Mystery Religions and Christianity

Originally posted by BananaKing
I am right because i trust my parents, and they trusted theirs, and they trusted theirs etc etc, all the way back to when mankind was made.

What if your parents are wrong ? What if they had been lied to by the same people who have told the same lie for the past millenia ?

Christianity did not appear until the Roman times. There was much more thick and rich religious and cultural history before that.

Originally posted by BananaKing
Your belief in hell depends on if you trust the bible, which you don't.

Biblical Hell does not exist, it is most likely based on Greek mythology's Tarturus/Hades, and Egypt's Underworld. The Bible itself even uses the word Hades.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Don't use "fact", use "probable hypothesis" because the former leads to dogmatic belief structures.

In any case, it's because I have read extensively on evolutionary theory and have seen numerous case studies and mathematical models to support the claim. A good starting point is "The Selfish Gene" from Richard Dawkins in his pre-anti-religion days when he was just a biologist. There's entire chapters devoted to how reciprocal altruism helps to create ESS's (Evolutionary Stable States) in a variety of animals, first on a fmaily level as well as larger levels of species altruism and friendship altruism. The extended anneversary edition has some additional chapters that describe how game theory (notably the Prisoner's Dilemma) helps to moderate these ESS's.

That's usually the problem with such discussions. No one's read the same stuff, so we have no way of knowing what's BS and what isn't (because plenty of people fudge their facts in any forum of debate). But aside from citing page numbers and sh*t like that, there's not much more I can do....and I'm usually the one having to support my arguments with legit sources and should probably start demanding it of others more often, because I don't just pull things out of nowhere when it serves my argument.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Nah, that's you ascribing moral slants to actions based upon your own interpretation of morality. They aren't constants, and they aren't absolutes. There isn't an objective viewpoint from which we can accurately label such things.

No I think you misunderstood what I mean't, anyway nevermind.

Originally posted by BananaKing
I am right because i trust my parents, and they trusted theirs, and they trusted theirs etc etc, all the way back to when mankind was made.

Your belief in hell depends on if you trust the bible, which you don't.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Fair enough.

No I think you misunderstood what I mean't, anyway nevermind.

Victory!

😛

Nah, I enjoy talking with you Alf...sorry if I misinterpreted stuff.

Originally posted by anaconda
I see all belief in a supreme being/s, omnipotent omnipresence deity as superstitious lunacy. I find the entire idea of religion stupid, and I mean all religions, they tend to be oh so helpful, but in fact all they do is create havoc and dispute, always trying to push their believes upon those who don't believe. Threatening of eternal damnation, or submit or die and all this crap. People can believe in whatever they want for me, doesnt mean I have to follow it wheter it being judism, christianity islam and other smaller religious ways, buddhism included.

Just felt the need to point out that not all religions teach eternal damnation - mainly christianity & islam. 🙄

And to all of you who are frustrated by fundies online - try living in the bible belt. aaayyyeeeeeee! 😱 😖 🤪 Jumpy

And to all of you who are frustrated by fundies online - try living in the bible belt. aaayyyeeeeeee

Yep - you got out, though...I'm still stuck here. Yikes! At least the view is nice!!

Ozark natural park nice............. 😄 🤣

It's pretty where you are too, though. 🙂

You have poisonous spiders and snakes there. Jumpy

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Nah, I enjoy talking with you Alf

Ok dont go overboard now. 😐

Originally posted by DigiMark007

...sorry if I misinterpreted stuff.

Well anyway I was bit to tired to go into detail about what I mean't anyway I will try to explain. As far as I can think the idea of selfish and unselfish being something which is just subjective seems to be correct, my point was....."yeah and....so now what?"

Eventhough its correct it seems to be a concept that has no application. If you became President of America tmmorrow would you stop criminals from being punished because there is no obejctive way to measure what is selfish and unselfish?

If you were coming home on the train and somebody spat in your face would the fact that there is no true objective way of measuring whats selfish and unselfish stop you from thinking "what a jerk whats his ****ing problem?"

Another analogy could be this. Imagine your a fashion designer, it could be argued that there is no such thing as colour but how does that concept help you when desiging clothes, it doesnt.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok dont go overboard now. 😐

Well anyway I was bit to tired to go into detail about what I mean't anyway I will try to explain. As far as I can think the idea of selfish and unselfish being something which is just subjective seems to be correct, my point was....."yeah and....so now what?"

Eventhough its correct it seems to be a concept that has no application. If you became President of America tmmorrow would you stop criminals from being punished because there is no obejctive way to measure what is selfish and unselfish?

If you were coming home on the train and somebody spat in your face would the fact that there is no true objective way of measuring whats selfish and unselfish stop you from thinking "what a jerk whats his ****ing problem?"

Another analogy could be this. Imagine your a fashion designer, it could be argued that there is no such thing as colour but how does that concept help you when desiging clothes, it doesnt.

This is where such ideas do get a bit sticky. Though it is possible to form a system of morality out of such concepts. For one, no one is at fault for their actions, because the world is an inherently deterministic system. Criminals would still need punished (or detained) but this is to protect the innocent, not as a retibutive act against the criminal. Similarly, there's no such thing as "sin" or "wrongdoing"...on a functional level (like the spitting incident you highlighted) it might be hard to put into practice, but that doesn't mean it can't be. Anything is forgivable, and any event (good or bad) becomes an opportunity for acceptance, tolerance, and even happiness and love.

This, in my mind, goes far beyond religious concepts of morality (except perhaps those with similar worldviews like Buddhism and Taoism), because most Western religions have things or people that they discriminate against. Homosexuality, non-believers, atheists, women, births out of wedlock, those who eat non-kosher food, infidels, immigrants, and even further to showing disdain for thieves, killers, and the like. Their love, and thus the love of their religion, is conditional...even as they falsely claim the unconditional love of their creator-deity.

As for the color example, as long as we accept the subjective nature of reality and the arbitrariness of language/color/etc. we still have to live in that subjective world so it becomes functionally useful to make, in this example, aesthetically pleasing clothes.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is where such ideas do get a bit sticky.

You can say that again.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Though it is possible to form a system of morality out of such concepts. For one, no one is at fault for their actions, because the world is an inherently deterministic system. Criminals would still need punished (or detained) but this is to protect the innocent, not as a retibutive act against the criminal. Similarly, there's no such thing as "sin" or "wrongdoing"...on a functional level (like the spitting incident you highlighted) it might be hard to put into practice, but that doesn't mean it can't be. Anything is forgivable, and any event (good or bad) becomes an opportunity for acceptance, tolerance, and even happiness and love.

This, in my mind, goes far beyond religious concepts of morality (except perhaps those with similar worldviews like Buddhism and Taoism), because most Western religions have things or people that they discriminate against. Homosexuality, non-believers, atheists, women, births out of wedlock, those who eat non-kosher food, infidels, immigrants, and even further to showing disdain for thieves, killers, and the like. Their love, and thus the love of their religion, is conditional...even as they falsely claim the unconditional love of their creator-deity.

As for the color example, as long as we accept the subjective nature of reality and the arbitrariness of language/color/etc. we still have to live in that subjective world so it becomes functionally useful to make, in this example, aesthetically pleasing clothes.

Well ok your right you can base a system on that concept. The thing that is getting me thoguh is that eventhough you have the concept of no right and wrong you still have to deal with it. I guess it can change your attitude slightly but thats about it. Also a person who believes in right and wrong may have the exact same attitude, again it doesnt seem to change anything....well not much anyway.

I suppose it's something that's easier to experience than describe. My own morality opened up immensely through these changes, and I honestly feel like I'm a "better" person than before (again, a subjective distinction, but in practical terms of amount of forgiveness and compassion). It also gives you a better outlook on life than having to deal with the perceived negativity in the world (which many struggle with).

It also gives you a better outlook on life than having to deal with the perceived negativity in the world

Originally posted by anaconda
and you experienced that how

Experienced what? The negativity that comes with trying to rationalize the "evil" in the world according to some religious doctrine? That's what I was referring to.