• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

The Bible

How do we get these ideals across to the masses then? We need someone like Martin Luther King to state what matters. Telly and popular culture emphasise the need for the latest fashions, gadgets and junk. I think education has a lot to do with it, the few people who share my sentiments are the ones who've stopped and bothered to ponder about meaning and value.

Time and how you choose to spend it is the most important thing. Most people want to spend time being happy. For that, imho, you need the freedom to spend your time with people you care about and do the things you want to do. Expensive cars, flash houses and other junk are a waste of time because most people squander their life trying to get these meaningless things. When they get to their death bed and look back, perhaps they'll wonder why they worked so hard?

Having said that, everyone who works deserves the right to own a house and afford food, otherwise they're in indebted slavery.
You mean the Rev Martin Luther King. You are right that you won’t remove religion from society, as it isn’t really about religion per se, but people’s faith. The majority of people in the world have faith in some sort of God or gods; religion is just formalising that. I’d have no problem with that not being a function of government, but it can have something positive to offer (as you say), and nurturing relationships is core to most of them.
 
If it was pure previously formed memory, then he would chose the same option each time. The fact that he varies his choice, but always ignores one option means that it is neither habitual nor random.
How does he know which option to ignore and why...?
 
I agree, but how many of those teach about integrity because it's the right thing to do? Even some lawyers cheat in their exams. They won't cover excessive greed, selfishness or vanity either. Modern culture tends to celebrate those values because people judge success with material things. A big car, a big house, lots of money - that's what matters in life. In reality the most important thing is time and how you treat other people. Most major myths teach this allegorically, from the Iliad to the bible.
In all religions there are thieves, perverts, cheats, murderers etc...it's part of human nature. The prisons in US actually contain more god fearing inmates than non believers. The book does not work.
 
t it can have something positive to offer (as you say), and nurturing relationships is core to most of them.
I wish I could agree with that statement but from experience, while they all preach about how one behaves towards one's fellow man, I have serious doubts whether "nurturing relationships" is core.
 
I wish I could agree with that statement but from experience, while they all preach about how one behaves towards one's fellow man, I have serious doubts whether "nurturing relationships" is core.
That's fair. It has always been core to my Church and in my life, but I agree in some cases what should be the core principle is lost.
 
I have no idea. He simply never goes in one particular direction, though quite happily comes back home that way.
He is not using 'Free will'... Either a learned response, routine, following his nose or whatever... We are all being led by existing rules and conditions. Nothing on Earth is independent of them. 'Free will' is impossible.
 
That's fair. It has always been core to my Church and in my life, but I agree in some cases what should be the core principle is lost.
That's fair. It has always been core to my Church and in my life, but I agree in some cases what should be the core principle is lost.
Good and bad things happen regardless of religions. Nature is mindless...in fact acting exactly as one would expect in a godless existence. Religions are an aberration and ineffective in changing reality.
 
exactly as one Religions are an aberration and ineffective in changing reality.
That may have fundament, but they can be quite successful in changing perception of reality.
 
Religions are an aberration and ineffective in changing reality.
Many of the factors that enable you to sit wherever you sat just now to write that are a result of the influence of the major religions in early stages of the formation of human society as we know it. Of course that doesn't mean that those religions originated from an other-than-human source. Credit is where credit's due however - by fair means and foul (scaring, intimidating, inspiring etc), the major religions succeeded in instilling various forms of order and stability in a way that no other system succeeded.
 
Last edited:
Many of the factors that enable you to sit wherever you sat just now to write that are a result of the influence of the major religions in early stages of the formation of human society as we know it. Of course that doesn't mean that those religions originated from an other-than-human source. Credit is where credit's due however - by fair means and foul (scaring, intimidating, inspiring etc), the major religions succeeded in instilling various forms of order and stability in a way that no other system succeeded.
A gross distortion and misconception that is often used. Religions have been more damaging to education and enlightenment than any other influence throughout history. It still is... Some people learn about reality in spite of religion, certainly not because of it.
 
A gross distortion and misconception that is often used. Religions have been more damaging to education and enlightenment than any other influence throughout history. It still is... Some people learn about reality in spite of religion, certainly not because of it.
You are only able to blithely spout such things because of your blissful unawareness of anything beyond the very limited perspective of this time now in which you live - it reflects a total failure on your part to appreciate how humanity looked 4,000 years ago, compared to today.

The problem is of course, that having "made its mark" in a positive way on human society thousands of years ago, religion has become a dead-end street of positive ethics inextricably entwined with stone-age superstitions and often absurd beliefs and dogma. Humanity has evolved while religion limps along far behind, desparately trying to find ways to still be cool and causing much damage and divisiveness.
 
Last edited:
A gross distortion and misconception that is often used. Religions have been more damaging to education and enlightenment than any other influence throughout history. It still is... Some people learn about reality in spite of religion, certainly not because of it.
You are only able to blithely spout such things because of your blissful unawareness of anything beyond the very limited perspective of this time now in which you live - it reflects a total failure on your part to appreciate how humanity looked 4,000 years ago, compared to today.

The problem is of course, that having "made its mark" in a positive way on human society thousands of years ago, religion has become a dead-end street of positive ethics inextricably entwined with stone-age superstitious and often absurd beliefs and dogma. Humanity has evolved while religion limps along far behind, desparately trying to find ways to still be cool.
I'll go along with @lookfar, historically if it had not been for Muslim inspired and funded research and investigation in the middle ages based both in Baghdad and Toledo/Al Andalus, we would be still at least a couple of centuries behind where we are today.
The mere fact that Arab mathematics developed the zero hitherto missing in all numerical calculations allowed for the development of physics as we know it today.
In Europe all those who wanted real learning flocked to Toledo.

That said, I agree that Catholic Christianity was a dead-weight on areas of learning for quite some time, but not all areas. Farming, without which population cannot expand and thus allow a wider intellectual base for further advancement is one example. Warfare, typically allied to politics, which did interest the Church progressed fairly well.

Not a simplistic area of debate at all.
 
You are only able to blithely spout such things because of your blissful unawareness of anything beyond the very limited perspective of this time now in which you live - it reflects a total failure on your part to appreciate how humanity looked 4,000 years ago, compared to today.

The problem is of course, that having "made its mark" in a positive way on human society thousands of years ago, religion has become a dead-end street of positive ethics inextricably entwined with stone-age superstitions and often absurd beliefs and dogma. Humanity has evolved while religion limps along far behind, desparately trying to find ways to still be cool and causing much damage and divisiveness.
Under the illusion that religion is some kind of cure for humanity is frankly daft. I don't know what you see 4000 years ago that makes human behaviour any different now? Observation should inform you that today the most destructive and inhumane countries on the planet are religious. Individuals willing to commit the most atrocious crimes against humanity are religious. Crime, cruelty and murder have not diminished one iota. Furthermore any claims that religion has fostered education is a flawed analogy. For without religion, natural curiosity and the desire to learn, outside of religious constraints would have accelerated our knowledge enormously. People understand this now... one of the reasons why primitive dogma is failing.
 
He is not using 'Free will'... Either a learned response, routine, following his nose or whatever... We are all being led by existing rules and conditions. Nothing on Earth is independent of them. 'Free will' is impossible.
If it was learned, he would occasionally go left, which is a way he has often been taken but never chooses himself. If it was routine, he would never take the route he takes about 5% of the time. If it was following his nose, he would occasionally go left, the way he never goes. If it was random, the split would be more even. It's down to choice, his choice.
 
If it was learned, he would occasionally go left, which is a way he has often been taken but never chooses himself. If it was routine, he would never take the route he takes about 5% of the time. If it was following his nose, he would occasionally go left, the way he never goes. If it was random, the split would be more even. It's down to choice, his choice.
You don't know why dogs behave like dogs....I have been a dog owner from my earliest years. They appear to 'choose'...as we do. Behind every so called 'choice' there are underlying reasons. Reasons mean that free will is not involved. We can only follow instructions from our sub-conscious. It cannot be reversed. The illusiuon that 'YOU' are in charge is flawed.

By the way...if animals have 'free will' it destroys the notion that a christian god exists. And that any omnicient being is ruling the universe.
 
You don't know why dogs behave like dogs....I have been a dog owner from my earliest years. They appear to 'choose'...as we do. Behind every so called 'choice' there are underlying reasons. Reasons mean that free will is not involved. We can only follow instructions from our sub-conscious. It cannot be reversed. The illusiuon that 'YOU' are in charge is flawed.

By the way...if animals have 'free will' it destroys the notion that a christian god exists. And that any omnicient being is ruling the universe.
Having reasons for taking a course of action doesn't mean free will isn't being exercised. If there were no reasons, then actions would be random, which is not free will, so the absence of reason ≡ the absence of free will. With reasons comes choice, and only if choice is limited will reasons dictate rather than inform that choice.
 
Having reasons for taking a course of action doesn't mean free will isn't being exercised. If there were no reasons, then actions would be random, which is not free will, so the absence of reason ≡ the absence of free will. With reasons comes choice, and only if choice is limited will reasons dictate rather than inform that choice.
You don't understand how things work... if there are no reasons nothing exists except randomness from beyond. If there are reasons "choice" cannot be free of them. As a puppet on a string you cannot move without them.
 
How do we get these ideals across to the masses then? We need someone like Martin Luther King to state what matters.
Mornin' DC,

An interesting couple of sentences. Seemingly innocuous but in fact, can be seen as somewhat arrogant.

They assume the originator or the MLK 'leader', is somehow removed from the masses, and obviously superior to them if they can see what the masses do not. It assumes the masses are unaware of or unable to discern for themselves such 'truths'.

Also, it's merely the start of another religion, a religion of 'people thinking right', which of course is the basis for all the other religions.

It shows the, to my mind, childish notion, that if we all think the same, all will be well.

Judaism was one attempt that spawned another that was Christianity, that spawned another that was Islam. And each of those attempts has involved violent coercion at one time or another.

I think that any 'living right' has to be an individual thing that may or may not be an example for others to follow.

Bigpod is my shining example, living what he believes yet not asking for anybody else to think as he does or do as he does.


****Not suggesting you're arrogant, just the wording that came to me.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top