Utterly Disgusting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-05-2015, 06:52 AM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2015 06:56 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 07:26 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The problem with your point here is that the Bible is simply wrong about some stuff, and that impeaches its credibility. Bats aren't birds. Pi does not equal three. Whales are not fish. The Bible is literally wrong. And what truths it does have aren't unique to it.

Though I would quibble with some of the examples your brought up, with birds, and the whale thing as question of taxonomy, whether or not the Hebrew's had a language that distinguished between birds and bats, or whales and big fish, as we in the English speaking world do. But I get the point.

The Biblical writers most likely held views about the world quite common for their time, like the sun revolving around the earth. If we take this as literal, than they were in fact simply wrong. Of course it would be quite hard to argue that they were merely being figurative here, and didn't actually believe this. So yes, in some cases, they were in fact simply wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 11:09 AM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(13-05-2015 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 02:52 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If you just view things already set as well moral movements are based on "truth" or immoral ones are based on "evil" without stopping to first ask yourself before typing it, Why do I think this is truth and this is evil and should I think this way, I don't think you're going to expand your mind and perspective a lot.

When I’m speaking of truth and lies here, I’m not particularly speaking about good and evil, but the beliefs those perceptions are built on, where evil is often dependent on false beliefs, like scapegoating. Do I need to explain why scapegoating is based on false beliefs and lies? That it is underpinned by this tendency to associate our frustration and anger onto a fictive victim, that we delude ourselves into believing is the source of all our problems, like the jews? Or dehumanization, where we attempt to view others as less than us, less than human, as parasites, rather than like ourselves, as human beings who are no different than us.

Let’s say if I were to encourage a genocide of all atheists in the US, propagated on a belief that atheists are the source of all our countries problems, that they’re not human beings, like the rest of us, so their mass murder, even of their children is perfectly fine. Is the lie/the deception here apparent to you? i.e atheists are the source of all our problems, that they are not human beings, like the rest of us. Or are you going to question why this is a lie?

Quote:The Hebrews might not of put "labels' Of less than human to outsiders but they distinguished, especially clearly with slaves, from a Jewish person and a non-Jewish person.

They’re just outsiders, they’re not less than human. They’re distinguished like foreigners are distinguished from citizens, family members, from non-family members, those a part of one’s tribe, and those not a part of one’s tribe. In none of these situations is it a matter of seeing the outsiders here as less than human, though the insiders do receive numerous benefits, and privileges, not afforded to outsiders. “If slavery is a necessity for our time, than we’re not going to take slaves from our own tribe, we’ll acquire them from outside tribes.”

Thomas Aquinas, believed that all rational creatures are entitled to justice, and as result there was is natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, yet he viewed slavery as a necessity in his time. This was in contrast to the Aristotelian view, that people were slaves because of their personal sins, that some people were slaves by nature like inanimate instruments. Both of them supported slavery, but only one of them relied on seeing the slave as less than others.

Quote:Is there a need? I don't see any need.

Why dehumanize them than? Why proclaim that blacks are inferior to whites, as subhuman? If you don’t think they needed to do this? Why do you think they did?

“Gitta Sereny asked Franz Stangl, the former commandant of the Treblinka death camp, “If they were, going to kill them anyway, what was the point of all the humiliation, why the cruelty?” He replied, “To condition those who actually had to carry out the policies. To make it possible for them to do what they did.” -Budziszewski,

Why where the Nazi’s so dependent on dehumanization, on humiliations and cruelty towards those they were going to kill anyway? Why devalue them? Why is it needed to “make it possible to do what the did.”?

Quote:How do you know the tribes are lying to themselves?

When I say people are lying to themselves, as distinguished from lying to others. I mean it as a self-deception, a delusion. Like when a person scapegoats, the belief that the victims they take their anger and violence on is the cause of it, is a self-deception. This doesn’t mean that they are acutely aware of this self-deception, anymore so than a person suffering from psychosis recognizes their suffering from psychosis.

Quote:Are people who think they're possessed by the devil or speaking in tongues lying to themselves?

It’s not really the same thing here. These people could be deluded. But the difference between these examples and others, is that they are used as justification for murder and cruelty towards others. That I see them as subhuman for the sake of killing them. The factors of the lie here, are often hatred and resentments we conceal, personal failing we do not want to acknowledge, guilt we want to keep far from our minds.

Quote:Or are they misinformed or uneducated on the situation to the point that they don't know they are wrong.

If it was just a matter of misinformation and education, then we could imagine that all our bigotries and prejudices can be resolved by providing pamphlet listing all the facts. But when we talk about views that suffer from confirmation biases, delusions, we’re not taking about a mere ignorance. We’re talking about factors in which one willfully conceals the truth from themselves, that they are dependent on the falsehood for some reason or the other. But when speaking of falsehoods like this, that one clings to to seeing others as subpar, as less than them, we’re more often than not talking of false perceptions dependent on factors like resentment and hatred.

Revenant has a point as you are randomly seemingly quote mining ot adjust conversation in just a manner your taking it and not actually going on the points. You've basically kept trying to boil things down to 1 focus even taking the other comments like, my Not seeing a Need about justification or anything. There is no need doesn't mean people don't do it.

All of it is really just a stronger more biased form of Outgroup/ingroup. It's taken to further levels because like you clearly already know, it helps people get manipulated easier. It's the works of those with power or strong agendas that may often try to cultivate those thoughts and sometimes it's merely occurring because of lack of educational biased. To say, Give them a pamphlet to educate them, I hope is a joke comment. If you think education can be so easily taught and education of all times isn't constantly struggling with biases and preconceptions then you're far too deluded yourself.

Dehumanization works and helps people out. Germans in WW1 were dehumanized against by The Tiple Entente and called Mad Brutes, depicted as Apes or Devils. The Nazi's saw its effectiveness and saw how Jews for years were already being dehumanized by propaganda, especially by Russia in the early 1900s and they took that information and rampped it up. It worked, it filled their needs. It helped build their moral values of the German traditions, authority, and purity that they sought after. It allows people who hold those values at an equal level of Harm to be open to committing horrible acts in favor of their German values.

To say some things that I'd rather say. I say there is no need to justify ourselves, but humans do justify ourselves because we are social creatures. If we didn't have this capability to justify ourselves, 1 bad action could oust us from the groups which help protect us and allow us to keep reproducing. Not everyone who stays in the group will agree to the ideas and adaptations will exist seeing things differently like Stevil, but that doesn't prevent our communication from taking place well enough to prevent reproduction from continuing.

I'd like to go back to the moral universal point. I still don't see see justification proof of universality or how you define it. Is it merely "we just know?" Then how do you know humanity in large droves isn't self deceived?

"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
13-05-2015, 01:25 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
Quote:I'd like to go back to the moral universal point. I still don't see see justification proof of universality or how you define it.

A justification is done in consideration of foreknowledge. If I were to justify to a judge why I had broke the speed limit, it's only with the foreknowledge of their being a law already in place. If I were to say that it's warranted/justified to kill a man, because he is guilty, I'm indicating that I acknowledge that killing an innocent man is unwarranted/unjustifiable. When a Amazonian tribe kills a handicap child, believing it's warranted since it's not a child, they reveal that they know that killing a child, is not warranted, that it's wrong to kill innocent children. Justifications are often telltales of this sort of moral foreknowledge.

Quote:Is it merely "we just know?" Then how do you know humanity in large droves isn't self deceived?

That could possibly be true, it could all just be one huge self deception, that these aspects that seems consistent for humanity in large droves, are just illusory. Illusions likely resulting from human tendencies to rationalize their emotional inclinations. I don't find that argument very convincing, though there are a number of prominent atheists thinkers who hold such a position. None of them have particularly devoted a great deal of though in consideration of it, but it could be true.

Another explanations in support of self deception, is one I had suggested in the past, as a result of religious influences, rather than purely intuitive leanings, but pretty much everyone here rejected that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 01:48 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(13-05-2015 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:I'd like to go back to the moral universal point. I still don't see see justification proof of universality or how you define it.

A justification is done in consideration of foreknowledge. If I were to justify to a judge why I had broke the speed limit, it's only with the foreknowledge of their being a law already in place. If I were to say that it's warranted/justified to kill a man, because he is guilty, I'm indicating that I acknowledge that killing an innocent man is unwarranted/unjustifiable. When a Amazonian tribe kills a handicap child, believing it's warranted since it's not a child, they reveal that they know that killing a child, is not warranted, that it's wrong to kill innocent children. Justifications are often telltales of this sort of moral foreknowledge.

Quote:Is it merely "we just know?" Then how do you know humanity in large droves isn't self deceived?

That could possibly be true, it could all just be one huge self deception, that these aspects that seems consistent for humanity in large droves, are just illusory. Illusions likely resulting from human tendencies to rationalize their emotional inclinations. I don't find that argument very convincing, though there are a number of prominent atheists thinkers who hold such a position. None of them have particularly devoted a great deal of though in consideration of it, but it could be true.

Another explanations in support of self deception, is one I had suggested in the past, as a result of religious influences, rather than purely intuitive leanings, but pretty much everyone here rejected that.

If you can sit there and justify an action to a person then it is morally justifiable. That in no rational way makes it an unjustifiable action. It may be heinous or unfavorable; thought that doesn't mean you can't justify the action.

What do you mean, none of these people are devoting a great deal of consideration to it? A bunch of them have and it's what some critical sections of neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy still are dedicating themselves to examining. That's exactly what I would consider devoting a lot of time and thought into the ideas and what they would mean. Self deception could come some other sources but it should come from what examining the information all across the world.

"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
13-05-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(12-05-2015 11:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

In any communication, there are two parties, the speaker and the listener, the writer and the reader. Ascribing a failure of communication to one and only one party to the communication needs firm support, especially when given such a book as the Bible, which you yourself have already admitted is irregular and meant to be read different ways through different passages.

Why would a perfect deity select such an imperfect form of communication over a subject so allegedly important as eternal salvation? Can you not conceive of a better method yourself? I could.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
13-05-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(13-05-2015 06:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-05-2015 07:26 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The problem with your point here is that the Bible is simply wrong about some stuff, and that impeaches its credibility. Bats aren't birds. Pi does not equal three. Whales are not fish. The Bible is literally wrong. And what truths it does have aren't unique to it.

Though I would quibble with some of the examples your brought up, with birds, and the whale thing as question of taxonomy, whether or not the Hebrew's had a language that distinguished between birds and bats, or whales and big fish, as we in the English speaking world do. But I get the point.

The Biblical writers most likely held views about the world quite common for their time, like the sun revolving around the earth. If we take this as literal, than they were in fact simply wrong. Of course it would be quite hard to argue that they were merely being figurative here, and didn't actually believe this. So yes, in some cases, they were in fact simply wrong.

And if they can be wrong about simple factual things, what does that tell you about things that are more subjective, say, morality? The idea that they could err on the simple stuff means that their take on the more complex matters of morality and ethics is suspect, to my mind.

Certainly a better method of communicating such important truths should be available to a deity ascribed with the quality of perfection, one would think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
13-05-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(13-05-2015 02:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Why would a perfect deity select such an imperfect form of communication over a subject so allegedly important as eternal salvation? Can you not conceive of a better method yourself? I could.

This perfect deity didn't seem to invest much stock in man's ability to see or hear either, let alone read:

"While seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." _ Math 13

"Isaiah 42:20
"You have seen many things, but you pay no attention; your ears are open, but you do not listen."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(13-05-2015 02:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 02:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Why would a perfect deity select such an imperfect form of communication over a subject so allegedly important as eternal salvation? Can you not conceive of a better method yourself? I could.

This perfect deity didn't seem to invest much stock in man's ability to see or hear either, let alone read:

"While seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." _ Math 13

"Isaiah 42:20
"You have seen many things, but you pay no attention; your ears are open, but you do not listen."

Ecclesiastes 7:25-- "I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness."

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
13-05-2015, 03:10 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
Mark 4: 11-12

11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,
“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

^^ How's that Tomasia? Your God doesn't *want* to forgive people, he'd rather deceive them.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
13-05-2015, 04:10 PM
RE: Utterly Disgusting
(13-05-2015 02:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 02:31 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Why would a perfect deity select such an imperfect form of communication over a subject so allegedly important as eternal salvation? Can you not conceive of a better method yourself? I could.

This perfect deity didn't seem to invest much stock in man's ability to see or hear either, let alone read:

"While seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." _ Math 13

"Isaiah 42:20
"You have seen many things, but you pay no attention; your ears are open, but you do not listen."

And yet this propensity of man's, placed there by his creator, is allowed to be a block to the salvation your god is alleged to desire for men.

It's as if you refused to teach your child to read, and then handed him a list of household rules, and punished him for thereafter being disobedient. Certainly an all-knowing deity could find the right mode of communication to effect the salvation he is alleged to desire so deeply that he offered up his own son as a blood sacrifice. (Pardon me as my gait gets more irregular. The potholes in the storyline are becoming harder to avoid.)

Either your god is not terribly concerned with saving men, or not nearly as wise as is alleged. In either case, unworthy of worship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: