Do you believe any of the stories that Religions teach?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The ten commandments, the laws regarding food, all of these are geared towards survival. Interpreting nature in ways that allow you and your group to survive better than those who do not.

Perhaps then we should use these 10 commandments - - from around the time of 638 B.C.E.

Let us now turn to the Ten Commandments of Solon (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.60), which run as follows:


1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

Unlike the Commandments of Moses, none of these is outdated or antithetical to modern moral or political thought. Every one could be taken up by anyone today, of any creed--except perhaps only one. And indeed, there is something much more profound in these commandments. They are far more useful as precepts for living one's life. Can society, can government, prevail and prosper if we fail to uphold the First Commandment of Moses? By our own written declaration of religious liberty for all, we have staked our entire national destiny on the belief that we not only can get by without it, but we ought to abolish it entirely. Yet what if we were to fail to uphold Solon's first commandment? The danger to society would be clear--indeed, doesn't this commandment speak to the heart of what makes or breaks a democratic society? Isn't it absolutely fundamental that we not trust the promises of politicians and flatterers, but elect our leaders and choose our friends instead by taking the trouble to evaluate the goodness of their character? This, then, can truly be said to be an ideal that is fundamental to modern moral and political thought.

www.freerepublic.com...

Originally posted by Annee

Unlike the Commandments of Moses, none of these is outdated or antithetical to modern moral or political thought. Every one could be taken up by anyone today, of any creed--except perhaps only one. And indeed, there is something much more profound in these commandments.

I would point out one thing. In "survival of the fittest terms," the Abrahamic Ten Commandments did much, much, better, while the ones you present, (while more palatable to you,) failed to attain memetic mastery. Why? Because a portion of the ten commandments was devoted to the replication of the ten commandments. Whereas the ones you quote had no such "DNA" in place to ensure the message was replicated accurately and spread ruthlessly.

Natural selection is a zero sum game. I find it interesting that self professed Atheists have such a damnable hard time getting that. They hold out evolution as the way things are, how we got here, but they are horrified at the rules of the game, and reject them. So much so that they cannot recognize them when they are ensconced in religious terminology. The practitioners of the Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, disavow any belief in natural selection, while playing by its rules like little champs.

Ironic, isnt it?

I dont believe the stories that religious organizations put out there. I do have alot of belief in the bible and even more the book of enoch, this is by far the most wonderful story ever made which was taken out by the government back in the day...hmmm... kinda reminds me of the current government now,,, they just want to keep the truth away from us.

I definitely believe that Christ healed the sick who were deemed incurable.

I like the stories of Joseph. I think they are absolutely true and I also believe I am him reincarnated.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Ironic, isnt it?

Uh no. Politics.

The one that won out is more controlling - - far less philosophical of humanity.

We would be a much better world today if we'd kept the original.

reply to post by Annee


You seem to be mistaking the "goal" of natural selection. It isnt "the good of all humanity." Well it is, but in a roundabout way. How you get to "the good of all humanity" is by selecting against a bunch of humanity. That means they go bye bye. "The good of all humanity" is not served by keeping every individual and group safe and secure, the "good of all humanity" is served by culling those who dont understand how to play the game of "life on Earth" and replacing them with those who do.

Humanity is in competition not only with other species here on Earth, but the various groups of us are competing on many levels as well. Genetic as well as ideological or memetic.

The "win" combination is discriminatory cooperation within the group, limited very discrminatory cooperation between groups, and savage destruction of any threat to the group. Like it or not, its how it goes here on Earth if you are a social species. This idea that we are not actively in competition with each other individually and as groups is delusional on the part of the new agers, and some of the secular. Clearly, we ARE in competition. This is not an "if" or a "maybe."

Individuals or groups that offer altruism and cooperation indiscriminately lose the battle and die out. Its what happens. You can argue its "bad" that that happens, but it IS what happens. Its why more open and accepting religions are all but gone, steamrolled by religions that insist their way or die. Political systems the same.

If you want to change the way the game ends, you have to know the rules of the game, and what you can change, and work within the natural laws and rules. You cant pretend you are playing some ridiculous fantasy game that has never been played successfully on Earth over the course of billions of years.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Annee

 

You seem to be mistaking the "goal" of natural selection. It isnt "the good of all humanity." Well it is, but in a roundabout way. How you get to "the good of all humanity" is by selecting against a bunch of humanity. That means they go bye bye. "The good of all humanity" is not served by keeping every individual and group safe and secure, the "good of all humanity" is served by culling those who dont understand how to play the game of "life on Earth" and replacing them with those who do.

Do you mean those who agree with you?

Uh - - Yeah! That would be Politics and Control. Pretty sure that's what I said.

Originally posted by Annee

Do you mean those who agree with you?

Uh - - Yeah! That would be Politics and Control. Pretty sure that's what I said.

Im not getting what you mean by that in relation to what I said.

Apparently, I need more than two lines to get your point. Sorry.

Edit to add and I have reread the second to the last over again. And I stand by my response to it. Im not sure what you mean by "philosophic towards humanity." It seems like you are arguing, "but I like a system which is less violent and competitive, therefore, because I like it, it is better." But thats not what nature is selecting for. Regardless how you feel about it personally.

If you want a certain type of humanity, you can aim for it, but you have to use the rules of the game to get there.

For instance. You want to eliminate the big three religions and their violence and religious intolerance? If scientists had refused to share technology with them, at all, no medicine, no weaponry, nothing, their repression of scientific thinking would have already undone them. They big flaw in the big three is that while they are a good competitive strategy, they are one that naturally does not keep up with the times.

So if the secular would withhold the benefits of secular thinking, and use technology against them in a violent way, to eliminate or convert them, those religions would have been gone long ago.

The secular dont play the game to win it. They really have no reason to complain. They easily could if they werent boneheads.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Annee

Do you mean those who agree with you?

Uh - - Yeah! That would be Politics and Control. Pretty sure that's what I said.

Im not getting what you mean by that in relation to what I said.

Apparently, I need more than two lines to get your point. Sorry.

Aren't we talking religion?

Religion is man made. Partly to explain what man does not understand - - - but the other part is about control.

What is politics? It is a form of control implemented by man. Same thing.

reply to post by Annee


No. You arent following the argument I am making at all. Which is ok. You cant get past what you think religion is and actually look at my argument. So you are arguing against your idea of religion, not my argument, which is why I have no idea what you are on about in your short posts.

You are arguing with you, not with me.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


You wrote:

["Individuals or groups that offer altruism and cooperation indiscriminately lose the battle and die out."]

That is a very gross oversimplification.

Considered from several perspectives, starting with thread-topic (to make this legitimate according to forum rules):

a/ The bible contains something for every taste, mindset and inclination. From the schizoid OT Jahveh and his obsessive ned for being worshipped, his bloodthirst and his moods to the mostly compassionate NT teachings (deformed and 'conditional' as they are after passing centuries of religious tinkering with social engineering as an aim).

If there is a contemporary pattern in this, my own guess would be, that the ideological fascists of the OT school are loosing ground, compared to the more socially responsible 'do-gooders'. Fire-and-brimstone isn't what it used to be from a popularity perspective.

b/ Mankind is technically speaking very vulnerable. We don't even have tails or treeclimbing feet any more, as an escape option. Our strength lies in the ability to co-operate; and for good or bad we are presently at the 'top' of the known food-pyramid (there may be predators 'higher' than us, which are forgotten in western tradition).

One lone Ayn Rand Captain America type isn't sitting in his cave and in one lifetime going from the wheel to computers. The culturally, collectively inherited knowledge did the trick.

c/ Bees, a very, very old collective life-form, are mainly pacifists, directing their aggression potential towards invaders, on an initially defensive basis. (Though they can very seldomly act invasively, when environmentally factors threaten the hive. Then the invaded and the invaders merge without much ado). Until the recent increase of short-wave technology (which is presumed to be destructive for bees), they did well.

d/ For some obscure reason, the US social darwinism seems to be everything's measure-tape. The, in historical terms, young genuinely liberal nations around the world are forgotten, while they actually thrive in many respects. And they are far from toothless, if anyone should believe that (ofocurse no-one can defend him/herself against some extremist nut nuking the whole planet).

e/ At the really complex level, where we're talking zero-point physics, big bang, the anthropic theory, micro/macro-cosmos, complexity/chaos-theory and the basically subject/object construction of the visible universe, it's not some fringe-speculation to see different cosmic principles functioning parallel to each other. What we would call symbiosis and predation. Predation only seems to be the 'winner'. but that's a long story.

Black/white framed situations restrict answers to a few options. How the heck can any real knowledge emerge from that?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You cant get past what you think religion is and actually look at my argument.

Apparently - - neither can you.

This isn't a discussion of religion. It is a discussion on - - do you believe the stories of religion.

I see the same thing today - - that I apply to 200 or more years ago.

Man presents and idea - - - some people believe him - - - they follow him - - - they get others to follow him.

Politics.

Sodom and gomorrah...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You decide if its true, looks real to me.... who knows though.

This list of commandments do not seem to provide any sound doctrine at all. They are so ill defined as to mean anything to anyone.

Originally posted by Annee
Let us now turn to the Ten Commandments of Solon (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.60), which run as follows:


1. Trust good character more than promises.

What is good character?

Originally posted by Annee
2. Do not speak falsely.

What is the standard for truth?

Originally posted by Annee
3. Do good things.

What are good things?

Originally posted by Annee
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.

What criteria should we use to making friends? How should we treat those who aren't friends?

Originally posted by Annee
5. Learn to obey before you command.

Obey who? Who shall you command?

Originally posted by Annee
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.

Who decides what is useful?

Originally posted by Annee
7. Make reason your supreme commander.

Put 10 people in a room who profess to subscribe to reason, and hand them a controversial subject such as abortion. Watch how unreasonable reason can be.

Originally posted by Annee
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.

What are bad things?

Originally posted by Annee
9. Honor the gods.

How shall we honor them? Which gods?

Originally posted by Annee
10. Have regard for your parents.

Now this one makes sense and seems reasonable. Of course, it is borrowed from somewhere else.

I know these aren't your 10 commandments. I just couldn't make sense of them, thus I commented on them, not directly at you necessarily.

I prefer one commandment. Love one another.

It is easy to remember, easy to perform, and yields rewards beyond illustration.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by Stop-loss!


Yeah I believe a lot of it. and a lot of it does not make any sense at all. Certain laws, such as homosexual, and yet again I see nothing of christ against homosexuals, a secret book of mark claimed Jesus in a sticky position with a naked boy, this does not mean at all anything occured sexually with them. I do believe in most of it.

If you believe in inter dimensional "aliens" then the possiblity of a Supreme God AKA GODHEAD (TRINITY ETC) does(OR POSSIBLY) exist because their are infinite dimensions around in the universe. ( I do not even know if universe is a good term because it has to be so much bigger than where we are living in right now)

Originally posted by Akragon
Sodom and gomorrah...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You decide if its true, looks real to me.... who knows though.

Hey! I grew up just down the street from Hollywood CA.

. . . and got divorced right in the middle of the Sexual Revolution.

I'm going to Hell for sure

reply to post by IAMIAM



Sorry IAMIAM.

All I can say is: I don't agree with you. You seem to be looking for something wrong - - when there isn't anything wrong.

I can think for myself. I really don't need someone else defining the "fine points".

reply to post by Annee


Hell doesn't exist...


Beyond that i don't see the point of your response...

Originally posted by Annee
Sorry IAMIAM.

All I can say is: I don't agree with you. You seem to be looking for something wrong - - when there isn't anything wrong.

I can think for myself. I really don't need someone else defining the "fine points".

I wasn't defining the "Fine Points" for you my friend. I was simply pointing out that the 10 commandments you posted do not have fine points. Thus, they are not commandments at all.

You can sum them up thus, "Do what you want, but regard your parents."

A rapist could claim to keep those "commandments" as long as he is free to define what is "Good".

Just saying. Think freely all you want, others can too.

With Love,

Your Brother