Have you found a better religion...

[Waterfall]

Namaskaram

https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/art ... ar-meaning

Let us inspire our brothers and sisters How do you understand this...

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Keep up the good work...



We have a lot to talk about...











Your friend forever

Waterfall

[Purple Knight]

So then there is no limit to empathy and it's as I've thought, when I've pondered the worst: If that man wants to exploit you, pretend you were him and you'd like it, so let him. If he wants to kill you, same.

That's what Matthew appears to preach, which is why the Bible is NOT a good guide to morality.

Why isn't it? When I worry that there's no limit to empathy, I'm not worrying about the Bible. I'm worried that it's true. I can't prove that it's not. It's just destructive. That doesn't mean it's not moral. The highest forms of morality often seem highly destructive.

[TRANSPONDER]

So then there is no limit to empathy and it's as I've thought, when I've pondered the worst: If that man wants to exploit you, pretend you were him and you'd like it, so let him. If he wants to kill you, same.

That's what Matthew appears to preach, which is why the Bible is NOT a good guide to morality.

Why isn't it? When I worry that there's no limit to empathy, I'm not worrying about the Bible. I'm worried that it's true. I can't prove that it's not. It's just destructive. That doesn't mean it's not moral. The highest forms of morality often seem highly destructive.

I'm not so sure. When the highest form of morality is the golden rule, the worst it can do is be reluctant to interfere when it's badly needed.

But that's not a bad plan and Interference (misguided help) causes So much trouble (1) . But the point was made if I can recall it....extremist peace and reasonableness or some such has got to be good (aside from inaction when action is needed) and thus didn't suffer from the Bad of the extremism of the Activist parties.

Extreme good (and we know what it is, even if we can't define it) is really not so bad as we need to fear it, it is extremes of wrong thinking that cause the problems. And the heart of that is a problem I first realised in my teens even before i took my evening course in rationalist atheism - 'At least he has the courage of his convictions' is the main reason why he's probably doing it wrong.

(1) I gotta get this of my chests. On one of our trips back to see the Family, Mrs. Arq wanted to go via Singapore, and rather than let me plan the trip, she Took Advice from a neighbour (2) where to stay 'You must stay there; Very good, very cheap'. The taxi driver at Changi airport could not believe we wanted to go there. It was awful. Mind, it was fun to stay in the Indian quarter and have Dosa for breakfast. But of course there was no staying there on the return trip, so i got a different hotel. Nice but not cheap. And we had a good visit 2nd time, and I was quite pleased to entertain a Burmese family emigrated to S'pore to a buffet on the swimming pool roof. They must have been impressed. Especially as I scrounged the barbeqeue prawns for them to lake s home.

But all through Mrs Arq was acting like i was to blame for a rotten first hotel and an expensive second one.

And she was not the only one. When staying with my Sister during the crash when i had to rent my flat and live with her in London, apart from me being detailed to walk her dog (ain't it always) she blamed me for the milk leaking in the fridge wen it was clearly her method of decanting milk into small bottles and laying them sideways to freeze.

The method is, the nearest man gets the blame.

(2) I promise you, Manipulation of Hubby is done by showing she respects some other man more than him.

[William]

Q: Is it unreasonable to accept that an omnipotent creator of this universe would have any regrets about Its creation?

If we look at how the critters in creation fix things, we can see therein that if there is a creator mind behind this, then there is simply no need for said mind to feel regret for anything said mind created. Said mind has built into the ongoing creative process, a means in which problems which arise, are fixed - rather than regretted upon first, in order to then get about doing the fixing...

Perhaps the idea that the creator should regret what was created, is a projection of human emotionally based concepts?
[[The idea in assigning/projecting said emotion onto a creator ... the projection is in thinking how a human would feel if it were a human who created the universe, [and specifically the Earth and specifically Humankind] and applying that feeling to how a creator could also have regrets for what It created.]]

Religion appears to be a means of placing costume onto the fundamental idea of a creator (if we exist in a created thing).

If we remove the idea of a creator/being in a creation then do the same standards one applies to critiquing religion, apply to other aspects of human society - politics, science, industry commerce et al?

Are "cults" only to be seen in religious activity or can one equally apply the definition to secular projects?

When atheists critique religion are they open to critiquing (on the same grounds) all other forms of human social interaction (re "cultish" behaviour) to do with convincing individuals to part with their money in support of the platforms which allow for this type of social interaction?

Let's Pretend...

[Purple Knight]

I'm not so sure. When the highest form of morality is the golden rule, the worst it can do is be reluctant to interfere when it's badly needed.

But that's not a bad plan and Interference (misguided help) causes So much trouble (1) . But the point was made if I can recall it....extremist peace and reasonableness or some such has got to be good (aside from inaction when action is needed) and thus didn't suffer from the Bad of the extremism of the Activist parties.

Extreme good (and we know what it is, even if we can't define it) is really not so bad as we need to fear it, it is extremes of wrong thinking that cause the problems. And the heart of that is a problem I first realised in my teens even before i took my evening course in rationalist atheism - 'At least he has the courage of his convictions' is the main reason why he's probably doing it wrong.

I think you're right though that when in doubt, it's best to err on the side of not doing anything. I think that's why Star Trek has the Prime Directive. Nobody is saying it's always right, which is why they violate it so much, but what it's really saying is don't bloody dive headfirst into a swamp and try to muck it out without knowing perhaps one or two things about the biosphere you're messing with, first.

But I don't think you're right about the Golden Rule being the most extremist good. The Platinum Rule is considered highest, just look at this, it flat out says, "an even higher rule" which is do unto others as they would have you do. So if some scammer or drunkard wants your money, give it over. The supposed "flaw" of the Golden Rule is that it's not demanding enough, making it lower than the Platinum Rule. With the Golden Rule, I don't have to give anyone my money unless, in a similar situation, I would ask it of them. So the assumption is, morality should be one-sided and self-sacrificing. But then, what is the moral value of discovering a Platinum Rule that will have others one-sidedly sacrificing for everyone, including the discoverer?

In other words, "higher" morality being more demanding, more one-sided, more self-sacrificing, other others others, no you don't get any consideration for yourself, sounds to me like a scam. But I also know that I do not decide what is moral, the collective does, and they seem to have accepted the Platinum Rule, so, what to do?

The method is, the nearest man gets the blame.

I think what happened is also explained by people's general unwillingness to think logically about a situation. They blindly blame a chooser for a bad choice, even if he had no way to know his choice was bad.

The way I solve this is to ask if the chooser insisted upon his own authority. Did someone else tell him better and he ignored it? Well then, he's at fault. If he's always saying he knows best, causing people to accept this and defer to his decisions, then he's at fault. But if that didn't happen, then not. When acting on authority you grab and hold intentionally, you're at fault for all your bad decisions, regardless of whether you could have known better or not, because in the act of hoarding authority, you're saying you know best. If you're taking input and listening whenever there is dissent, will defer to others when they think they are right, then you've no such unilateral responsibility.

[Purple Knight]

When atheists critique religion are they open to critiquing (on the same grounds) all other forms of human social interaction (re "cultish" behaviour) to do with convincing individuals to part with their money in support of the platforms which allow for this type of social interaction?

Of course. In fact without the pretence of moral grounding, it's worse. The fact that we have this pretence with religion is a saving grace. When one of them rapes a child and is exposed, 99% of the time, their entire cult turns against them. Imagine if the self-help seminar nonsense (which is as scammy as any religion, maybe worse) had the same degree of cultural acceptance, without the pretence of moral grounding. Then, anyone who was caught doing something awful could just say they were helping themselves, and they never claimed to be good, it is all about success, and their cult would have to adulate them for it, if their cult was consistent.

Let me make this clear: This cultish behaviour that many atheists including myself have an objection to when religious organisations do it, is actually potentially more destructive in a nonreligious setting. I count multilevel marketing and self-help seminars as prime examples of this. They ruin people.

[William]

When atheists critique religion are they open to critiquing (on the same grounds) all other forms of human social interaction (re "cultish" behaviour) to do with convincing individuals to part with their money in support of the platforms which allow for this type of social interaction?

Of course. In fact without the pretence of moral grounding, it's worse. The fact that we have this pretence with religion is a saving grace. When one of them rapes a child and is exposed, 99% of the time, their entire cult turns against them. Imagine if the self-help seminar nonsense (which is as scammy as any religion, maybe worse) had the same degree of cultural acceptance, without the pretence of moral grounding. Then, anyone who was caught doing something awful could just say they were helping themselves, and they never claimed to be good, it is all about success, and their cult would have to adulate them for it, if their cult was consistent.

Let me make this clear: This cultish behaviour that many atheists including myself have an objection to when religious organisations do it, is actually potentially more destructive in a nonreligious setting. I count multilevel marketing and self-help seminars as prime examples of this. They ruin people.

Refreshing.

So without religion we are no better off and perhaps even worse off?

Perhaps then, religion should be seen as a necessary thing in that it makes it harder for non-religious immorality to flourish unbounded?

[Purple Knight]

Refreshing.

So without religion we are no better off and perhaps even worse off?

Perhaps then, religion should be seen as a necessary thing in that it makes it harder for non-religious immorality to flourish unbounded?

I don't argue that religion isn't necessary. Maybe it is, though I certainly hope not.

Food is also necessary, but it's possible to lose a source of food. Then, we have to find another or die. Religion is deteriorating.

I just argue that religion probably isn't true. The part of it that seems the most necessary is the part about people being physically punished for the wrongs they do, and that's the part we're losing because people are starting to realise it isn't true. Your spirituality is less obviously false, but it doesn't provide that and if I snapped my fingers and made you Pope of the world, it wouldn't stop people running amok the way Christianity or Islam does. Catholic countries are safer, did you know that? (This is specifically for LGBT tourists, but you get the idea.)

What is really, really dangerous is when, using the pretence to moral grounding that religion comes with, the religion gathers many followers, and then slowly, the frog is boiled and the pretence to moral grounding is discarded. Then you have the worst of both, because you have a cultish organisation that would never have had the following it does if it had been the way it presently became, from the get-go.

What'd be best is if we could all just stop this cultish malarkey and not do it. Now, this is on about the level of Breathairianism - expecting people to do without food and subsist on air. But I don't do it. It's hard and I'm a social outcast but I don't. I won't lie and say I don't feel the effects of starvation. I do. But I don't do it and if everybody else also didn't do it, the collective benefit would outweigh the effects of starvation. But it'd have to be voluntary in order not to run into all the side-problems associated with tyranny and that would be tricky.

[William]

Refreshing.

So without religion we are no better off and perhaps even worse off?

Perhaps then, religion should be seen as a necessary thing in that it makes it harder for non-religious immorality to flourish unbounded?

I don't argue that religion isn't necessary. Maybe it is, though I certainly hope not.

Food is also necessary, but it's possible to lose a source of food. Then, we have to find another or die. Religion is deteriorating.

I just argue that religion probably isn't true. The part of it that seems the most necessary is the part about people being physically punished for the wrongs they do, and that's the part we're losing because people are starting to realise it isn't true. Your spirituality is less obviously false, but it doesn't provide that and if I snapped my fingers and made you Pope of the world, it wouldn't stop people running amok the way Christianity or Islam does. Catholic countries are safer, did you know that? (This is specifically for LGBT tourists, but you get the idea.)

What is really, really dangerous is when, using the pretence to moral grounding that religion comes with, the religion gathers many followers, and then slowly, the frog is boiled and the pretence to moral grounding is discarded. Then you have the worst of both, because you have a cultish organisation that would never have had the following it does if it had been the way it presently became, from the get-go.

What'd be best is if we could all just stop this cultish malarkey and not do it. Now, this is on about the level of Breathairianism - expecting people to do without food and subsist on air. But I don't do it. It's hard and I'm a social outcast but I don't. I won't lie and say I don't feel the effects of starvation. I do. But I don't do it and if everybody else also didn't do it, the collective benefit would outweigh the effects of starvation. But it'd have to be voluntary in order not to run into all the side-problems associated with tyranny and that would be tricky.

So (how to be) a non-culty personality is the way forward?

[Purple Knight]

So (how to be) a non-culty personality is the way forward?

It has to be. We've tried everything else. To just not be tribal and do what atheists built their religion on saying they do, when many of them don't. To tear down all gods and all golden calves, both, and actually revere Reason, without building it up as a golden idol and beginning to worship it. When someone worships at the altar of "Reason and Science" it's just that.

Instead of saying what makes you popular, you have to say what you think is true, and because this can't gain anyone popularity, we have to just not have popularity.

[William]

So (how to be) a non-culty personality is the way forward?

It has to be. We've tried everything else. To just not be tribal and do what atheists built their religion on saying they do, when many of them don't. To tear down all gods and all golden calves, both, and actually revere Reason, without building it up as a golden idol and beginning to worship it. When someone worships at the altar of "Reason and Science" it's just that.

Instead of saying what makes you popular, you have to say what you think is true, and because this can't gain anyone popularity, we have to just not have popularity.

A System of Parity then?