bible/god/freedom/society

luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
bible/god/freedom/society

Today these words just escaped from my fingers. Read it, don't, try to understand or not, discuss about it, do what you wish.

Since I like obviously discussing about religion, I follow debates and listen to people arguing about their position. Every once in a while it happens however that someone lets himself be carried away unwittingly in a mental short circuit which hinders reasonments. One of these prisons of reason, I think, is affirming "the bible is wrong". It may happen because one seriously thinks it, or because of inexperience, or because discussing about a particular someone generalised... whatever. The fact is that affirming "the bible is right" or "the bible is wrong" is irrelevant: from the moment it's written on a piece of paper, from the moment the concept is formed, his time is due, and it's submitted to relativity like for everything else. This means that also an authoritative text at some point ceases to be authoritative (because the universe evolves). The non-relevance of the bible of the local sacred text derives and concludes in the fact that affirmations are made on facts, but not only the bible isn't structured in this way, the fact themselves can change. So everyone can carry out the tasks that believers retain pertaining to the bible, for example comprehending love or attempt to form a morality.

It happens that reading some conversations, some lucubrations of certain people, though the knowledge that they're wrong, in that moment they are able to be logically correct. What however is always not right in these writings are the origin and the consequences, that often require an absolute or are so absurd that they cannot be took seriously, they and the one who thought it (if not in some ideological niche). Unless they are a lot, then probably considering that there may be some repercussions it's tried to contradict them the less possible... The superstitious and religious mentality belong to this environment, finding evidence to support them is an activity in which few people risks. I believe I can say that the simplest one should be the one relative to this singular infinite divinity that someone calls with the name of "love". What I can show is that pronouncing "i love god"... nothing happens; "i hate god"... nothing happens; "i love adronga"... nothing happens; "i hate adronga"... nothing happens. So we need inventing a reason for which the thing should work -- just not now. This explains why disciplines like 'cultural mediation' and 'interfaith dialogue' was born.

One of the oldest arguments that I ever heard of is that if there's not the "authority" then "we can do what we want". In a show (the one of ardent atheist with paul leiva) the christian guest said he would go around in his car flipping off people irritating people or something like that. Now, even not considering our biologic impulses, not having a morality or not having absolutes doesn't allow every behavior. For starters insulting people, although I may understand it as an outburst from the religious oppression Sticking out tongue , it's useless: it doesn't give useful informations, it isn't a constructive critique, it's nothing. Actually the reasons for insulting people have nothing to do with this. In regard to the supposed freedom, instead, it's obvious that for living in a decent way in a community some behaviors cannot exist: or you contribute or you consume without providing anything in change. For this reason behaviors like killing whoever you like or rape whenever you feel like it would be harmful not only to other people but to you too, for we live in symbiosis. Simplifying a little killing the mechanic means not having someone who repairs cars, killing the baker means not having bread anymore, and so on. Living together so requires toleration, but in the end it seems it's worth it. Like said before, everything is relative: if we hadn't the need for eating, for breathing, for reproduction, everyone could run around brawling with everbody... Why do it? Because it's supposed that man is a victim of his urges, and so, in this hypothesis of a lack of morality, everyone, thinking only for himself, would not have consideration for others. But I think there's a problem: to reach this situation the needs were eliminated (so there's no motivation to act like that) -- because else the most obvious answer would be doing what already exists: cities. But even retaking our biological imperative, this would not happen. We feel pain, we know others are human like (at least) like us, we know that for them too the pain is unpleasant. Although it's true that if there aren't 'ties' then there won't be no consideration in provoking pain, it's also true that there won't be any reason for acting like that. And it's still a fantasy, anyway. So the reason for living at the moment together and trying to cope in harmony is that this behavior seems to be the one that grants the best life (maybe not for everyone, there are weird fellows).

I think that many have and had had in mind a metaphor, nothing new, for the monotheist god as 'society'. The comparison, I think, it holds on numerous fronts, while we keep in consideration the aspects concerning it. It's about a gigantic phenomenon, not comprehensible to the single mind, that provides us everything and thanks to which we exist, something that rewards us and punishes us, that is responsible for our life, that satisfies our needs, that judges us and that we feel obliged to respect, to which we practically dedicate our life, and to which we ask for help; it's the whole world around us, it moves everything (at least the ones that we care Sticking out tongue ), it hasn't a well defined beginning and an end (it may seem a bit stretched but I don't think so). Although this may lead to political arguments, I prefer to remain on religion. This incomprehension generates also fear, because what is not understood is feared. But men are animals that functions by objectives, with causality, and not finding something immediate (and simple) to which attribute negative things some people remedy by repairing in conspirations (so focusing on a "real" (identified) enemy), generally hebraic, but that's another story.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 too many word about one

 too many word about one subject. since I'm not on my meds I can't stay focused on what you are saying for more than a few seconds.

any way you can trim it down in to one paragraph? with five sentences max?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ko

digitalbeachbum wrote:
too many word about one subject. 

There are 4 subjects Eye-wink

digitalbeachbum wrote:
since I'm not on my meds I can't stay focused on what you are saying for more than a few seconds.

ah

digitalbeachbum wrote:
any way you can trim it down in to one paragraph? with five sentences max?

This forum has a weird way to space rows, so I did like that; I know it's a wall of text, sorry.

Anyway the 4 main themes/paragraphs are:

1 - the bible is not even wrong -- it's outdated, it cannot be an authority, and we in our days are decidedly better at it

2 - nothing so good, just a break, if you will

3 - the classic "it there's no god then everything is permitted"

4 - god as society, because it's obvious


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:This forum has a

luca wrote:

This forum has a weird way to space rows, so I did like that; I know it's a wall of text, sorry.

Anyway the 4 main themes/paragraphs are:

1 - the bible is not even wrong -- it's outdated, it cannot be an authority, and we in our days are decidedly better at it

2 - nothing so good, just a break, if you will

3 - the classic "it there's no god then everything is permitted"

4 - god as society, because it's obvious

Yeah the spacing is whacked.

The bible is not wrong in the sense that it is a collection of myths.

Everything is permitted? Please clarify.

God is society? or god supports society?

Thanks for the breakdown.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
stupid facebook hatehatehate § just venting

digitalbeachbum wrote:
luca wrote:
This forum has a weird way to space rows, so I did like that; I know it's a wall of text, sorry.

Anyway the 4 main themes/paragraphs are:

1 - the bible is not even wrong -- it's outdated, it cannot be an authority, and we in our days are decidedly better at it

2 - nothing so good, just a break, if you will

3 - the classic "it there's no god then everything is permitted"

4 - god as society, because it's obvious

Yeah the spacing is whacked.

The bible is not wrong in the sense that it is a collection of myths.

Yes, but for a christian it's like 42, "the answer".

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Everything is permitted? Please clarify.

No god -> no morality -> you can run around doing what you want, without any limit, satisfying every abject impulse in the most immediate way.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
God is society? or god supports society?

It's in the sense that god represent "everything" as it's really the society. I dare to say that probably it can be one of the possible way gods were born (or better, 'supported'): I don't know how exactly to translate it in english, but it's a sort of "societal norms". I would say "societal conventions".


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:digitalbeachbum

luca wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
luca wrote:
This forum has a weird way to space rows, so I did like that; I know it's a wall of text, sorry.

Anyway the 4 main themes/paragraphs are:

1 - the bible is not even wrong -- it's outdated, it cannot be an authority, and we in our days are decidedly better at it

2 - nothing so good, just a break, if you will

3 - the classic "it there's no god then everything is permitted"

4 - god as society, because it's obvious

Yeah the spacing is whacked.

The bible is not wrong in the sense that it is a collection of myths.

Yes, but for a christian it's like 42, "the answer".

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Everything is permitted? Please clarify.

No god -> no morality -> you can run around doing what you want, without any limit, satisfying every abject impulse in the most immediate way.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
God is society? or god supports society?

It's in the sense that god represent "everything" as it's really the society. I dare to say that probably it can be one of the possible way gods were born (or better, 'supported'): I don't know how exactly to translate it in english, but it's a sort of "societal norms". I would say "societal conventions".

42?

That is a fallacy with christians, they say if you don't have god you don't have morals. This is incorrect and proven time and time again to be false. People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you kill some one and it was done out of anger, you let your ego control the situation and you can't blame it on any one else but you. No demons. No gods.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
gotcha

digitalbeachbum wrote:
42?

Yeah, "life, the universe, and everything".

digitalbeachbum wrote:
That is a fallacy with christians, they say if you don't have god you don't have morals. This is incorrect and proven time and time again to be false. People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you kill some one and it was done out of anger, you let your ego control the situation and you can't blame it on any one else but you. No demons. No gods.

In fact that's what I was criticizing.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:digitalbeachbum

luca wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
42?

Yeah, "life, the universe, and everything".

digitalbeachbum wrote:
That is a fallacy with christians, they say if you don't have god you don't have morals. This is incorrect and proven time and time again to be false. People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you kill some one and it was done out of anger, you let your ego control the situation and you can't blame it on any one else but you. No demons. No gods.

In fact that's what I was criticizing.

42? I'm like... uh... wha?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

luca wrote:
Today these words just escaped from my fingers. Read it, don't, try to understand or not, discuss about it, do what you wish.

Where did you copy it from?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

luca wrote:
1 - the bible is not even wrong -- it's outdated, it cannot be an authority, and we in our days are decidedly better at it

It has always been wrong and still is wrong. It is wrong about things that people have always known are wrong. It goes beyond snakes don't talk. Breeding black and white sheep never results in a spotted sheep. Every shepard knows that.

Quote:
2 - nothing so good, just a break, if you will

The first time most women learn they have it in them to kill without mercy is as new mothers thinking about defending their child. We call that a mother's love.

Quote:
3 - the classic "it there's no god then everything is permitted"

There is no god needed to explain normal human behavior. That believers invented that nonsense does not mean it is other than their strawman.

Quote:
4 - god as society, because it's obvious
 

Calling it god or a prarie dog are indistinguishable when talking in such nebulous ambiguities.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
x2

digitalbeachbum wrote:
luca wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
42?

Yeah, "life, the universe, and everything".
digitalbeachbum wrote:
That is a fallacy with christians, they say if you don't have god you don't have morals. This is incorrect and proven time and time again to be false. People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you kill some one and it was done out of anger, you let your ego control the situation and you can't blame it on any one else but you. No demons. No gods.

In fact that's what I was criticizing.

42? I'm like... uh... wha?

This:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life.2C_the_Un...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
luca wrote:
Today these words just escaped from my fingers. Read it, don't, try to understand or not, discuss about it, do what you wish.

Where did you copy it from?

I did not copy it, although I've seen some of this arguments around.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
luca wrote:
1 - the bible is not even wrong -- it's outdated, it cannot be an authority, and we in our days are decidedly better at it

It has always been wrong and still is wrong. It is wrong about things that people have always known are wrong. It goes beyond snakes don't talk. Breeding black and white sheep never results in a spotted sheep. Every shepard knows that.

Yes, but remember: if you understand why a believer believes, then a talking snake or other weirdnesses don't represent a problem (in believing).

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Quote:
2 - nothing so good, just a break, if you will

The first time most women learn they have it in them to kill without mercy is as new mothers thinking about defending their child. We call that a mother's love.

Do you blame them?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Quote:
4 - god as society, because it's obvious

Calling it god or a prarie dog are indistinguishable when talking in such nebulous ambiguities.

A prarie dog is not "in our image". That is pretty different.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10727
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ Luca Not responding, just

@ Luca

Not responding, just giving friendly critique:

I recommend saving each subject for its own topic. ANY topic can suddenly branch into multiple topics, and is almost certainly going to.
It therefore makes it much more difficult to sustain and comprehend a topic which starts with four subjects. Each subject has a potential for derailment and confusion, compounding by four the number of possible derailments and confused responses.

It's best to make a new topic for each subject. Other forums frown on this because they are stupid.
Fortunately, Brian Sapient knows how to run a forum. So please feel free make as many topics as you have subjects to discuss.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

luca wrote:
Today these words just escaped from my fingers. Read it, don't, try to understand or not, discuss about it, do what you wish.
Where did you copy it from?
I did not copy it, although I've seen some of this arguments around.

Use lucubrations in a second sentence.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
luca wrote:
1 - the bible is not even wrong -- it's outdated, it cannot be an authority, and we in our days are decidedly better at it
It has always been wrong and still is wrong. It is wrong about things that people have always known are wrong. It goes beyond snakes don't talk. Breeding black and white sheep never results in a spotted sheep. Every shepard knows that.
Yes, but remember: if you understand why a believer believes, then a talking snake or other weirdnesses don't represent a problem (in believing).

The simpler explanation it the author knew nothing about sheep.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Quote:
2 - nothing so good, just a break, if you will
The first time most women learn they have it in them to kill without mercy is as new mothers thinking about defending their child. We call that a mother's love.
Do you blame them?

I said we call it love.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Quote:
4 - god as society, because it's obvious
Calling it god or a prarie dog are indistinguishable when talking in such nebulous ambiguities.
A prarie dog is not "in our image". That is pretty different.

Infinitely closer than a sexless thing without a body at all.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
sith quoting

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
luca wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
luca wrote:
Today these words just escaped from my fingers. Read it, don't, try to understand or not, discuss about it, do what you wish.

Where did you copy it from?

I did not copy it, although I've seen some of this arguments around.

Use lucubrations in a second sentence.

Whose lucubrations shall we talk about?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
luca wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
luca wrote:
1 - the bible is not even wrong -- it's outdated, it cannot be an authority, and we in our days are decidedly better at it

It has always been wrong and still is wrong. It is wrong about things that people have always known are wrong. It goes beyond snakes don't talk. Breeding black and white sheep never results in a spotted sheep. Every shepard knows that.

Yes, but remember: if you understand why a believer believes, then a talking snake or other weirdnesses don't represent a problem (in believing).

The simpler explanation it the author knew nothing about sheep.

You just have no creativity. Maybe it was a cow-sheep.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Quote:
2 - nothing so good, just a break, if you will

The first time most women learn they have it in them to kill without mercy is as new mothers thinking about defending their child. We call that a mother's love.

Do you blame them?

I said we call it love.

Mmmm...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Quote:
4 - god as society, because it's obvious

Calling it god or a prarie dog are indistinguishable when talking in such nebulous ambiguities.

A prarie dog is not "in our image". That is pretty different.

Infinitely closer than a sexless thing without a body at all.

It wasn't like so in the origins, I don't see the problem.

But even by your standards a society has no sex and body, so I don't see the problem - part 2.