Utterly Disgusting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2015, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2015 08:26 PM by Dom.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 05:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-05-2015 01:11 PM)Dom Wrote:  That just proves what I have been saying - social evolution has shifted from eliminating the overly emphatic to eliminating the ones without empathy. And yes, people become calloused when exposed to certain things day in and day out. That is real time learning. I also talked about that.

I'm not sure what you mean here by social evolution? Is it the same as biological evolution?

And how exactly are the overly empathic being favored here as opposed to the less empathic? Are they producing more children?

Are the less empathic being weeded out by producing less offspring?

Social evolution is exactly what it says - society evolving over time. Luckily it is infinitely faster than biological evolution.

For instance, look at the life of a child with Down Syndrome 200 years ago, 100 years ago, and today. That alone will tell you a lot.

Our society jails the non empathic, or kills them, if their lack of empathy leads them to do things society does not approve of, such as rape and theft and torture and murder. Not every person lacking all empathy becomes a sociopath though, so there are plenty that still procreate. The focus is on whether they do or do not fit into a society that aims to protect it's members. Those who are non-empathic and do not demonstrate real time learning (adaptation to the cultural environment) are removed from society, one way or another. Religious people generally call these folks "evil".

My examples come from western society. Not all societies evolve at the same speed.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
11-05-2015, 08:29 PM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2015 08:42 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 07:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 06:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're already a heretic, lol. You're already outside of the Bible, so no one can expect you to look at it, or read as an insider (a believer) would.

No, she is an apostate, not a heretic.

I'm your heretic, Tomatillo.





Poor soul. You was just too highstrung.

(11-05-2015 06:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're not a Christian are you?

More so than you, I'd wager.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
11-05-2015, 10:02 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2015 06:36 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 10:41 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's like you don't understand that there is a significant portion of people who believe these stories in a way differently from you. Plenty of people who still read it actually still believe it's describing the Omni-trio god they believe in.


If they assume the God character in the Flood story, as well as some other OT stories is omnipotent, it would likely just indicate that they haven't really read the stories, or just glanced over these conflicting details.

The problem would be more acute for those for those who subscribe to strict forms of literalism, than those that don't.

Quote:But it leads to more open realm of questioning, where would objective morality even come from if there isn't this Omniscient/omnipotent God anywhere to have evidence of. If it's just a God that all we know is what info it gave to us, but we can determine it isn't Omniscient. How do we the God is morally right? Why would we trust it's morals or trust it has a say in what is good morality?

Even though I believe in omniscient/omnipotent God, it doesn't follow that objective morality is dependent on this. Not even the biblical writers assumed that one would have to subscribe to their religion, or their book, to know right from wrong. Such as Paul observation of the moral behavior of the gentiles, who had no book of their own:

"or when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,…" (Roms 2)

So you think there is a moral objectivity that is right? That comes from the biblical god, but it's not described accurately in the Bible.

So which biblical laws can you deem are objectively right? How do you what moral rights are in regards to slavery or respecting the Sabbath. Or murder for that matter, it's claimed to be gods commandments, but how do you know it's really his commands?

You're really hinging on a concept that lacks any notion of how to see it. So one is supposed to understand God is omni-labeled through the texts he inspired people to write that don't describe him as he is to any close degree.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
12-05-2015, 06:21 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 08:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  Social evolution is exactly what it says - society evolving over time. Luckily it is infinitely faster than biological evolution.
.....

Our society jails the non empathic, or kills them, if their lack of empathy leads them to do things society does not approve of, such as rape and theft and torture and murder. Not every person lacking all empathy becomes a sociopath though, so there are plenty that still procreate. The focus is on whether they do or do not fit into a society that aims to protect it's members. Those who are non-empathic and do not demonstrate real time learning (adaptation to the cultural environment) are removed from society, one way or another. Religious people generally call these folks "evil".

So by social evolution, you're implying some form of artificial selections. Since the non-empathic often get jailed they're not able to have offspring as a result, their empathy deficient genes don't get passed along, and slowly get pruned out of the gene pool?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 06:44 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 06:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 08:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  Social evolution is exactly what it says - society evolving over time. Luckily it is infinitely faster than biological evolution.
.....

Our society jails the non empathic, or kills them, if their lack of empathy leads them to do things society does not approve of, such as rape and theft and torture and murder. Not every person lacking all empathy becomes a sociopath though, so there are plenty that still procreate. The focus is on whether they do or do not fit into a society that aims to protect it's members. Those who are non-empathic and do not demonstrate real time learning (adaptation to the cultural environment) are removed from society, one way or another. Religious people generally call these folks "evil".

So by social evolution, you're implying some form of artificial selections. Since the non-empathic often get jailed they're not able to have offspring as a result, their empathy deficient genes don't get passed along, and slowly get pruned out of the gene pool?

Social evolution is separate from biological evolution, it only talks about how societies evolve. But, yes, it does affect biological evolution in the long run. Everything in the environment affects biological evolution.

Society has evolved by leaps and bounds since the times of the bible. That is why the bible runs afoul of today's tolerance for human diversity. Gays are an example.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 07:39 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 10:02 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So you think there is a moral objectivity that is right? That comes from the biblical god, but it's not described accurately in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't particularly attempt to describe morality accurately, it holds morality as a given, as independent of the Bible itself, i.e Paul's description of the Gentiles. But knowing what is right does not equate to doing what is right. A thief may know that stealing is wrong but that doesn't mean he won't steal. Or a man may know that cheating on his wife is wrong, but that doesn't mean he won't cheat.

As Paul described in his own struggle: "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do......For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. ....I am doing the very thing I do not want," (Rom 7).

The Bible doesn't accurately describe what is Good, it presupposes that the Good once seen, is self-evident. And as far as the new testament writers are concerned, this good is out of reach. We are creatures who may know what the Good is, but fail to be anything of the sort. Their views are not a description on how to be moral, but a diagnosis humanities moral failing, as analogous to a broken relationship.


So which biblical laws can you deem are objectively right?

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation. Go and study it."
-Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a (Elder Hillel 30-40 years before Jesus)


Quote:How do you what moral rights are in regards to slavery

White slave owners would likely have known that slavery was wrong, if they acknowledged blacks as equals, as their neighbhors rather than lying to themselves that they were less than human, or cursed, etc.. Even the apostle Paul when sending a runaway slave back to his master, wrote to his master asking him to receive him back as a brother, as he would receive Paul himself.

Quote: Or murder for that matter, it's claimed to be gods commandments, but how do you know it's really his commands?

Because we all seem to know, in fact even murders seem to know. That taking innocent life is wrong, it's why we cling to justifications to say that sometimes violating the command is necessary. I was watching a recent documentary, called the Act of Killing, in which a gangster who killed over 1000 communist, often strangling them, and beating them to death, confessed that he knows that what he done was wrong, but that he had to do it.

Quote:So one is supposed to understand God is omni-labeled through the texts he inspired people to write that don't describe him as he is to any close degree.

Yet, that seems to be common acknowledgement among monotheistic thinkers, christian, jew, muslim, otherwise.

Even Plato when contemplating the Good, as the last thing to be seen in the realm of the knowable, once seen, "one must conclude that it is the cause of all that is correct and beautiful in anything, that it produces both light and its source in the visible realm, and that in the intelligible realm it controls and provides truth and understanding."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 08:46 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(11-05-2015 06:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 06:04 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  The Bible's content is largely false if taken literally
Uhm, just because something is non-literal doesn't mean it's false. Unless truth is relegated solely to historical facts.
What I said is that the Bible is largely false if taken literally. Consider:
If I take the Bible literally I will reach largely false conclusions.

Am I mistaken? If I take the Bible literally will I reach consistently true conclusions?

(11-05-2015 06:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Taking the holy spirit as the only available guide to interpreting the book, many conflicting interpretations emerge justifying both good and evil.
I don't see why the holy spirit would be required to interpret or read the bible, any more than interpreting or reading any other book. Of course peoples biases, and prejudices often inflict their understandings, but thats pretty much of any writing period. How many times do faithful unbelievers accuse believers of not understanding the writings of Dawkins, Harris, Darwin etc... of distorting and quote mining them.
With literalism out of the way (you seem to agree with me on the point I actually made rather than the point you chose to argue against) I moved on to non-literal interpretation above. Here you say that the Holy Spirit is not required to interpret the Bible. Ok, if you're happy to stand by that.

So is there a way to read the Bible such that you receive the message God was trying to communicate? Is this possible for the average person? Why do so many people reach different conclusions about the message being conveyed studying the same text? What was God's reason for conveying the most important message of all time in a way that simply doesn't seem to be reliably accessible to anyone?

(11-05-2015 06:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:If the Bible is god's message to mankind, what exactly is he trying to communicate through it and in what way does this form of communication that seems to have such low information fidelity serve his purposes?
Before we even start to consider the Bible God's message to mankind, perhaps we'd have to start interpreting it as any other book first, to see if it has anything profound or meaningful to say, to call it even divinely inspired.

I'm not interested in spending my life studying a book that is anything less than the revealed word of God Wink How much time do I need to spend studying this book that you say is not a message from God in order to discover if it has anything profound and meaningful to say? Do you really not stand by the book at all as being a message from God to mankind? Is God mute?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
12-05-2015, 08:53 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 07:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2015 10:02 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So you think there is a moral objectivity that is right? That comes from the biblical god, but it's not described accurately in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't particularly attempt to describe morality accurately, it holds morality as a given, as independent of the Bible itself, i.e Paul's description of the Gentiles. But knowing what is right does not equate to doing what is right. A thief may know that stealing is wrong but that doesn't mean he won't steal. Or a man may know that cheating on his wife is wrong, but that doesn't mean he won't cheat.

As Paul described in his own struggle: "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do......For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. ....I am doing the very thing I do not want," (Rom 7).

The Bible doesn't accurately describe what is Good, it presupposes that the Good once seen, is self-evident. And as far as the new testament writers are concerned, this good is out of reach. We are creatures who may know what the Good is, but fail to be anything of the sort. Their views are not a description on how to be moral, but a diagnosis humanities moral failing, as analogous to a broken relationship.


So which biblical laws can you deem are objectively right?

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation. Go and study it."
-Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a (Elder Hillel 30-40 years before Jesus)


Quote:How do you what moral rights are in regards to slavery

White slave owners would likely have known that slavery was wrong, if they acknowledged blacks as equals, as their neighbhors rather than lying to themselves that they were less than human, or cursed, etc.. Even the apostle Paul when sending a runaway slave back to his master, wrote to his master asking him to receive him back as a brother, as he would receive Paul himself.

Quote: Or murder for that matter, it's claimed to be gods commandments, but how do you know it's really his commands?

Because we all seem to know, in fact even murders seem to know. That taking innocent life is wrong, it's why we cling to justifications to say that sometimes violating the command is necessary. I was watching a recent documentary, called the Act of Killing, in which a gangster who killed over 1000 communist, often strangling them, and beating them to death, confessed that he knows that what he done was wrong, but that he had to do it.

Quote:So one is supposed to understand God is omni-labeled through the texts he inspired people to write that don't describe him as he is to any close degree.

Yet, that seems to be common acknowledgement among monotheistic thinkers, christian, jew, muslim, otherwise.

Even Plato when contemplating the Good, as the last thing to be seen in the realm of the knowable, once seen, "one must conclude that it is the cause of all that is correct and beautiful in anything, that it produces both light and its source in the visible realm, and that in the intelligible realm it controls and provides truth and understanding."

First I'm impeccably impressed to see someone say, The Bible, The Bible, The Bible... then keep saying Paul says this, Paul says that. You somehow jumped and act like the first idk, 30 something books before his existence don't reflect constant moral tales. In fact, the 2nd through 4th book have plenty of teachings intentionally talking about what is a moral societal system. You can dismiss it with some quote of a scholar but what does that mean? It is tons of moral teachings, especially if you don't think it's literal, that's basically all it is, and a bit of mythological history spliced in.

Any, "we seem to know" argument about morality is noticeably clear though means of evolutionary. Especially with the impacts of our being social animals and having adjusted through societal changes to view and understand in different ways.

"we seem to know" MURDER is wrong or stealing... but how come we don't universally "seem to know" honoring the Sabbath? Or that Yhwh is the one true god? Or to not worship engravings of idols? Or that It is wrong to lay with a woman until a few days after she gives birth(and to wait longer if she birthed a girl) This is the point I am trying to get to, how do you know which moral laws are objectively true moral laws?

I don't get how you can conclude you have any justification anything "outside" in a grander scale does exist. What is your reasoning for believing it. You say, well we have some seemingly inner morality. But is that really?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 11:04 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 08:46 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  What I said is that the Bible is largely false if taken literally. Consider:
If I take the Bible literally I will reach largely false conclusions.

Am I mistaken? If I take the Bible literally will I reach consistently true conclusions?

It’s not evident as to what you mean by true here.

Someone could read a story literally, and another person non-literally and still derive the same overall meanings and messages from it. The overall meaning of the Crime and Punishment, isn’t really affected by assuming it was based on historical events or not. The only thing that would be false here, would be the assumption that events actually took place. But these falsities might just be inconsequential.

Also literalist don’t particularly take the entire bible literally, such as when they read a description of Jesus being a lamb, they don’t imagine him to literally be a quadrupedal, ruminant mammal. If someone did read this as literal, they would be drawing a largely false conclusion. Yet, perhaps they might also recognize the symbolic significance of the term as well.

Quote:So is there a way to read the Bible such that you receive the message God was trying to communicate? Is this possible for the average person? Why do so many people reach different conclusions about the message being conveyed studying the same text? What was God's reason for conveying the most important message of all time in a way that simply doesn't seem to be reliably accessible to anyone?

The question should be: “Is there a way of reading the Bible to understand the meaning and the message the authors of the various passages were attempting to communicate?”

But I’m not sure why you reserve the question exclusively to the Bible, and not all texts in general. Why do so many people reach different conclusions reading Darwin, Dawkins, Harris, Hume, Kant, Dostoevsky, etc…? Is there a way to resolve these difference? How do we know when someone is quote mining Darwin? Taking a passage out of context? Confusing sarcasm, or hyperbolic expressions, with literal ones, misinterpreting the writings, etc..?

Why do people reach different conclusions?

There could be a plethora of reasons. One reason could be a particular passage, might be ambiguous enough to allow for multiple reasonable interpretations. Other factors could be more detrimental like one’s own ideological commitments, biases, pride, etc….. It’s people that interpret the Bible, and people are conflicting and finicky creatures, but that’s a part of the beauty of it.

Recently I was reading an email exchange between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky, where Chomsky accused Harris of erecting a straw-man of his argument. Sam Harris couldn’t particularly register Chomsky’s clarification, it seemed to have gone over his head, though it was fairly simple and straight forward. The exchange here wasn’t a matter of differing opinions, as it was an inability to even understand each other, even after several exchanges trying to clarify.

Could Chomsky, or any of his defenders likely have been able to clear this up for Harris? Probably not. Though this doesn’t particularly address why not? What are the factors effecting Harris here? Some folks took Harris’s side, others took Chomskys side, both parties occurring the other side of being deluded.

The problems with interpreting the Bible, are not really problems of the Bible, as much as they are problems of people themselves, problems that appear replete everywhere, even here.

Quote:Do you really not stand by the book at all as being a message from God to mankind?

I think that whatever is true in regards to the Bible, is true in-spite of it. Just like one may say that whatever is true about Darwin’s writings, is true regardless if he had ever penned a word. The writers of scripture may have been more perceptive than others, just like Darwin may have been more perceptive than his peers. The word Israel, is a word that connotes a wrestling with a God, while other religions may just have accepted what their forefathers told them, the Hebrews were a community that continually grappled with these questions, often in agonizing ways, as in Job. They grappled and remained faithful, inspite of fortune or misfortune, being in power or being among the weak and powerless.

Quote:I'm not interested in spending my life studying a book that is anything less than the revealed word of God

To each his own.

Quote:Is God mute?

“"Truly you are a God who has been hiding himself” (Isa: 45:15)”

"As God is hidden, any religion that does not say that God is hidden is not true . … What can be seen on earth points to neither the total absence nor the obvious presence of divinity, but to the presence of a hidden God." - Pascal
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2015, 12:21 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2015 12:24 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 08:53 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  First I'm impeccably impressed to see someone say, The Bible, The Bible, The Bible... then keep saying Paul says this, Paul says that. You somehow jumped and act like the first idk, 30 something books before his existence don't reflect constant moral tales. In fact, the 2nd through 4th book have plenty of teachings intentionally talking about what is a moral societal system.

Yet the term "moral" in societal system is something you added there, without acknowledging that certain societal rules and regulations can be amoral. There can be societal laws that not particularly moral laws, like speed limits, or loitering prohibitions, etc... Yet, there seems to be divisions between this, and what the Jews saw as moral laws, the ones they see as carved in stone, written in the hearts of man.

There are various sorts of Hebrew guidelines, often to address questions of hygienic and dietary concerns, social cohesion, ritual practices, uniformities, addressing how to function and survive as a tribe, and political community in the ancient world. These where not particularly viewed as universal or moral dictates, but were deemed as relevant and necessary for their particular predicament at the time.

Quote:You can dismiss it with some quote of a scholar but what does that mean? It is tons of moral teachings.

Not all instructions are moral instructions. Though they might have some moral underpinnings. If I had chicken pox my mother might confine me to my room for several days, so that I don't infect my sister. The morality is not the instruction to confine myself in my room, but in not inflicting my sister with my disease, in consideration of her life and well-being. If there was cure, some tablet that I could take that would heal me immediately, than I wouldn’t need to be confined to my room.

Quote:but how come we don't universally "seem to know" honoring the Sabbath?

Yet, we draw lines between the sacred and the profane all the time. Meaningful persons, and events, often get their own special days, nationally recognized holidays. If there something of reverence we give it is own special significance, ceremonies, and rituals for our dead loved ones. We see certain things as holy (though this wouldn’t be a term you would use), as set a part from everything else. Somethings are everyday ordinary things, somethings are sacred.

Quote:Or that Yhwh is the one true god?

Or in your case, that there is no true God at all, that there is no God.

Quote:Or to not worship engravings of idols?

If the commandments are as summed up by Jesus, to be to love God, and love thy neighbhor, and if this God, even fictionally so is someone you believe should be despised, and hated, why would anyone expect you to acknowledge the love of God aspects here? That seems to be something only a believer can recognize

Quote:This is the point I am trying to get to, how do you know which moral laws are objectively true moral laws?

How do you know that murder or stealing is wrong? Clearly you even see these aspects as self-evident. No one has to indoctrinate you to acknowledge that murder is wrong, or stealing is wrong, or that we should be fair, do unto others as we have them do unto us, etc… I’m not appealing to some special knowledge that gives me some better footing to see whats immoral or moral than you. I’m just saying something about our footing itself, just as you do here:

Quote:Any, "we seem to know" argument about morality is noticeably clear though means of evolutionary.

That’s because anything that is self-evident, having a seemingly universal acknowledgement, irregardless of upbringing, or culture, etc… has to be explained away as some product of the mechanics of Darwinism, not because the case for this is compelling, or even remotely persuasive, but because it has to be, because Darwinism is true, it has to be because of certain ideological commitments.

Those acutely aware of the problems with this, of reconciling Darwinism and Moral Realism, are the ones who see why Stevel makes the most sense, or are typically the ones to conclude that morality is just a sham, and illusion. They recognize that they can’t have their cake and eat it to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: