Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

[Igrok_]

Religious faith reflects pretension and/or a need to comply to a political authority. Religion is cultural & political

this is true only for totalitarian regimes, such as fascism, communism or one which is now in Ukraine. In other countries where religion is free it serves for spiritual goals. What politician do monks of Athos serve? Or monks in the Caucasus mountains?

It's true for ALL governments/regimes that use religion to drive their policies, including Russia.
"Spiritual goals" is made up crap used to dominate uneducated people.

What politician do monks of Athos serve? Or monks in the Caucasus mountains?

 

[Boss]

What politician do monks of Athos serve? Or monks in the Caucasus mountains?

He can't answer that because PK1 is a religious bigot who has a narrow-minded viewpoint based on ignorance and assumptions, generalizations and stereotypes. It is people such as him who have formed hate groups like the KKK and skinheads. You'll never get through to a bigot, they've made their minds up and nothing can change them. Their worldview will forever be shaped by their own ignorance and intolerance. They congregate and provide a codependent support for one another filled with condescending and sneering cynicism toward that which they do not understand.

 

[PK1]

Religious faith reflects pretension and/or a need to comply to a political authority. Religion is cultural & political

this is true only for totalitarian regimes, such as fascism, communism or one which is now in Ukraine. In other countries where religion is free it serves for spiritual goals. What politician do monks of Athos serve? Or monks in the Caucasus mountains?

It's true for ALL governments/regimes that use religion to drive their policies, including Russia.
"Spiritual goals" is made up crap used to dominate uneducated people.

What politician do monks of Athos serve? Or monks in the Caucasus mountains?

The Athos "monks" have their own bigoted, ancient political organization & culture that's convenient for adult males (women are not allowed). When stressed for survival, they twist their "spiritual" proclamations. For example, during WW2, the monks of Mount Athos referred to Adolf Hitler as "High Protector of the Holy Mountain" (Hoher Protektor des heiligen Berges).

 

[PK1]

Boss believes that ethics, morality AND religion are all manifest from our unique spirituality.

Human ethics and morality come from our spiritual connection. It doesn't come from nature...

"unique spirituality" & "spiritual connection" are expressions that reflect ignorance, confusion, and pretension to resolve cognitive dissonance.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance if one is honest; that's the realm of agnostic scientists. Objectivity.

The word "spiritual" refers to one's imagination about consciousness & a primitive attempt to explain it, along with a desire to "live" beyond physical death mixed with fear.

The roots of empathy are naturally innate, and ethics/morality, human or otherwise, are learned during behavioral development within social-cultural contexts.

Religious faith reflects pretension and/or a need to comply to a political authority. Religion is cultural & political. It is not about knowledge, which is the domain of science.

Science has nothing to do with spirituality or spiritual nature. Science is short for Physical Sciences... meaning, OF THE PHYSICAL... not spiritual. Spiritual refers to something metaphysical in nature, that which science is inadequate to evaluate or examine. ...

The roots of empathy are not naturally innate. You don't see a wild lion have empathy for the gazelle they are chasing. ... The alpha male gorilla in a pack doesn't give two shits about the other males, he has no empathy whatsoever. That's how nature works. Empathy is innate in humans because humans have spiritual awareness and believe in something greater than self.

This is also the basis for cultural and social civilization. Human civilization could not exist without intrinsic human spiritual awareness.
You may fairly ask, how do we KNOW this? Because of science. We have another example of hominids who became extinct because they lacked this attribute, for whatever reason.
Neanderthals were not spiritually connected. ...

You're correct; science has nothing to do with "spirituality or spiritual nature" other than explaining primitive behavioral patterns from its cultural anthropology & social psychology perspectives.
Science's domain is more than physical science. It includes biological & behavioral sciences.
When you say "Spiritual refers to something metaphysical in nature", that means philosophical; metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, from which science extends its limited explanations of how the universe appears to work.

Do humans have empathy when they kill other animals & eat them, or to survive & propagate? Non-human animals are similar in nature. Empathy has instinctive roots that is developed for survival/propagation. Animals are genetically programmed to care for their own at the expense of others.
Humans are animals too.
Your claims about Neanderthal consciousness ("spirituality") are hilarious! A scientist or philosopher you are not.

 

[BreezeWood]

Boss believes that ethics, morality AND religion are all manifest from our unique spirituality.

Human ethics and morality come from our spiritual connection. It doesn't come from nature...

"unique spirituality" & "spiritual connection" are expressions that reflect ignorance, confusion, and pretension to resolve cognitive dissonance.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance if one is honest; that's the realm of agnostic scientists. Objectivity.

The word "spiritual" refers to one's imagination about consciousness & a primitive attempt to explain it, along with a desire to "live" beyond physical death mixed with fear.

The roots of empathy are naturally innate, and ethics/morality, human or otherwise, are learned during behavioral development within social-cultural contexts.

Religious faith reflects pretension and/or a need to comply to a political authority. Religion is cultural & political. It is not about knowledge, which is the domain of science.

Science has nothing to do with spirituality or spiritual nature. Science is short for Physical Sciences... meaning, OF THE PHYSICAL... not spiritual. Spiritual refers to something metaphysical in nature, that which science is inadequate to evaluate or examine. ...

The roots of empathy are not naturally innate. You don't see a wild lion have empathy for the gazelle they are chasing. ... The alpha male gorilla in a pack doesn't give two shits about the other males, he has no empathy whatsoever. That's how nature works. Empathy is innate in humans because humans have spiritual awareness and believe in something greater than self.

This is also the basis for cultural and social civilization. Human civilization could not exist without intrinsic human spiritual awareness.
You may fairly ask, how do we KNOW this? Because of science. We have another example of hominids who became extinct because they lacked this attribute, for whatever reason.
Neanderthals were not spiritually connected. ...

You're correct; science has nothing to do with "spirituality or spiritual nature" other than explaining primitive behavioral patterns from its cultural anthropology & social psychology perspectives.
Science's domain is more than physical science. It includes biological & behavioral sciences.
When you say "Spiritual refers to something metaphysical in nature", that means philosophical; metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, from which science extends its limited explanations of how the universe appears to work.

Do humans have empathy when they kill other animals & eat them, or to survive & propagate? Non-human animals are similar in nature. Empathy has instinctive roots that is developed for survival/propagation. Animals are genetically programmed to care for their own at the expense of others.
Humans are animals too.
Your claims about Neanderthal consciousness ("spirituality") are hilarious! A scientist or philosopher you are not.

.

Animals are genetically programmed to care for their own at the expense of others.
Humans are animals too.

... for their own

even if that were true, atheist who are you claiming filled in the blanks and pointedly few other species release their prodigy with recurrence into the natural world fending for themselves at the earliest time possible.

... that one is smothered by its parent - you got it all wrong, a, the genome of life would not exist without Spirituality.

 

[Boss]

Boss believes that ethics, morality AND religion are all manifest from our unique spirituality.

Human ethics and morality come from our spiritual connection. It doesn't come from nature...

"unique spirituality" & "spiritual connection" are expressions that reflect ignorance, confusion, and pretension to resolve cognitive dissonance.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance if one is honest; that's the realm of agnostic scientists. Objectivity.

The word "spiritual" refers to one's imagination about consciousness & a primitive attempt to explain it, along with a desire to "live" beyond physical death mixed with fear.

The roots of empathy are naturally innate, and ethics/morality, human or otherwise, are learned during behavioral development within social-cultural contexts.

Religious faith reflects pretension and/or a need to comply to a political authority. Religion is cultural & political. It is not about knowledge, which is the domain of science.

Science has nothing to do with spirituality or spiritual nature. Science is short for Physical Sciences... meaning, OF THE PHYSICAL... not spiritual. Spiritual refers to something metaphysical in nature, that which science is inadequate to evaluate or examine. ...

The roots of empathy are not naturally innate. You don't see a wild lion have empathy for the gazelle they are chasing. ... The alpha male gorilla in a pack doesn't give two shits about the other males, he has no empathy whatsoever. That's how nature works. Empathy is innate in humans because humans have spiritual awareness and believe in something greater than self.

This is also the basis for cultural and social civilization. Human civilization could not exist without intrinsic human spiritual awareness.
You may fairly ask, how do we KNOW this? Because of science. We have another example of hominids who became extinct because they lacked this attribute, for whatever reason.
Neanderthals were not spiritually connected. ...

You're correct; science has nothing to do with "spirituality or spiritual nature" other than explaining primitive behavioral patterns from its cultural anthropology & social psychology perspectives.
Science's domain is more than physical science. It includes biological & behavioral sciences.
When you say "Spiritual refers to something metaphysical in nature", that means philosophical; metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, from which science extends its limited explanations of how the universe appears to work.

Do humans have empathy when they kill other animals & eat them, or to survive & propagate? Non-human animals are similar in nature. Empathy has instinctive roots that is developed for survival/propagation. Animals are genetically programmed to care for their own at the expense of others.
Humans are animals too.
Your claims about Neanderthal consciousness ("spirituality") are hilarious! A scientist or philosopher you are not.

Well the University of Alabama felt that I was enough of a scientist to award me a bachelor's degree and anyone can be a philosopher. It just so happens that my degree is in behavioral science and much of my argument relies on it. It's a very ignorant statement to claim behavioral sciences are not physical. Indeed, they are. The oldest remains of any human civilization we've ever discovered shows evidence of human spirituality. It's quite clear, as long as man has been civilized he has also been spiritual. You can claim that doesn't prove anything but it proves an intrinsic connection to something greater than self. This has always existed behaviorally in civilized man. That's not a coincidence.

The domain of science is indeed physical. It is incapable of testing, measuring or evaluating that which is not physical in nature. This does not mean that such things do not exist. It simply means they don't physically exist or we can't interact physically with them. And before you relegate that to something "philosophical" you might like to note that the universe is comprised of 96% dark energy and dark matter, of which we have no physical interaction other than knowing it's presence exists.

We are not "genetically programmed" to have human morals and ethics. We are spiritually-connected creatures which enables us to develop human morals and ethics. Many of these morals and ethics have been passed down through the generations since the beginning of human civilization. Again, this is not the same as survival instinct or pack behavior, where members of a pack will attempt to protect other members for the sake of the pack. That is not selfless action and can't be considered on the same level as human ethics and morality.

It's unfortunate that you want to erroneously believe that genetic predisposition of primal instincts are the basis of human morality because it tells us precisely where your barometer is on your own moral compass. When there is absolutely nothing to hold you accountable for your actions, your morals and ethics can be self-defined to whatever you personally think is best in the moment, whatever suits your own indulgences and proclivities without regard for others. In other words, your morals and ethics are worthless. If everyone held this view, human civilization would cease to exist.

 

[BreezeWood]

Boss believes that ethics, morality AND religion are all manifest from our unique spirituality.

Human ethics and morality come from our spiritual connection. It doesn't come from nature...

"unique spirituality" & "spiritual connection" are expressions that reflect ignorance, confusion, and pretension to resolve cognitive dissonance.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance if one is honest; that's the realm of agnostic scientists. Objectivity.

The word "spiritual" refers to one's imagination about consciousness & a primitive attempt to explain it, along with a desire to "live" beyond physical death mixed with fear.

The roots of empathy are naturally innate, and ethics/morality, human or otherwise, are learned during behavioral development within social-cultural contexts.

Religious faith reflects pretension and/or a need to comply to a political authority. Religion is cultural & political. It is not about knowledge, which is the domain of science.

Science has nothing to do with spirituality or spiritual nature. Science is short for Physical Sciences... meaning, OF THE PHYSICAL... not spiritual. Spiritual refers to something metaphysical in nature, that which science is inadequate to evaluate or examine. ...

The roots of empathy are not naturally innate. You don't see a wild lion have empathy for the gazelle they are chasing. ... The alpha male gorilla in a pack doesn't give two shits about the other males, he has no empathy whatsoever. That's how nature works. Empathy is innate in humans because humans have spiritual awareness and believe in something greater than self.

This is also the basis for cultural and social civilization. Human civilization could not exist without intrinsic human spiritual awareness.
You may fairly ask, how do we KNOW this? Because of science. We have another example of hominids who became extinct because they lacked this attribute, for whatever reason.
Neanderthals were not spiritually connected. ...

You're correct; science has nothing to do with "spirituality or spiritual nature" other than explaining primitive behavioral patterns from its cultural anthropology & social psychology perspectives.
Science's domain is more than physical science. It includes biological & behavioral sciences.
When you say "Spiritual refers to something metaphysical in nature", that means philosophical; metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, from which science extends its limited explanations of how the universe appears to work.

Do humans have empathy when they kill other animals & eat them, or to survive & propagate? Non-human animals are similar in nature. Empathy has instinctive roots that is developed for survival/propagation. Animals are genetically programmed to care for their own at the expense of others.
Humans are animals too.
Your claims about Neanderthal consciousness ("spirituality") are hilarious! A scientist or philosopher you are not.

Well the University of Alabama felt that I was enough of a scientist to award me a bachelor's degree and anyone can be a philosopher. It just so happens that my degree is in behavioral science and much of my argument relies on it. It's a very ignorant statement to claim behavioral sciences are not physical. Indeed, they are. The oldest remains of any human civilization we've ever discovered shows evidence of human spirituality. It's quite clear, as long as man has been civilized he has also been spiritual. You can claim that doesn't prove anything but it proves an intrinsic connection to something greater than self. This has always existed behaviorally in civilized man. That's not a coincidence.

The domain of science is indeed physical. It is incapable of testing, measuring or evaluating that which is not physical in nature. This does not mean that such things do not exist. It simply means they don't physically exist or we can't interact physically with them. And before you relegate that to something "philosophical" you might like to note that the universe is comprised of 96% dark energy and dark matter, of which we have no physical interaction other than knowing it's presence exists.

We are not "genetically programmed" to have human morals and ethics. We are spiritually-connected creatures which enables us to develop human morals and ethics. Many of these morals and ethics have been passed down through the generations since the beginning of human civilization. Again, this is not the same as survival instinct or pack behavior, where members of a pack will attempt to protect other members for the sake of the pack. That is not selfless action and can't be considered on the same level as human ethics and morality.

It's unfortunate that you want to erroneously believe that genetic predisposition of primal instincts are the basis of human morality because it tells us precisely where your barometer is on your own moral compass. When there is absolutely nothing to hold you accountable for your actions, your morals and ethics can be self-defined to whatever you personally think is best in the moment, whatever suits your own indulgences and proclivities without regard for others. In other words, your morals and ethics are worthless. If everyone held this view, human civilization would cease to exist.

.

That is not selfless action and can't be considered on the same level as human ethics and morality.

... your dim light just went out.

 

[Boss]

... your dim light just went out.

Sorry you feel that way but it's just not the same thing. If we're going to have an honest argument about HUMAN ethics and morality, we need to stick to some basic criteria. Many animals defend and protect their pack but it's not because it's ethical and moral, it's because of self-preservation. Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality and defined these philosophies with phrases such as the Golden Rule or "for the greater good." We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation. If you can't discern the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[BreezeWood]

... your dim light just went out.

Sorry you feel that way but it's just not the same thing. If we're going to have an honest argument about HUMAN ethics and morality, we need to stick to some basic criteria. Many animals defend and protect their pack but it's not because it's ethical and moral, it's because of self-preservation. Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality and defined these philosophies with phrases such as the Golden Rule or "for the greater good." We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation. If you can't discern the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

.

Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality ... We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation

Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality ...

who are you to say there is a moral and ethical distinction among beings bearing a higher standard, to what -

We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation.

your bankrupt bossy, you haven't a clue.

 

[Boss]

... your dim light just went out.

Sorry you feel that way but it's just not the same thing. If we're going to have an honest argument about HUMAN ethics and morality, we need to stick to some basic criteria. Many animals defend and protect their pack but it's not because it's ethical and moral, it's because of self-preservation. Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality and defined these philosophies with phrases such as the Golden Rule or "for the greater good." We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation. If you can't discern the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

.

Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality ... We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation

Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality ...

who are you to say there is a moral and ethical distinction among beings bearing a higher standard, to what -

We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation.

your bankrupt bossy, you haven't a clue.

Why do you keep parsing out one sentence from my posts and myopically focusing on that? Try reading and understanding the entire post in it's context and responding to the overall point being made and stop being such an obtuse twit.

If you don't think human beings have the capacity of a higher moral standard than a monkey, so be it... I can't help you understand it. I think most rational people realize humans are uniquely different creatures and we adhere to a higher moral standard than basic primal nature. Lovely picture of the bald eagle, very majestic animal as are many... doesn't make them anything close to humans in terms of moral and ethical understanding. I'm sure they do wonderful and great things as do butterflies and pansies... they're still not human and they don't practice human morality and ethics.

Of course, you can keep on being vague and cryptic, taking the occasional pot shot at me personally, if that's what cranks your tractor, I really don't give a shit. Whatever the hell I did to piss in your Cheerios, I hope you get over it one day. If not, oh fucking well.

 

[BreezeWood]

... your dim light just went out.

Sorry you feel that way but it's just not the same thing. If we're going to have an honest argument about HUMAN ethics and morality, we need to stick to some basic criteria. Many animals defend and protect their pack but it's not because it's ethical and moral, it's because of self-preservation. Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality and defined these philosophies with phrases such as the Golden Rule or "for the greater good." We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation. If you can't discern the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

.

Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality ... We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation

Humans developed much higher standards of ethics and morality ...

who are you to say there is a moral and ethical distinction among beings bearing a higher standard, to what -

We're not just wild animals practicing some primitive pack mentality for the purposes of preservation.

your bankrupt bossy, you haven't a clue.

Why do you keep parsing out one sentence from my posts and myopically focusing on that? Try reading and understanding the entire post in it's context and responding to the overall point being made and stop being such an obtuse twit.

If you don't think human beings have the capacity of a higher moral standard than a monkey, so be it... I can't help you understand it. I think most rational people realize humans are uniquely different creatures and we adhere to a higher moral standard than basic primal nature. Lovely picture of the bald eagle, very majestic animal as are many... doesn't make them anything close to humans in terms of moral and ethical understanding. I'm sure they do wonderful and great things as do butterflies and pansies... they're still not human and they don't practice human morality and ethics.

Of course, you can keep on being vague and cryptic, taking the occasional pot shot at me personally, if that's what cranks your tractor, I really don't give a shit. Whatever the hell I did to piss in your Cheerios, I hope you get over it one day. If not, oh fucking well.

.

... if that's what cranks your tractor

I have a 49 ford 8n tractor ... and am not a rightwing conservative fanatic so your point is poorly construed.

Why do you keep parsing out one sentence from my posts and myopically focusing on that?

it is odd you complain about being quoted for a specific point in your post(s) as you complain each time I respond specifically, where your response is to complain rather than corespond to the fact being presented. your not alone to discus the subject further would require a deeper understanding for the genome of life you in particular have abandoned ergo your claim to spirituality is without foundation.

If you don't think human beings have the capacity of a higher moral standard than a monkey, so be it...

the example of your closed denial without a response for discussion ... D- (your grade that is actually an F but why give you the benefit of doubt)

I think most rational people realize humans are uniquely different creatures and we adhere to a higher moral standard than basic primal nature.

since you are incapable of discussing the subject ... F, there is no room for doubt for that one as you have a need to keep repeating it.

doesn't make them anything close to humans in terms of moral and ethical understanding.

another one sided opinion without room for discussion. F

they're still not human and they don't practice human morality and ethics.

again you are placing humanity somewhere else than the genome they represent ... F- find another word than spirituality, you haven't the faintest clue.

Of course, you can keep on being vague and cryptic, taking the occasional pot shot at me personally, if that's what cranks your tractor, I really don't give a shit

I just do not understand your reluctance to debate the subject, nothing in your post was in any way a response to the subject matter being referred to. F-

and what is wrong with being cryptic, who here isn't /.


... overall bossy you are simply closed minded with little noticeable hope for recovery.

 

[BreezeWood]

who are you to say there is a moral and ethical distinction among beings bearing a higher standard, to what -

.
give an answer boss, I would like to know.

 

[Boss]

who are you to say there is a moral and ethical distinction among beings bearing a higher standard, to what -

.
give an answer boss, I would like to know.

Who am I to say? Well, I am a human capable of complex thought processes and ability to reason using tools like science. This makes me radically more qualified than a great ape or any other upper primate, to discern the difference between primal urges and actual spiritual-based morals and ethics. To what? To a higher standard than what comes naturally, to what the natural primal inclinations or desires might be, for the sake of something more important.

When I see an attractive female, I don't just go up to her and mount her. I utilize morals and ethics in respecting her domain and station as a mutually equal human being and I control my primal urge to mate with her until she is ready. This is just one example of how humans rationalize ethical morality in everyday life and how it's different from the rest of the animal kingdom. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you like you're three years old, but apparently that's what it takes.

 

[BreezeWood]

who are you to say there is a moral and ethical distinction among beings bearing a higher standard, to what -

.
give an answer boss, I would like to know.

Who am I to say? Well, I am a human capable of complex thought processes and ability to reason using tools like science. This makes me radically more qualified than a great ape or any other upper primate, to discern the difference between primal urges and actual spiritual-based morals and ethics. To what? To a higher standard than what comes naturally, to what the natural primal inclinations or desires might be, for the sake of something more important.

When I see an attractive female, I don't just go up to her and mount her. I utilize morals and ethics in respecting her domain and station as a mutually equal human being and I control my primal urge to mate with her until she is ready. This is just one example of how humans rationalize ethical morality in everyday life and how it's different from the rest of the animal kingdom. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you like you're three years old, but apparently that's what it takes.

.

This makes me radically more qualified than a great ape or any other upper primate, to discern the difference between primal urges and actual spiritual-based morals and ethics.

we've heard that before, about the native Americans, Indians as you called them while stealing their land as some sort of justification as you are making for vindicating your own savagery ... their lives were shaped by Spiritualism far greater than those attacking them could ever imagine.

To what? To a higher standard than what comes naturally, to what the natural primal inclinations or desires might be, for the sake of something more important.

the beings that are being are the higher standard humanity has all but abandoned, bossy.

the goal is admittance to the Everlasting, natures purity is not by chance.

When I see an attractive female, I don't just go up to her and mount her.

I utilize morals and ethics in respecting her domain and station as a mutually equal human being and I control my primal urge to mate with her until she is ready.

and you "think" there is a species on planet Earth that is any different - have you ever left your mothers basement ...

This is just one example of how humans rationalize ethical morality in everyday life and how it's different from the rest of the animal kingdom.

you are a lost puppy, boss what in nature have you found without ethical morality, give an example ...

there is no higher ethical standard than nature, till someone like you feeds the gator, selfservedly corrupting what you fail to understand in the beginning.



I'm not sure what you could be possibly imagining by focusing on humanity but it certainly is not Spirituality, the Almighty and the quest for the Everlasting.

 

[Boss]

we've heard that before, about the native Americans, Indians as you called them while stealing their land as some sort of justification as you are making for vindicating your own savagery ... their lives were shaped by Spiritualism far greater than those attacking them could ever imagine.

What in the ever-loving fuck are you talking about? I am a registered Native American, asshole. I didn't steal anybody's damn land and I sure as fuck didn't exploit religious faith to do it, nor have I attempted to vindicate anything... and this emotive explosion has not one damn thing to do with the topic we were discussing.... nadda! What the fuck is wrong with you??? Was it just time to explode with another anti-christian outburst of some kind? Oh, let's drudge up some random historical event and blame the Christian religion for it! You're a fucking piece of work, that's for sure.

and you "think" there is a species on planet Earth that is any different - have you ever left your mothers basement ...

Yes, ALL species are different, shitstain... I never claimed they weren't. Birds don't go through rituals attracting mates out of ethical and moral respect. I'm sorry that my example was totally lost on you. Apparently, you're a fucking moron who just isn't going to get it no matter what.

you are a lost puppy, boss what in nature have you found without ethical morality, give an example ...

You know what? I am tired of your telling me I am lost, my light is out, I am bankrupt, I am closed minded, or whatever other little denigrating quip you reel off because you just want to take a shit on whatever I post. I am sorry you are incapable of having an adult conversation. You go on and on about the Everlasting and Almighty... clearly SPIRITUAL connotations because you're capitalizing them and talking about them just as others talk about their GOD! Clearly you're not an Atheist! Certainly you DO believe in SOMETHING! You ARE a SPIRITUAL person!

So you know what? Get the fuck over yourself! Try to focus on whatever the fuck your problem is with me and resolve it somehow. Stop trying to disagree with every single thing I post, even when our SPIRITUAL viewpoints are almost identical. It's really starting to piss me off that you want to be such a total dicksplash in EVERY fucking thread we have conversations in, and I am about one more post away from adding you to my illustrious ignore list if you can't dial it back a little. Enough is enough.

 

[RWS]

Matthew posted a very true statement of why people are rejecting religions today. It's a truth that people are now realizing more and more, especially with the advent of technology and enlightenment. We're no longer just stickin with what we were born with... We realize the meaning of these institutionalized religions, and what they did, and we choose to not follow them due to our personal ethics and morals.

Matthew, like yourself, posted an OPINION. I would argue we've had an "age of enlightenment" going on for hundreds of years and curiously, the father of enlightenment was a very spiritual Sir Isaac Newton. I would also point out that in certain parts of the world. Christianity is growing a faster pace than in it's entire history. Africa, for instance. In the most recent surveys from various objective sources, only about 5% of the human population are Nihilist. That means they believe in absolutely nothing beyond the physical. This leaves 95% who believe to some degree in something greater than self. In Sweden, the most Atheistic nation on the planet, 66% profess to be Atheists BUT... only 32% of them are willing to say they believe there is no possibility of any God of any kind. So even in the most Atheist civilization, a majority still believe in something greater than self or the possibility of such.

You so-called "smart" people have a really LONG way to go if you are trying to rid humanity of all spiritual belief. I don't think you're ever going to accomplish it. There is yet another obstacle slapping you upside your goofy faces... in every account of a major cataclysmic event in human history, what inevitable follows is a great revival of spirituality in human survivors. So this means, whenever that big asteroid hits and wipes out most of humanity, the remainder will have a broad spiritual awakening.... you're back to square one. You cannot stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man, it will defy you every single time.

So here's where you're changing your story...

Nobody here has said that there is no such thing as spirituality. For me, I simply say that organized religions are inherently evil and created to benefit human greed, and bring the followers down the wrong path. Therefore they follow orders from their religious rulers, that commit atrocities that normal people would not do. Their devotion to that religion makes them blind to the reality of morals and ethics.

And now that we understand the shit that happened in the past in the name of their religion, a person can either deny it, or accept it. Or disconnect themselves from that religion and pursue their own spirituality.

My argument is, and has always been, that the first two options are unethical. Therefore if someone continues to follow the religion, even after understanding the evils it has done and believe that "God" demanded it, or just flat-out deny those evils that "God" demanded, that person has a very weak grip on morality and ethics. And that person can easily give it up in an instant when called upon by their ruler to do it again.

And that's why you're changing your story. Because you originally ridiculed the semantics of the thread title. But after that, you defended organized religions. Then you stated you don't believe in religion. Then you started defending religions as great again. And now you're back to saying that you only care about spirituality and that religions are flawed because they are human creations. Which is what we have been saying all along.

Nobody here has attacked spirituality. In fact, I have stressed that spirituality is part of us and is a very personal thing. It is the understanding of the consequences of our actions. And how to live well with others and the world. And it is something we each need to understand individually. And birth-right religions are not the way to go to understand your spirituality. Those followers are simply following the orders of their man-made religion, and not finding their own truth.

 

[RWS]

Some sort of universal intelligence, or "god", may indeed exist. But it is certainly not the almighty "God" of the Old Testament, many parts of which were lifted from much more ancient texts describing much different scenarios.

Religions stemming from the OT, are already corrupt since they are human creations designed to benefit the rulers of those religions and take advantage of simple people seeking truths. And no matter how much vanilla pudding we try to put on those religions today, there is no escaping their nature. Which is why the world is still fighting about their OT religion today. And will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, and things will continue to escalate until the inevitable happens.

Unfortunately, I see a really bleak future for mankind. I can write my head off (no pun intended) on a forum, but that's not going to make the slightest dent in our destiny. Without an intervention, from either a real "God" or an "ET", there is nothing that is going to stop us from destroying each other based on OT religions. It's just a matter of when. I can only keep trying to bring some common sense to people, and hope they understand and pass it along. And hope we can delay it just a little longer...

 

[Boss]

Matthew posted a very true statement of why people are rejecting religions today. It's a truth that people are now realizing more and more, especially with the advent of technology and enlightenment. We're no longer just stickin with what we were born with... We realize the meaning of these institutionalized religions, and what they did, and we choose to not follow them due to our personal ethics and morals.

Matthew, like yourself, posted an OPINION. I would argue we've had an "age of enlightenment" going on for hundreds of years and curiously, the father of enlightenment was a very spiritual Sir Isaac Newton. I would also point out that in certain parts of the world. Christianity is growing a faster pace than in it's entire history. Africa, for instance. In the most recent surveys from various objective sources, only about 5% of the human population are Nihilist. That means they believe in absolutely nothing beyond the physical. This leaves 95% who believe to some degree in something greater than self. In Sweden, the most Atheistic nation on the planet, 66% profess to be Atheists BUT... only 32% of them are willing to say they believe there is no possibility of any God of any kind. So even in the most Atheist civilization, a majority still believe in something greater than self or the possibility of such.

You so-called "smart" people have a really LONG way to go if you are trying to rid humanity of all spiritual belief. I don't think you're ever going to accomplish it. There is yet another obstacle slapping you upside your goofy faces... in every account of a major cataclysmic event in human history, what inevitable follows is a great revival of spirituality in human survivors. So this means, whenever that big asteroid hits and wipes out most of humanity, the remainder will have a broad spiritual awakening.... you're back to square one. You cannot stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man, it will defy you every single time.

So here's where you're changing your story...

Nobody here has said that there is no such thing as spirituality. For me, I simply say that organized religions are inherently evil and created to benefit human greed, and bring the followers down the wrong path. Therefore they follow orders from their religious rulers, that commit atrocities that normal people would not do. Their devotion to that religion makes them blind to the reality of morals and ethics.

And now that we understand the shit that happened in the past in the name of their religion, a person can either deny it, or accept it. Or disconnect themselves from that religion and pursue their own spirituality.

My argument is, and has always been, that the first two options are unethical. Therefore if someone continues to follow the religion, even after understanding the evils it has done and believe that "God" demanded it, or just flat-out deny those evils that "God" demanded, that person has a very weak grip on morality and ethics. And that person can easily give it up in an instant when called upon by their ruler to do it again.

And that's why you're changing your story. Because you originally ridiculed the semantics of the thread title. But after that, you defended organized religions. Then you stated you don't believe in religion. Then you started defending religions as great again. And now you're back to saying that you only care about spirituality and that religions are flawed because they are human creations. Which is what we have been saying all along.

Nobody here has attacked spirituality. In fact, I have stressed that spirituality is part of us and is a very personal thing. It is the understanding of the consequences of our actions. And how to live well with others and the world. And it is something we each need to understand individually. And birth-right religions are not the way to go to understand your spirituality. Those followers are simply following the orders of their man-made religion, and not finding their own truth.

If you understand there is spirituality and you believe we are spiritually-connected, then you should also realize that religions are simply manifestations of that in mankind. In my objective analysis on the forming of all religions, with the possible exception of Islam, I see no nefarious or evil intent. One can argue that Islam was created out of a jealousy and envy of Christianity and Judaism. Other than that possible exception, most religions were created from spiritual understanding that had no evil or immoral intent whatsoever.

The story of Christianity takes a few twists and turns. To fully understand it, you have to consider the Old Testament and the importance of Jesus Christ in the reformation of the religion and how there came to be a New Testament. I've studied most organized religions out of pure curiosity and I learned quite a lot. I disagree with your premise they are all inherently evil. I just find that absurd, to be honest.

I see what you are doing to get to your point. I find fault in that because we simply can't form objective evaluations of anything by looking at only the negative aspects. Apply this to ANYTHING and you can reject it on the basis of what "bad" it causes. You could literally turn love into something evil if you only consider the negative aspects of love. That is called "subjective evaluation" and it's the opposite of "objective evaluation."

My purpose and point in this thread has been to try and get you to understand that you can be opposed to religion, you can disagree with religious dogma, but you can still acknowledge there are good aspects to religion as well. Again, I will point out the the vast majority of charity work around the world is done by religious organizations. What is the "evil intent" behind feeding hungry children? Why is it immoral and unethical to provide medical care to third world countries?

I can condemn immoral actions done in the name of religion by evil people without holding the religion itself accountable. I can do that the same way I can justify love being a good thing in spite of people exploiting it to take advantage of others. It's not love's fault there are shitty people in the world.

 

[BreezeWood]

we've heard that before, about the native Americans, Indians as you called them while stealing their land as some sort of justification as you are making for vindicating your own savagery ... their lives were shaped by Spiritualism far greater than those attacking them could ever imagine.

What in the ever-loving fuck are you talking about? I am a registered Native American, asshole. I didn't steal anybody's damn land and I sure as fuck didn't exploit religious faith to do it, nor have I attempted to vindicate anything... and this emotive explosion has not one damn thing to do with the topic we were discussing.... nadda! What the fuck is wrong with you??? Was it just time to explode with another anti-christian outburst of some kind? Oh, let's drudge up some random historical event and blame the Christian religion for it! You're a fucking piece of work, that's for sure.

and you "think" there is a species on planet Earth that is any different - have you ever left your mothers basement ...

Yes, ALL species are different, shitstain... I never claimed they weren't. Birds don't go through rituals attracting mates out of ethical and moral respect. I'm sorry that my example was totally lost on you. Apparently, you're a fucking moron who just isn't going to get it no matter what.

you are a lost puppy, boss what in nature have you found without ethical morality, give an example ...

You know what? I am tired of your telling me I am lost, my light is out, I am bankrupt, I am closed minded, or whatever other little denigrating quip you reel off because you just want to take a shit on whatever I post. I am sorry you are incapable of having an adult conversation. You go on and on about the Everlasting and Almighty... clearly SPIRITUAL connotations because you're capitalizing them and talking about them just as others talk about their GOD! Clearly you're not an Atheist! Certainly you DO believe in SOMETHING! You ARE a SPIRITUAL person!

So you know what? Get the fuck over yourself! Try to focus on whatever the fuck your problem is with me and resolve it somehow. Stop trying to disagree with every single thing I post, even when our SPIRITUAL viewpoints are almost identical. It's really starting to piss me off that you want to be such a total dicksplash in EVERY fucking thread we have conversations in, and I am about one more post away from adding you to my illustrious ignore list if you can't dial it back a little. Enough is enough.

.

This makes me radically more qualified than a great ape or any other upper primate, to discern the difference between primal urges and actual spiritual-based morals and ethics.

... between primal urges and actual spiritual-based morals and ethics.


that is the same logic they used against the native "savages" when stealing their land as their justification, your statement simply is a retread of that tried and "true" logic whether you like it or not - where is your example of "primal urges" you base your Spirituality that distinguishes you from all other beings ... the point is you never have an example of what you are referring to.


... actual spiritual-based morals and ethics

the above is what you are referencing "primal urges" fat cat, your humanity, leave nature that has nothing to do with your urges out of it.


because someone says they are spiritual in whatever regard that may be (you), organized religion - that is not Spiritualism which in itself is intrinsic to all living beings by definition, if you do not like that then it is you who needs somewhere else to hang your bigoted hat.

it is your exclusivity that is the friction you bring with you that causes the repeat performances, deservedly so.

 

[IResist]

People applauding Christian Conservative Greg Gianforte slamming Ben Jacobs hardly seems like morality to me.