NationStates Jolt Archive

Doesn't it create a significant amount of cognative dissonance to believe in a set of values/morals that by definition has no relative value compared to any other set of values/morals?

Again, not really. I consider my actions by how I would feel if someone did them to me. If, for example, I was starving and needed to steal some bread, I would look at how I would feel if a starving man stole from me in a time of plenty. It works quite nicely, and it also means I can, for example, use a condom, or allow my girlfriend to have an abortion, without becoming evil in my own faith. Since my faith is, well, me-ism, really.

Interesting that. I'm wondering how you would reply to me. Instead of the god of a displaced Middle Eastern religion, I have experienced the gods of my Germanic ancestors. I equally can't prove my experiences objectively, but I know I have those gods (and goddesses) as valuable "resources," for lack of a better word.
It doesn't surprise me at all. I would expect that how your mind would interpret such experiences would be unique.

Again, not really. I consider my actions by how I would feel if someone did them to me. If, for example, I was starving and needed to steal some bread, I would look at how I would feel if a starving man stole from me in a time of plenty. It works quite nicely, and it also means I can, for example, use a condom, or allow my girlfriend to have an abortion, without becoming evil in my own faith. Since my faith is, well, me-ism, really.
What about actions that you take for which there is no time to think or consider? What if you felt compelled to leap into the heart of danger to rescue someone?

Doesn't it create a significant amount of cognative dissonance to believe in a set of values/morals that by definition has no relative value compared to any other set of values/morals?
I believe anyone raised in society could not fail to have a set of values/morals against which to compare their behaviours and build their own set, even if only those passed on by the parents.

What about actions that you take for which there is no time to think or consider? What if you felt compelled to leap into the heart of danger to rescue someone?

Given the amount of time I've been alive, any action undertaken so swiftly would be weighed up (prehaps inaccurately) against an underlying moral code based on prior experience. The code itself is part of the individual in question's personality, and may or may not be sparks in the brain ;)

wow you guys have alot to say this is crazy.

I want to see how far we can take this thread now. I think we've said everything that needs to be said, I just really enjoy hanging out in this thread.

I'm on a search for God and the devine so any help you can give will be greatly apreaciated

Where does one look for God? In the beauty of creation! In the words of the Prophets of God! I think for me the simple yet complex system that has evolved over the eons is one proof. And the beauty of the words of the Messengers of God. The conditions of the present day demand the renewal of the voice of God of earth. Perhaps the following will help.


Religion is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive. If it be without motion and non-progressive it is without the divine life; it is dead. The divine institutes are continuously active and evolutionary; therefore the revelation of them must be progressive and continuous. All things are subject to re-formation. This is a century of life and renewal. Sciences and arts, industry and invention have been reformed. Law and ethics have been reconstituted, reorganized. The world of thought has been regenerated. Sciences of former ages and philosophies of the past are useless today. Present exigencies demand new methods of solution; world problems are without precedent. Old ideas and modes of thought are fast becoming obsolete. Ancient laws and archaic ethical systems will not meet the requirements of modern conditions, for this is clearly the century of a new life, the century of the revelation of the reality and therefore the greatest of all centuries. Consider how the scientific developments of fifty years have surpassed and eclipsed the knowledge and achievements of all the former ages combined. Would the announcements and theories of ancient astronomers explain our present knowledge of the sun-worlds and planetary systems? Would the mask of obscurity which beclouded mediaeval centuries meet the demand for clear-eyed vision and understanding which characterizes the world today? Will the despotism of former governments answer the call for freedom which has risen from the heart of humanity in this cycle of illumination? It is evident that no vital results are now forthcoming from the customs, institutions and standpoints of the past. In view of this, shall blind imitations of ancestral forms and theological interpretations continue to guide and control the religious life and spiritual development of humanity today? Shall man gifted with the power of reason unthinkingly follow and adhere to dogma, creeds and hereditary beliefs which will not bear the analysis of reason in this century of effulgent reality? Unquestionably this will not satisfy men of science, for when they find premise or conclusion contrary to present standards of proof and without real foundation, they reject that which has been formerly accepted as standard and correct and move forward from new foundations.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 224)

Did you just cut and paste that entirely?

Like Nasopotamia said, that's unadultered bullshit (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm) -- we do use 100% of our brain, and we still do not become "energy".
I agree. However, reading that Scopes article, it seems to promote some myths of its own.

"One reason this myth has endured is that it has been adopted by psychics and other paranormal pushers to explain psychic powers. On more than one occasion I've heard psychics tell their audiences, "'We only use ten percent of our minds. If scientists don't know what we do with the other ninety percent, it must be used for psychic powers!'"
This would seem a dubious explanation. Does anyone really take psychics seriously, or just believe that "everyone else in the audience does"? How much of the myth is being spread by those claiming to debunk it?

The article also confuses and interchanges the terms "brain" and "mind". However much all of the brain may be used, the claims of "10%-20% use" made seem to relate to conscious effort, not actual function. If you read this in light of the prior discussion on this thread, that perspective is the essential difference between the terms, that the mind is the subjective view of brain synaptic activity, then it is referring to conscious and subconscious recognition of brain activity. In other words, we are only conscious of a small portion of what our brain accomplishes.

I believe anyone raised in society could not fail to have a set of values/morals against which to compare their behaviours and build their own set, even if only those passed on by the parents.

This issue I'm getting at here is not how one develops a set of values/morals, but the validity of said set relative to any alternative set. If your values system is based on "my parents said so" or any other human source, how is that any more or less valuable than "I said so" or "Stalin said so" or "Ghandi said so" or "Hitler said so" or "Martin Luther King Jr said so"?

Yeah, but the only people who don't use them interchangably are us and a bunch of 18th century French philosophers.

However, I concur that the 10% we 'use' is almost certainly the concious, and the other 90% is refering to the subconcious. In fact, it's probably because of interchanging the two terms that the fallacy of a 90% inactive brain arose.

Did you just cut and paste that entirely?

Of course I did. If I was to give my interpatation it would be modified by my thoughts. I want people to read the pure words from the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. So much of the problems in religion today is that people can take one small saying and interpert it to meet their needs and change the very obvious meaning. Anyone care to handle rattlesnakes in church? Just kidding!!

This issue I'm getting at here is not how one develops a set of values/morals, but the validity of said set relative to any alternative set. If your values system is based on "my parents said so" or any other human source, how is that any more or less valuable than "I said so" or "Stalin said so" or "Ghandi said so" or "Hitler said so" or "Martin Luther King Jr said so"?

Ah, but since more than enough suffering has been caused by those who did what 'God said' to do, surely he's no more useful than the parents?

Ah, but since more than enough suffering has been caused by those who did what 'God said' to do, surely he's no more useful than the parents?

I disagree. The "what anyone said" can always be misinterpreted and misused by the reader/hearer/seer and does not of necessity make the original message invalid.

Ah, but since more than enough suffering has been caused by those who did what 'God said' to do, surely he's no more useful than the parents?

The situation you describe here would never happen if the religious leaders of the time of new Messenger would cleanse their hearts and accept the new Messenger. This is the real battle of satan and God, of good and evil. Each succesive revealer of Gods words is in complete harmony with the previous Messenger. When the leaders convince the population that the new religion is false then the religious warfare begins. Thus God should not be blamed for what religious hypocrites have done.

My take on the difference between prophecy and fortune-telling: Fortunes are made with the hope that they will come true; prophecies are made to come true. When prophecies, such as those in the Bible, are fulfilled it is through conscious effort and deliberate adherence to the exact word of the prophecy. Jesus was a Messiah because he fulfilled the prophecies that proclaim a Messiah, to the letter.

Unfortunately, this is often turned around so that the fulfillment of the prophecy is used as proof that indicates a "truth" about the Bible. This is circular logic. A belief in fortune-telling informs this logic. Belief in fortune-telling is something that has endured for many thousands of years. It, too, is a circular logic of sorts --to give power to the idea of Fate or circumstances beyond our control, and at the same time take power away from the individual for something they directly control. To use the result made manifest to justify the prediction speaks of a mentality that believes in fortune-telling.

My take on the difference between prophecy and fortune-telling: Fortunes are made with the hope that they will come true; prophecies are made to come true. When prophecies, such as those in the Bible, are fulfilled it is through conscious effort and deliberate adherence to the exact word of the prophecy. Jesus was a Messiah because he fulfilled the prophecies that proclaim a Messiah, to the letter.

Unfortunately, this is often turned around so that the fulfillment of the prophecy is used as proof that indicates a "truth" about the Bible. This is circular logic. A belief in fortune-telling informs this logic. Belief in fortune-telling is something that has endured for many thousands of years. It, too, is a circular logic of sorts --to give power to the idea of Fate or circumstances beyond our control, and at the same time take power away from the individual for something they directly control. To use the result made manifest to justify the prediction speaks of a mentality that believes in fortune-telling.

I agree with what you are saying here. Both Jesus and Baha'u'llah fulfilled prophecy. It is important to remember that the prophecy was fufilled many times not through their actions in an artifical attempt to fulfill prophecy, but through the actions of others out of the controll of Jesus and Baha'u'llah. In other words they were forced into certain actions by people in authority and the result of this became prophecy fulfilled.

I wish I could stay and chat some more. But I am on my way to Turtle Mt ND to attend Sweat Lodge ceremony. I am finding this thread enjoyable because of the lack of angry replies.

I disagree. The "what anyone said" can always be misinterpreted and misused by the reader/hearer/seer and does not of necessity make the original message invalid.

Just use the Golden Rule, like Nas was saying earlier. Heck, there's even some evidence that it's been selected for through evolutionary pressures.

Just use the Golden Rule, like Nas was saying earlier. Heck, there's even some evidence that it's been selected for through evolutionary pressures.

I believe it is one proof of the unity of all revealed religions.

I believe it is one proof of the unity of all revealed religions.

I believe that it is enlightened self interest.

This issue I'm getting at here is not how one develops a set of values/morals, but the validity of said set relative to any alternative set. If your values system is based on "my parents said so" or any other human source, how is that any more or less valuable than "I said so" or "Stalin said so" or "Ghandi said so" or "Hitler said so" or "Martin Luther King Jr said so"?
Because mother and father are more believable than strangers, especially grown-up strangers. Development is important. Basic ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, are developed at the earliest age by learning within the family unit. By the time one is old enough to fall sway to the influence of teachers apart from family one usually has the basics of right and wrong firmly in place. If it's right because "Ghandi said so" it is because it rings a bell, strikes a chord, harmonizes with set beliefs.

Just use the Golden Rule, like Nas was saying earlier. Heck, there's even some evidence that it's been selected for through evolutionary pressures.

Doesn't validate it or provide it any significant moral authority unless evolution really is a religion.

Just use the Golden Rule, like Nas was saying earlier. Heck, there's even some evidence that it's been selected for through evolutionary pressures.
Even the golden rule can be abused. For instance, take the case of a man, a good protector and provider of his family, who comes home to find them all slaughtered. He thinks to himself, "If I did this to another man, I would fully expect him to kill me," and uses that as justification for revenge.

Because mother and father are more believable than strangers, especially grown-up strangers. Development is important. Basic ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, are developed at the earliest age by learning within the family unit. By the time one is old enough to fall sway to the influence of teachers apart from family one usually has the basics of right and wrong firmly in place. If it's right because "Ghandi said so" it is because it rings a bell, strikes a chord, harmonizes with set beliefs.

Again, what gives any one set of beliefs validity or moral authority over other sets? Nothing, in the absense of Divinely revealed, objective truth, can.

Again, what gives any one set of beliefs validity or moral authority over other sets? Nothing, in the absense of Divinely revealed, objective truth, can.
Or belief in such. If there is no god, then it's found that the source of morality is man's inner strength. In case of the believer, it's plain that faith becomes very important. If there has to be something out there for there to be a universal truth, then there has to be faith in that. Personally, I would rather believe that it is in here.

I wish I could stay and chat some more. But I am on my way to Turtle Mt ND to attend Sweat Lodge ceremony. I am finding this thread enjoyable because of the lack of angry replies.

There are three reasons for this:

1) Those people on these forums that have heard of the Baha'i faith, are usually the more religiously tolerant, and cosmopolitan - which means they have learned to deal with, and accept lots of different views.

2) Those who aren't so well informed (so, would be the kind to flame, normally), are generally ignorant of cosmopolitan existence also - largely because of insularity - and thus have no idea about the Baha'i faith - so they don't "KNOW" whether to flame it or not.

3) Many of the people who HAVE heard of the Baha'i faith, but that lack any idea about it, have heard about how it is poorly tolerated in Iran (for example). These people may just feel that someone who follows the Baha'i faith has it hard enough already.

There are three reasons for this:

1) Those people on these forums that have heard of the Baha'i faith, are usually the more religiously tolerant, and cosmopolitan - which means they have learned to deal with, and accept lots of different views.

2) Those who aren't so well informed (so, would be the kind to flame, normally), are generally ignorant of cosmopolitan existence also - largely because of insularity - and thus have no idea about the Baha'i faith - so they don't "KNOW" whether to flame it or not.

3) Many of the people who HAVE heard of the Baha'i faith, but that lack any idea about it, have heard about how it is poorly tolerated in Iran (for example). These people may just feel that someone who follows the Baha'i faith has it hard enough already.

and 4) everyone else has completely given up on this thread, and probably wishes we'd just let it die.

Me, I'm just trying to be the last-posted name on this thread when it disappears off the boards..

Oh, and:
"Again, what gives any one set of beliefs validity or moral authority over other sets? Nothing, in the absense of Divinely revealed, objective truth, can."

So why aren't all atheists out of control maniacs? And why aren't all out-of-control mainiacs Atheists?

Moral authority is gained through culture every bit as much as religion. Not all moral values are the same, there's extremely widely varying ideas as to what is moral or not. In Japan, suicide was a very benificial act, in Catholicism it meant you were going straight to hell.

Religion is a way to impose morality on those without morals. Not everyone is amoral, however. Some people can consider morality and ethics themselves, without needing to be guided gently by the hand of some deity, taken on faith.

and 4) everyone else has completely given up on this thread, and probably wishes we'd just let it die.

Me, I'm just trying to be the last-posted name on this thread when it disappears off the boards..

Oh, and:
"Again, what gives any one set of beliefs validity or moral authority over other sets? Nothing, in the absense of Divinely revealed, objective truth, can."

So why aren't all atheists out of control maniacs? And why aren't all out-of-control mainiacs Atheists?

Moral authority is gained through culture every bit as much as religion. Not all moral values are the same, there's extremely widely varying ideas as to what is moral or not. In Japan, suicide was a very benificial act, in Catholicism it meant you were going straight to hell.

Religion is a way to impose morality on those without morals. Not everyone is amoral, however. Some people can consider morality and ethics themselves, without needing to be guided gently by the hand of some deity, taken on faith.
I think also religion is a way to entice people who are unwilling or not strong enough to define their own morals and ethics into situations of circumstance and assumed agreement of consequence .... giving power to the bestowers and belonging to the followers. By and large it tends to bereeave a great many of personal responsibility in one way and for a great many also it burdens them with responsibilities they otherwise wouldn't have assumed were it not for so many "like-minded seekers".
Maybe not the last post .... ;)
:fluffle:

When Jesus told Peter he wanted him to be a 'fisher of men', was that actually a reference to homosexuality? And would that not entail that homosexuality is not only a-ok by Jesus, but also one of the very tenents of the church?

Since in Holy Communion you eat the body and blood of Christ, does that mean he was a very big fat man? Since he had long hair, does that mean he'd look a lot like silent bob?

Should Silent Bob star in the next Jesus film? The people must know!

Of course I did. If I was to give my interpatation it would be modified by my thoughts. I want people to read the pure words from the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. So much of the problems in religion today is that people can take one small saying and interpert it to meet their needs and change the very obvious meaning. Anyone care to handle rattlesnakes in church? Just kidding!!
But hearing what you have to say, modified by your thoughts, gives us your understanding of it, and that can be equally useful, alongside the actual teachings. In fact, you can probably guess that I would give it a lot of weight, since it is the subjective interpretation (subjective to the group as well as the individual).

For the purposes of analysis, a dualist view would be best, as long as it was presented fairly and not portrayed as the only possible truth. That's always been the problem; no religion (including science) is willing to accept it might be wrong, or even enter into discussion about it.

I am certain you wouldn't like my answer at the very least, but I'll tell you if you really want to hear/read it. I should warn you that you might well find it offensive, which would not be my intent in anyway, but it would be an explanation for your experiences that I doubt you'd be interested in entertaining as a possible alternative for what you believe.

See, the thing is, I would likely use a similar explanation for your experiences. You and I would then get into a battle because you wouldn't like my responce any more than I would like yours, because we would both be unintentionally offending one another by stating the circumstances as we see them and then later making resultant defences against one another.

I have a better idea--why don't we just stop before it starts, be tolerant of one another's beliefs, and accept one another's beliefs as equally valid for each individual? After all, beliefs ARE subjective, aren't they?

See, the thing is, I would likely use a similar explanation for your experiences. You and I would then get into a battle because you wouldn't like my responce any more than I would like yours, because we would both be unintentionally offending one another by stating the circumstances as we see them and then later making resultant defences against one another.

I have a better idea--why don't we just stop before it starts, be tolerant of one another's beliefs, and accept one another's beliefs as equally valid for each individual? After all, beliefs ARE subjective, aren't they?

Yeah, but the battle would be funnier to watch.

Pretty much why I stopped there, dude.

Touché. Bringing up more than about three examples opens up the very can of worms I did, which you originally intented to avoid opening up.

Sorry about that.

Yeah, but the battle would be funnier to watch.

I suppose it would, but I tire of having the same old battles. It just leads to the same old resentment and rhetoric on both sides, and nothing worthwhile is accomplished in the way of conversation.

Don't confuse the issue.

Religion has nothing to do with living.

It is an attempt to deny the reality of death. That is the only common theme for all religions.

Obviously you know nothing about relgions accross the globe. Bask in your ignorance.

Touché. Bringing up more than about three examples opens up the very can of worms I did, which you originally intented to avoid opening up.

Sorry about that.

No problem. You're the one holding the can :D

Obviously you know nothing about relgions accross the globe. Bask in your ignorance.


Care to elaborate, or just to deny?

Personally I agree with your answer, but not necissarily for your reasons.

Care to elaborate, or just to deny?

Personally I agree with your answer, but not necissarily for your reasons.

Some people who practice Judaism dont believe in an afterlife if I recall, Because it is not stated in the Torah. They believe being good on Earth would allow them to have a good life there as well.

It doesn't surprise me at all. I would expect that how your mind would interpret such experiences would be unique.

Well put, Willamena. All religious experiences are unique, or rather, subjective. People cannot prove their religious experiences to one another, or disprove them by the same token. You have personal reasons for your beliefs, as I do for mine. We can both discuss them, but ultimately if we were trying to prove one more right than the other, we'd be doing a lot of this :headbang: and perhaps more than enough of these :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

We can both discuss them, but ultimately if we were trying to prove one more right than the other, we'd be doing a lot of this :headbang: and perhaps more than enough of these :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:


Can't deny that when we've got so much evidence of it all over the world.

Some people who practice Judaism dont believe in an afterlife if I recall, Because it is not stated in the Torah. They believe being good on Earth would allow them to have a good life there as well.


Essentially the same way Atheists see being moral, then. Takes God out of the equation all together, really.

Care to elaborate, or just to deny?

Personally I agree with your answer, but not necissarily for your reasons.

Then theres the fact he said 'all', which is basically impossible.

Essentially the same way Atheists see being moral, then. Takes God out of the equation all together, really.

Are you trying to use Equation as an analogy or an expression?

Are you trying to use Equation as an analogy or an expression?

Expression. And I thought I was succeeding :) .

Expression. And I thought I was succeeding :) .

Whew. That was a close one for you.
Some Atheists are Moral and Some are not, so you have this 1 equation with two different outcomes, an impossibility. Fun though.

Whew. That was a close one for you.
Some Atheists are Moral and Some are not, so you have this 1 equation with two different outcomes, an impossibility. Fun though.

Well, some Jewish people are moral and other aren't, so even if you include God then the equation has two outcomes. And it depends on the equation itself.

Basically, you start with:

People + God = moral or otherwise.

Then you remove God, to get:

People = moral or otherwise.

However, if you cancel out the contradictory of the morality side, yu end up with:

People.

Well, some Jewish people are moral and other aren't, so even if you include God then the equation has two outcomes. And it depends on the equation itself.

Basically, you start with:

People + God = moral or otherwise.

Then you remove God, to get:

People = moral or otherwise.

However, if you cancel out the contradictory of the morality side, yu end up with:

People.

How did you end up with 'Moral or otherwise' to be contradictory?

How did you end up with 'Moral or otherwise' to be contradictory?

Because the only two options in morality are 'moral' and 'immoral'. And immoral means 'without morals'.

It depends if one views "Moral or Otherwise" as one answer or as two.

It depends if one views "Moral or Otherwise" as one answer or as two.

Fair point. That's why the whole thing doesn't work as an equation; there's only really one side to it. Moral or Otherwise is really two contradictory answers, or alternatively is no answer at all, and a completely wasted statement.

We may be looking a little too deeply into this. :)

But hearing what you have to say, modified by your thoughts, gives us your understanding of it, and that can be equally useful, alongside the actual teachings. In fact, you can probably guess that I would give it a lot of weight, since it is the subjective interpretation (subjective to the group as well as the individual).

I do try to give my understandings on different topics, but there are times when it is important that I give the ideas directly from the person who they should be attritubed to. In this case it was Abdul-Baha. I often wonder why this bothers some people so much.