megalomaniac madman. Because we have such a long, and sadly often cherished, tradition of harbouring such insanities within our cultures they continue. But they have no basis in fact. No-one has ever had a prediction of any magnitude even close to what such self-important fools profess to have revealed to them. Its all at very best self-delusion...and all too often cynical manipulation.

What better army than those made up by idiots? I think of this from a different view point. As a biologist. This form of collective stupidity could be a result of our desire to save every life we come across, and not letting natural selection root out those who aren't stronger mentally. Those people who blindly follow a religious or political path, would normally become the grunts of a military, and likely die on a bloody battlefield and become food for the scavangers.

 

[flowperson]

HI Leafblade

Very good observation, and I believe to be valid in many respects. I've come to call it "the lemming syndrome".

flow....

 

[Muslimwoman]

Hey I am not sure if I like being called a lemming. Stupid I can cope with but lemmings...... humph.

 

[cyberpi]

So Hillel obligingly stood on one leg like a stork and said: 'Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you. That is the Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and learn it.'"

But how could Hillel say that his Golden Rule represented the whole of Jewish teaching?

Nice way there to summarize and compare the Torah and the NT:

Torah: Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you.
NT: DO unto others as you would have them DO unto you.

I see a very big difference there. One includes the other and adds to it. So, I reject calling the former the 'golden rule'. I also see complex variations which incorporate 'Faith', 'Truth', 'God', etc... one is called by some the 'platinum rule'.

 

[wil]

Torah: Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you.
NT: DO unto others as you would have them DO unto you.

I see a very big difference there. One includes the other and adds to it. So, I reject calling the former the 'golden rule'. I also see complex variations which incorporate 'Faith', 'Truth', 'God', etc... one is called by some the 'platinum rule'.

Unless I misconstrue, I see some arrogance in the second one?? Since I choose brussel sprouts, or Christianity so would everyone else....

I prefer:

Do unto others as they would have done unto them.

Is there a reason we should impose ourselves on everyone?

 

[cyberpi]

... you know I don't try to convert people or expect them to believe as I do.

I'm a bit confused here... is this the Truth? No sales pitch? No propaganda? No trying to convince anyone of anything?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you all for your replies and my apologies to Francis for so comprehensively hijacking your thread

MW,

I thank you for your concern and I can see skimming back that you might get the impression I was on a "downer". This not the case at all, infact my personal life is more fulfilling just now than in a long time.

Perhaps because I am usually pretty tired by the time I can get here I am lacking a little in humour and rambling a bit rather than making my point, but I must be doing something right because its been a rather lively thread I have several times on CR now been called a Godless Atheist so perhaps I am persuaded by folk here after all.. but I think short of a profoundly schizophrenic episode I doubt seriously I will ever embrace any notion of the Abrahamic God thing. And even if i find myself accepting God I doubt I will ever accept any religion. After all i could not bare to lose my sprawling self-righteousness

BB,

Lol... If that is all the Bible says then it makes a lot of sense to get rid of it!! We should not need religions to remind us of such a simple common courtesy.

Snoopy,

I agree there are more than 2 ways to look at it. Indeed much of Islam and Evangelism talks about less a suga-pappa than a terrible wrathful tyrant. But I know you dont mean that either. I think I do know what you hint at however, and still I do not feel one has to invoke "God" to explain the deeper "continuities". As you state to Flow "Indras net" or perhaps the zero-point matrix?... the universe is bigger than we can ever dream of. How presumptuous to pretend to know God!! How cynical and conniving to try and use such professed knowledge to influence others.

No one rationally believes in God. Despite their best efforts to prove it to themselves that final leap is one of faith and faith alone. Because there is no rational evidence for the existence of any creator entity. There is no evidence at all that is any more conclusive than that mathematically huge coincidence that is all here by chance and chance alone. But even if there is some 'order'...and some apparent "design" in the basic laws that govern our existence this would be irrelevant to the point I make here on religion. Religion to peddle a God that watches us, judges us and promises us salvation or torture dependant on how closely we follow a man made doctrine. This is non-sense...and very stupid. And most importantly of all it is by its nature counter to a true brotherhood of man. The mass media is used to dumb down people....mass religions are used to the same purpose.


Leafblade,

Forgive me for being a hopeless romantic. I would still rather a world with no murder.

Cyberpi,

Would you say the same of marriage since people can have relationships and babies without a marriage? Would you say the same of employment since people could work for themselves instead of for others? Would you say the same for education, since people could seek answers from the world all on their own?

You fall in love with a "real" person, work for a "real" employer and get educated by a real "teacher". Because of your mindset you make God a real thing. For me it is not.

Free will is most certainly dealt with by science and there are some very good explanations for why people are disposed toward religions too. Such dissection of the psyche is rarely embraced by the religious tho. Nobody likes to be proved to have backed a crock.


Tao

 

[cyberpi]

Unless I misconstrue, I see some arrogance in the second one?? Since I choose brussel sprouts, or Christianity so would everyone else....

I prefer:

Do unto others as they would have done unto them.

Is there a reason we should impose ourselves on everyone?

I view that 'platinum rule' as faith. I think though you might be desiring a rule to take the 'free will' out of it... are you a slave to what others want? Also, if I say something you did not want to hear, have I arrogantly imposed on you? Nobody imposes on me by telling me what they think or believe, or even what they think I should think or believe. I hear and I choose from what I hear. No set of words on the face of the planet is going to hurt me... unless I choose them to. Even the deception and lies.

If someone demands that I follow or obey their ritual, whether they agree or not, it is placed upon me to choose whether to obey or to disobey. I might obey and eat the brussel sprouts which I detest, with faith in my doctor or parents. Or I might disobey and not eat the brussel sprouts which I detest, with a lack of belief in the knowledge of my doctor or parents... despite their good intentions. Upon disobeyance I would state my belief and ask for understanding of why they insist that I eat brussel sprouts. It is not a matter of a good or a negative path whereby some 'rule' points out the rightful path. The choice is real and the choice is life... I view negatively any rule that tries to remove life... tries to remove the 'free will' out of it.

If I lack any knowledge of brussel sprouts and I reject my doctor and parents simply for my lack of faith in them, or for a protective feeling of not wanting someone to impose their will on me, then I will learn nothing from them. My lack of faith will have blinded me. Yet if I lack any knowledge of brussel sprouts and I blindly accept the knowledge of my doctor and parents, then I equally will have learned nothing. Following blindly might lead me into a pit. So, I might not learn the value of brussel sprouts by either accepting or rejecting them. It reminds me of the saying... it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles, but what comes out. In my view that defilement is good and it removes ignorance. The child who speaks asking questions or just reveals themselves will learn much faster... and per their own choosing.

If anyone claims arrogance in anyone for what they say, I am loath to the arrogance of the person who claims it... they have revealed their value for pride and it conflicts with them to hear it in others. If I am accused of pride I will quickly disown it: anything good in me ultimately came from Allah (swt), and neighbor.

 

[wil]

Namaste Cyberpi,

Rule #2 Don't take anything personally.

I've stated what I stated numerous times....long before you made your comment...I did not say you were arrogant. I said the golden rule of 'Do unto others as you'd have done unto you' seems to contain arrogance.

Let's take an example....say someone is into S&M, enjoys being beaten and humiliated by others.... I would not prefer that they do unto me as they would have done unto them....would you? Now you don't have to answer that, this is a public forum, and what you do in private is your business....

However, can you see that just because others would like to be treated in one way, that all are the same and all would like to be treated in that way?

The saying is ancient....and while it can be said hopping on one foot....my opposition to it surely shouldn't put you on such a defensive....even if in some previous incarnation you perceive yourself to be the inventor of the idear.

 

[Snoopy]

....
See...we agree.

How could we not?

By the way, did you catch the photos of Pamela Anderson's tatooed upper arm on the web this am ? The blonde Canadian beauty was married to a Mr. Rick Solomon whose nickname is "scum", between shows last evening just a few blocks from where I live. That legally makes her fair game again...eh Sibu ?
flow....

Isn't it someone else's turn to be the brunt of all the ribbings, I feel quite besmirched.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Hey I am not sure if I like being called a lemming. Stupid I can cope with but lemmings...... humph.

Hey, you're not the first to be compared to a furry animal you know. Some of us have even had images to demonstrate.

(but it made me laugh)

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Snoopy,

I agree there are more than 2 ways to look at it. Indeed much of Islam and Evangelism talks about less a suga-pappa than a terrible wrathful tyrant. But I know you dont mean that either. I think I do know what you hint at however, and still I do not feel one has to invoke "God" to explain the deeper "continuities". As you state to Flow "Indras net" or perhaps the zero-point matrix?... the universe is bigger than we can ever dream of. How presumptuous to pretend to know God!! How cynical and conniving to try and use such professed knowledge to influence others.

No one rationally believes in God. Despite their best efforts to prove it to themselves that final leap is one of faith and faith alone. Because there is no rational evidence for the existence of any creator entity. There is no evidence at all that is any more conclusive than that mathematically huge coincidence that is all here by chance and chance alone. But even if there is some 'order'...and some apparent "design" in the basic laws that govern our existence this would be irrelevant to the point I make here on religion. Religion to peddle a God that watches us, judges us and promises us salvation or torture dependant on how closely we follow a man made doctrine. This is non-sense...and very stupid. And most importantly of all it is by its nature counter to a true brotherhood of man. The mass media is used to dumb down people....mass religions are used to the same purpose.


Tao

Yes, Tao, I think you’ve outed my hint. Rather unhelpfully perhaps the word “God” is used by different people to mean entirely different things…such as a creator deity, a suga-pappa, a wrathful tyrant, Truth, the ineffable, the Tao (!) (OMG). And which “one” of these we subscribe to determines whether or not faith is required.
For example, if one takes the word “God” to be a reference to the ineffable then it does not require any “leap of faith” to make use of the word “God” I would say. But with the word being used in such disparate ways I can see it’s very confusing (and liable to be a “reason” for conflict…). (I do not say that to undermine any definition that does require such a leap).

Perhaps if there really is an order, a design, a universal law, we may not have the intelligence to comprehend it, but it should have some word other than “God” ascribed to it, which can then be retained by those who use it to refer to a creator deity.

I suppose if one understands “God” to refer to a creator deity and also one feels the need for rational proof for something and also feels such proof is lacking, then an atheistic conclusion is inevitable.

s.