people first

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Wise words and I agree that we have a deep cause (and purpose) in attacking the more vile parts of religions and their misogynous and homophobic gods.

If non-believers ignore those immoral gods and religions, then we forget that for that for evil to grow, all good men need do is nothing.

Good men will attack the immorality of the mainstream religions and try to kill Yahweh and Allah.

Regards

DL

  

 

That is not where I was going.  The world has had enough attacking.  What we have to do is  -- stop.  Just stop.  No more attacking and no more persecutions.  No more attacking people for what they believe.  No more attacks for what people don't believe.  Just stop.  We need to take a few deep breaths and let it go.

As for killing Yahweh and Allah -- No.  We can not kill an idea.  What we can do is stop feeding the idea -- much like not feeding a fire.  The Gods will die, only if we stop feeding them.  Religion thrives on persecution.  Your way will keep them alive forever.  A man who spends his life fighting evil will never have peace.  Will never focus on the Good.

This is a basic component of reality, embodied in physics.  "For every  action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

What we don't need is an endless war between the forces of religion and anti-religion.  It is hard to let go of anger.  It is hard to let go of self righteous rage.  It is hard to let go of resentment.  Just let it go.

There is no killing of the Gods.  Focus on reality.  They will fade away, if we let them.

 

[mererdog]

29 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

As much as morality is subjective and not objective, yes.

Morality is subjective, therefore logic is opinion? Not only do I disagree with your premise, but your logic seems shoddy. How does the one follow the other? A more sound argument based on your premise would seem to be "Morality is subjective and logic is objective, therefore morality is illogical".

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

53 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Whether one has cause to bash and flame, and whether one should engage in such activity...there is a difference.  A person may have cause, but should rise above.  That is simply my opinion.

It's a good opinion.  We don't want to be permanent prisoners of the past.

[LeopardBoy]

On August 22, 2016 at 10:36 AM, cuchulain said:

Agreed Johnathan.  I would add, if God is truly all knowing and all powerful, he is perfectly capable of fulfilling his own needs instead of having us place his needs before our own.  And isn't it in the bible somewhere that God helps those who helps themselves?  What about helping those who help others as well?

The phrase "God helps those who help themselves" isn't biblical, but rather originated in Greek tragedy and the fables of Aesop, specifically Heracles and the Wagoner.

[Gnostic Bishop]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

As much as morality is subjective and not objective, yes.

Is, --- the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, --- subjective or objective?

It is the only moral tenant that I have yet to put into the subjective category.

Regards

DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Whether one has cause to bash and flame, and whether one should engage in such activity...there is a difference.  A person may have cause, but should rise above.  That is simply my opinion.

??

So if you see your neighbor beating his wife and kids, and you think you should bash and flame such activity, would you rise above criticizing it and just walk away?

What if he is a pedophile about to do some kid?

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

That is not where I was going.  The world has had enough attacking.  What we have to do is  -- stop.  Just stop.  No more attacking and no more persecutions.  No more attacking people for what they believe.  No more attacks for what people don't believe.  Just stop.  We need to take a few deep breaths and let it go.

As for killing Yahweh and Allah -- No.  We can not kill an idea.  What we can do is stop feeding the idea -- much like not feeding a fire.  The Gods will die, only if we stop feeding them.  Religion thrives on persecution.  Your way will keep them alive forever.  A man who spends his life fighting evil will never have peace.  Will never focus on the Good.

This is a basic component of reality, embodied in physics.  "For every  action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

What we don't need is an endless war between the forces of religion and anti-religion.  It is hard to let go of anger.  It is hard to let go of self righteous rage.  It is hard to let go of resentment.  Just let it go.

There is no killing of the Gods.  Focus on reality.  They will fade away, if we let them.

 

So we should just ignore Honor killing, FGM and men selling their children as child brides or stoning gays and fornicators.

No thanks.

For evil to grow, all we need do is ignore the fire and let it grow. Sure it will eventually die but might take a lot of cities with it as it leaves.

Regards

DL

[cuchulain]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

Morality is subjective, therefore logic is opinion? Not only do I disagree with your premise, but your logic seems shoddy. How does the one follow the other? A more sound argument based on your premise would seem to be "Morality is subjective and logic is objective, therefore morality is illogical".

Now you call my logic shoddy?  I don't choose to spell everything in my decision making process out to you, friend.  There is a chain of logic which leads to my conclusions.  I do not ask you to accept that chain, rather I simply explain what I believe about the subject at hand.  Take it or leave it as you will. 

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, LeopardBoy said:

The phrase "God helps those who help themselves" isn't biblical, but rather originated in Greek tragedy and the fables of Aesop, specifically Heracles and the Wagoner.

Thanks for the input!  I knew I had heard it somewhere, but assumed it was biblical since that was the most common source of hearing it.  

[cuchulain]

24 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Is, --- the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, --- subjective or objective?

It is the only moral tenant that I have yet to put into the subjective category.

Regards

DL

 

I do not know.  I cannot personally consider a situation in which the needs of the few are greater than the needs of the many, but that could simply be a poor imagination on my part.  mererdog made the assumption that I was stating morality is strictly subjective, when I was not.  I was stating that logic is subjective just as much as morality is.  I do not know whether morality in it's ENTIRETY is subjective or objective.  I tend to believe it could be that there are some few principles which are universal, but the rest is interpretation based on those few principles, or in addition to those principles.  Still, ultimately my answer is I do not know.  Lot's of typing to say that, eh?

[cuchulain]

24 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

??

So if you see your neighbor beating his wife and kids, and you think you should bash and flame such activity, would you rise above criticizing it and just walk away?

What if he is a pedophile about to do some kid?

Regards

DL

I think it is situational, and no one solid answer fits every situation.

[cuchulain]

21 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

So we should just ignore Honor killing, FGM and men selling their children as child brides or stoning gays and fornicators.

No thanks.

For evil to grow, all we need do is ignore the fire and let it grow. Sure it will eventually die but might take a lot of cities with it as it leaves.

Regards

DL

For evil to grow, yes.  Not every action a person takes is good or evil, black and white.  There are many shades of gray.  A person might work for a company in an effort to feed his family and keep from taking from society through social programs, trying to be of benefit to those around him in some small way.  A person could say this was a good act, but looking deeper find that the guy in question works for an immoral company which is bettered through his efforts, and in which his efforts contribute to the immoral actions of said company.  Then a person could claim he is evil.  In reality, he is simply trying to make ends meet, and so falls in the neutral category, for me.

[Gnostic Bishop]

40 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

For evil to grow, yes.  Not every action a person takes is good or evil, black and white.  There are many shades of gray.  A person might work for a company in an effort to feed his family and keep from taking from society through social programs, trying to be of benefit to those around him in some small way.  A person could say this was a good act, but looking deeper find that the guy in question works for an immoral company which is bettered through his efforts, and in which his efforts contribute to the immoral actions of said company.  Then a person could claim he is evil.  In reality, he is simply trying to make ends meet, and so falls in the neutral category, for me.

I hear you and was thinking of the tobacco scientist who turned whistle blower.

People still grow tobacco knowing that they are producing a crop that kills people.

I think that they should find another cash crop. Perhaps cannabis as it has proven to be a lot less harmful.

Tobacco as an issue here is a lot different than cars which also kill a lot of people. In this case, I would not recommend that auto workers find a new trade.

I know you will see this as me splitting hairs but I see a value in a car and none in tobacco.

Regards

DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

51 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I do not know.  I cannot personally consider a situation in which the needs of the few are greater than the needs of the many, but that could simply be a poor imagination on my part.  mererdog made the assumption that I was stating morality is strictly subjective, when I was not.  I was stating that logic is subjective just as much as morality is.  I do not know whether morality in it's ENTIRETY is subjective or objective.  I tend to believe it could be that there are some few principles which are universal, but the rest is interpretation based on those few principles, or in addition to those principles.  Still, ultimately my answer is I do not know.  Lot's of typing to say that, eh?

They say that it takes 10 times the energy to correct a mistake as compared to the little bit of energy used to do it right the first time.

As with our topic here, you bring in the qualifiers or exceptions only after I ring them out of you.

I think we are on the same basic page though as I have qualifiers that you did not try to wring out of me.

I E. I think it immoral to lie but think it quite good to tell white lies. It is a matter of intent to do harm or intent to do good. Telling aunt May that her ugly dress is perfect for her is not immoral.

In law, they have a term called mens rea. That is Latin for evil mind or evil intent and if a defendant is not shown to have an evil intent then he is not usually found guilty.

 

Regards

DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

57 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I think it is situational, and no one solid answer fits every situation.

There is that qualifier I spoke of above.

Regards

DL

[cuchulain]

Agreed, life is full of qualifiers.  I see things in intent, for the most part.  There are some instances where I disagree with the action even though the person thinks they are doing good.  It does seem like we are on the same page, in a lot of ways.  That's scary to me...

[Gnostic Bishop]

4 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Agreed, life is full of qualifiers.  I see things in intent, for the most part.  There are some instances where I disagree with the action even though the person thinks they are doing good.  It does seem like we are on the same page, in a lot of ways.  That's scary to me...

That is likely due to my natural arrogance, criminal mind and delinquent attitude.

You might have all or some of those but in smaller quantities.

Regards

DL

Edited August 25, 2016 by Gnostic Bishop

[mererdog]

17 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Now you call my logic shoddy?

I said it seems that way based on your explanation. So, yes, I took it as you gave it. And the way you gave it leaves it looking shoddy. Telling you how it looks allows you the option of leaving it how you gave it, or trying to improve how it looks. Your choice. No pressure. No offense meant.

Edited August 26, 2016 by mererdog

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎18‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 2:59 PM, cuchulain said:

Oops

 

 

Edited September 25, 2016 by Gnostic Bishop

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 8/25/2016 at 4:47 PM, Gnostic Bishop said:

I hear you and was thinking of the tobacco scientist who turned whistle blower.

People still grow tobacco knowing that they are producing a crop that kills people.

I think that they should find another cash crop. Perhaps cannabis as it has proven to be a lot less harmful.

Tobacco as an issue here is a lot different than cars which also kill a lot of people. In this case, I would not recommend that auto workers find a new trade.

I know you will see this as me splitting hairs but I see a value in a car and none in tobacco.

Regards

DL

 

By all means, let us split hairs.  In at least some of Native American culture; tobacco was/is part of ceremony and religious practice.  Sometimes, things are not so simple.

     

Edited September 28, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl