NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading through these ERA lyrics and, mesmerized, I came upon the realization that what they postulate is true:

Mahma kana fek (No matter what happens in your World)

El-nour fe aleaman (There's always the light of faith)

Onshor salama fe el- donea (You are able to spread peace)

Ya lael... (Approach, night...)

Ya aen... (Approach, eyes...)

El-nour fe aleaman (There's always the light of faith)

No matter what, the fact that you believe in something and that this something brings you to the light is enough. It can be God, it can be Allah, it can be Buddah, it can be Nature, or Nothing at all, if this belief makes you happy, if this belief brings you completion, then it's ok.

What do you think, NSG?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0

I was reading through these ERA lyrics and, mesmerized, I came upon the realization that what they postulate is true:

Mahma kana fek (No matter what happens in your World)

El-nour fe aleaman (There's always the light of faith)

Onshor salama fe el- donea (You are able to spread peace)

Ya lael... (Approach, night...)

Ya aen... (Approach, eyes...)

El-nour fe aleaman (There's always the light of faith)

No matter what, the fact that you believe in something and that this something brings you to the light is enough. It can be God, it can be Allah, it can be Buddah, it can be Nature, or Nothing at all, if this belief makes you happy, if this belief brings you completion, then it's ok.

What do you think, NSG?

I think no one belife nor thing brings completion. What do you mean by completion anyway?

Depends what you mean by "the light." I'm not willing to adopt a belief simply because it makes me happy or squares circumstances with my pre-conceived worldview.

Bit of a cliche, but Mill said it well:

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

I think no one belife nor thing brings completion. What do you mean by completion anyway?

A belief that makes you happy. By being happy, by understanding that your truth is just yours, and that there are other truths out there that apply to others, brings you completion. It has done so for me. I am not a particularly religious person, but I think that respecting what others believe, be that in God, Allah or Buddah, is the very essence of what I was trying to convey with the OP.

A belief that makes you happy. By being happy, by understanding that your truth is just yours, and that there are other truths out there that apply to others, brings you completion. It has done so for me. I am not a particularly religious person, but I think that respecting what others believe, be that in God, Allah or Buddah, is the very essence of what I was trying to convey with the OP.

Ahhh okay. I would not call that 'being complete' more like being at ease with the world and your place in it. Meh! semantic word play huh huh!:D

Ahhh okay. I would not call that 'being complete' more like being at ease with the world and your place in it. Meh! semantic word play huh huh!:D

Semantic word play aside, it brings peace.:wink:

Let me just add that, in the past few days, because I am at ease with my decisions and what they will ultimately bring me, I have found peace. Completion, in a sense, if we still go by what I postulated.

Have you been watching Kevin Smith movies de-ah?

Semantic word play aside, it brings peace.:wink:

Well it's gota be subjective innit?

Does the belife that black people are inferiour to white people bring peace, for example?

Or the belife that only my version of God is correct and all those who disbelive in this are doomed?

Well it's gota be subjective innit?

Does the belife that black people are inferiour to white people bring peace, for example?

Or the belife that only my version of God is correct and all those who disbelive in this are doomed?

I want you to go back to the OP and read it. Really read it. Somewhere there, I'm sure, you'll understand what I meant.

Have you been watching Kevin Smith movies de-ah?

Nope, sir. I did not. (mp)

Nope, sir. I did not. (mp)

Good.

I do agree. I like the idea that "there are many roads to god". Whatever the heck god happens to be, we're hampered by English in describing her.

*using god in the asecular "In God We Trust" sort of way on the dollar bill.

I want you to go back to the OP and read it. Really read it. Somewhere there, I'm sure, you'll understand what I meant.

Ohhhh you naughty girl!

I understand what you mean, I'm saying that what you postulate is incorrect.

Heh I urge you to re-read my postss, in conjunction with your own answers to my questions, and I'm also sure that you'll glean my meaning from them!:D

Good.

I do agree. I like the idea that "there are many roads to god". Whatever the heck god happens to be, we're hampered by English in describing her.

Exactly, Andaluciae.

Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The story of the Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence. Nothing is more lethal than evidence. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation. The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational enquiry.

Blind faith can justify anything. If a man believes in a different god, or even if he uses a different ritual for worshipping the same god, blind faith can decree that he should die - on the cross, at the stake, skewered on a Crusader's sword, shot in a Beirut street, or blown up in a bar in Belfast. Memes for blind faith have their own ruthless ways of propagating themselves. This is true of patriotic and political as well as religious blind faith.

Just because faith makes a person feel good should not get in the way of healthy scepticism.

I recall when Pentecostalism was introduced into my school (this is many, many years ago). I asked several of its adherents why they took it up and every single one said it was because it made them feel good. This struck me as a very superficial and insincere reason for taking it up.

(Sorry, Nanatsu no Tsuki, I don't mean to suggest you are superficial and insincere.)

Ohhhh you naughty girl!

I understand what you mean, I'm saying that what you postulate is incorrect.

I don't think it's either correct or incorrect, Peeps. It just is.

Heh I urge you to re-read my postss, in conjunction with your own answers to my questions, and I'm also sure that you'll glean my meaning from them!:D

You are, here, going to the opposite sides of the spectrum. Thinking that because you're white all blacks are bad or something isn't something that brings peace. No matter how you want to put it.

In the case of what I'm postulating, I'm not saying any way towards God or how you may call your deity is the right way. I'm just saying that whatever your god is, how you worship him/her/it, if it brings you to the light of understanding, if it helps you accept the views of others, then it does bring you completion.

I suppose certainty can bring happiness, despite how misguided it can be, and religion is a good tool for keeping the disgruntled and unintelligent from causing problems.

Just because faith makes a person feel good should not get in the way of healthy scepticism.

I recall when Pentecostalism was introduced into my school (this is many, many years ago). I asked several of its adherents why they took it up and every single one said it was because it made them feel good. This struck me as a very superficial and insincere reason for taking it up.

(Sorry, Nanatsu no Tsuki, I don't mean to suggest you are superficial and insincere.)

No offense taken. Which is precisely the reason of my OP. I'm not a religious person, but I do respect what others may believe, however wrong it seems.

Just because faith makes a person feel good should not get in the way of healthy scepticism.

I recall when Pentecostalism was introduced into my school (this is many, many years ago). I asked several of its adherents why they took it up and every single one said it was because it made them feel good. This struck me as a very superficial and insincere reason for taking it up.

(Sorry, Nanatsu no Tsuki, I don't mean to suggest you are superficial and insincere.)

I think there's a difference between merely feeling good (like when you buy a shiny toy), and feeling an inner peace or enlightenment. Of course, I trend Buddhist, so maybe I'm letting those values show through.

I also think that there are better sources to cite than Richard Dawkin's--the Jerry Falwell of Atheism. I'm half convinced that his militancy is reflecting the fact that he's not entirely content with his choice of lack of faith, and the personal identity he's built to associate with it.

I think there's a difference between merely feeling good (like when you buy a shiny toy), and feeling an inner peace or enlightenment.

Inner peace being the key. Yes, I feel that. And it has nothing to do with religious fervor, no zeal at all.

Inner peace being the key. Yes, I feel that. And it has nothing to do with religious fervor, no zeal at all.

Quite, quite.

I don't think it's either correct or incorrect, Peeps. It just is.



You are, here, going to the opposite sides of the spectrum. Thinking that because you're white all blacks are bad or something isn't something that brings peace. No matter how you want to put it.

In the case of what I'm postulating, I'm not saying any way towards God or how you may call your deity is the right way. I'm just saying that whatever your god is, how you worship him/her/it, if it brings you to the light of understanding, if it helps you accept the views of others, then it does bring you completion.


Well now you are just backtracking there my friend. This is your OP:

'No matter what, the fact that you believe in something and that this something brings you to the light is enough. It can be God, it can be Allah, it can be Buddah, it can be Nature, or Nothing at all, if this belief makes you happy, if this belief brings you completion, then it's ok.

What do you think, NSG?'

In this you are argueing that having belifef or beliefs(no matter what kind) that make you happy, means that you are complete, and that is okay is it not?

You are asking if what you postulate is correct. Yet at the very top here you say that it is not a question of correct nor incorrect it is 'just is' Which I can read as you changing your mind about asking and are now saying you asked no such thing, you simply made a statement.

I pointed out that some belifes even though they serve to make the indivdual happy are not okay, to-whit my example of holding a racist belife, and my example of a fundemental beliefe.

Do I think that what you say is correct? No I do not belive that if you hold to a faith that it always brings, happiness, understanding, and as for completion. Well that word denotes perfection when used in debate about the human condition. Can you honestly show me one perfect human?

In short Nana, your postulate is wrong.

Well now you are just backtracking there my friend. This is your OP:

'No matter what, the fact that you believe in something and that this something brings you to the light is enough. It can be God, it can be Allah, it can be Buddah, it can be Nature, or Nothing at all, if this belief makes you happy, if this belief brings you completion, then it's ok.

What do you think, NSG?'

In this you are argueing that having belifef or beliefs(no matter what kind) that make you happy, means that you are complete, and that is okay is it not?

You are asking if what you postulate is correct. Yet at the very top here you say that it is not a question of correct nor incorrect it is 'just is' Which I can read as you changing your mind about asking and are now saying you asked no such thing, you simply made a statement.

I pointed out that some belifes even though they serve to make the indivdual happy are not okay, to-whit my example of holding a racist belife, and my example of a fundemental beliefe.

Do I think that what you say is correct? No I do not belive that if you hold to a faith that it always brings, happiness, understanding, and as for completion. Well that word denotes perfection when used in debate about the human condition. Can you honestly show me one perfect human?

In short Nana, your postulate is wrong.

For the life of me, Peepelonia, I can't understand, at all, why you think I am alluding to perfection in humans. We are flawed creatures, we will always be such. Where the hell in the OP do I allude to that? You read either wrong or a bit too much. And you seem to be the only person thinking that of the OP.

I'm not a religious person, but I do respect what others may believe, however wrong it seems.
Why should you?

Why should you?

Why should I what?

Just because faith makes a person feel good should not get in the way of healthy scepticism.



I'm personally of the view that the two aren't incompatible. I constantly consider and evaluate my religious and moral beliefs - to consider just because you have faith or belief in something means you can't question it or reevaluate based on new evidence is possibly one of the worse fallacies organised religion tends to fall in to. I think there is a lot of difference between faith (in whatever, it doesn't have to be a religion) and blind adherence.

I was reading through these ERA lyrics and, mesmerized, I came upon the realization that what they postulate is true:

Mahma kana fek (No matter what happens in your World)

El-nour fe aleaman (There's always the light of faith)

Onshor salama fe el- donea (You are able to spread peace)

Ya lael... (Approach, night...)

Ya aen... (Approach, eyes...)

El-nour fe aleaman (There's always the light of faith)

No matter what, the fact that you believe in something and that this something brings you to the light is enough. It can be God, it can be Allah, it can be Buddah, it can be Nature, or Nothing at all, if this belief makes you happy, if this belief brings you completion, then it's ok.

What do you think, NSG?

An excellent question! The light is not inherently good, nor the dark inherently evil. Light is energy the dark is a lack of a particular type of energy. If it give you peace that is a good thing and should be explored. Maybe one should ask themselves why does it give me peace? What is it about the light that brings me peace?

Is it the fact that I can see everything?

Is it the fact that it makes me feel warm and loved?

Or does it mean that I associate the light with something else?


I think you have to examine what you have faith in. Does it deserve your faith? Can faith be misplaced. Why yes it can. People put their faith in money, in banks, in laws, in one another, in science, in technology, in medicine, and in religion.

Does money deserve you respect? Will having an abundance of wealth truly make you happy?

While science can explain many things and there are many things still left undiscovered. Is it the fact that it can explain pretty near everything, is it then the only thing?

Is reality just what I see, touch, hear, smell, taste or is there something more?

What makes a person unique? Is it simply a matter of genes or is there something more?

In my case religion fills this need. My faith is based on trust. Do you trust whatever it is you believe? Will it get you through good times and bad? When things go wrong does it tell you what to do, where to look for answers? Will it support you when you do wrong or right? Where will your faith lead you? If you look down the road 10, 20, 50 years where does it leave you?

Why should I what?

"Respect" others' beliefs.

Religion= Epic Fail.

"Respect" others' beliefs.

Because a moral person treats others the way they wish to be treated.

"Respect" others' beliefs.

Because it's what a person with inner peace would do. Because it is the way I would like to be treated. Because I would also like to be respected.

For the life of me, Peepelonia, I can't understand, at all, why you think I am alluding to perfection in humans. We are flawed creatures, we will always be such. Where the hell in the OP do I allude to that? You read either wrong or a bit too much. And you seem to be the only person thinking that of the OP.

It's this word 'complete'. What do you mean then?

Because a moral person treats others the way they wish to be treated.

Ummm is that true? Or would it be a moraly correct person....

Just because faith makes a person feel good should not get in the way of healthy scepticism.

I recall when Pentecostalism was introduced into my school (this is many, many years ago). I asked several of its adherents why they took it up and every single one said it was because it made them feel good. This struck me as a very superficial and insincere reason for taking it up.

(Sorry, Nanatsu no Tsuki, I don't mean to suggest you are superficial and insincere.)
i think its a good reason to convert.

given that its just moving from one kind of christianity to another.

it would be a bad reason to take up a completely different faith--shinto, perhaps--but moving to a church where you believe the same basic thing but this one makes you feel good, not a bad reason.

It's this word 'complete'. What do you mean then?

I see no word "complete".

I see no word "complete".

Meh! Then look for completion.

Meh! Then look for completion.

I don't follow,(I'm simple).

I believe that a supreme being put me on this earth to live a life of inordinate luxury, and charged me with the heavy task of consuming as much of the world's "New York Super Fudge Chunk" as possible. It brings me joy and peace to carry out my maker's will, even when I get stomach aches... or get get charged with "theft", as if those little containers of heaven weren't my divine right...

I don't follow,(I'm simple).

Read the OP.

On a serious note: What if your faith doesn't bring you happiness, peace or fulfillment? It's a somewhat modern and popular notion that the purpose of faith is to bring you these things, but what if you believe certain things to be true that don't make you happy? Do you abandon your faith, or adopt a different one, just to feel peace? I believe that much of the world lacks adequate nutrition, shelter, access to education and opportunity for self-realization. None of that makes me happy--do I just invent a divine system that makes all that okay?

Because it's what a person with inner peace would do. Because it is the way I would like to be treated. Because I would also like to be respected.

I am of a mixed opinion. I refer then to two of my favorite quotes:

"If we can not help all living beings, then the least we can do is refrain from harming them."

and

"Then right to swing my fist ends at the other guy's face."

On a serious note: What if your faith doesn't bring you happiness, peace or fulfillment? It's a somewhat modern and popular notion that the purpose of faith is to bring you these things, but what if you believe certain things to be true that don't make you happy? Do you abandon your faith, or adopt a different one, just to feel peace? I believe that much of the world lacks adequate nutrition, shelter, access to education and opportunity for self-realization. None of that makes me happy--do I just invent a divine system that makes all that okay?

Exactly, and what if you belifes bring everything but happyness to those around you?

On a serious note: What if your faith doesn't bring you happiness, peace or fulfillment? It's a somewhat modern and popular notion that the purpose of faith is to bring you these things, but what if you believe certain things to be true that don't make you happy? Do you abandon your faith, or adopt a different one, just to feel peace? I believe that much of the world lacks adequate nutrition, shelter, access to education and opportunity for self-realization. None of that makes me happy--do I just invent a divine system that makes all that okay?
there is only so much that a religion can do, eh?

but if you were a christian and world poverty bothers you you can do missionary work in those areas or even just spend your time praying for things to get better.

and yeah, some people invent (or assume) a theology where bad things happen to people through some fault of their own and thus absolve themselves of any responsibility to help. im sure it makes them feel much better.

If your faith makes you happy and strong and faithful and capable and willing to improve the world, then you can have faith in your faith. And others can have faith in faithful you being faithful to them, and in good faith will show their faith in you and be faithful right back at you! I have faith that you have found the core, inner light of faith, that which is good about faith and faith the faith faith faith you faith and your faith will bring light to this world.

Amen!

Not only positive faith brings light and strength, positive humor does too. Not taking oneself too seriously also helps in doing good instead of evil.

One should have humor and faith, humor ones faith, and have faith in ones humor.

Well, that's what I think.

It's this word 'complete'. What do you mean then?

I was referring to me all the time. I feel complete, thinking what I do on the subject of creed, Peeps. I don't know nor roesume to know how others may feel on the subject, therefore why I used the work "think" at all times.

On a serious note: What if your faith doesn't bring you happiness, peace or fulfillment? It's a somewhat modern and popular notion that the purpose of faith is to bring you these things, but what if you believe certain things to be true that don't make you happy? Do you abandon your faith, or adopt a different one, just to feel peace? I believe that much of the world lacks adequate nutrition, shelter, access to education and opportunity for self-realization. None of that makes me happy--do I just invent a divine system that makes all that okay?

That is something I don't contest, Ryadn. I'm sure faith doesn't always brings happiness. Nothing does. In my case, what brings me peace is not faith, it's respecting (something I wasn't able to do before) what others believe. Therein lies what I was trying to explore on the OP. If you believe your creed brings you light, whatever that may be, then I say believe it. If it makes you a better person, the size of your church matters not.

I was referring to me all the time. I feel complete, thinking what I do on the subject of creed, Peeps. I don't know nor roesume to know how others may feel on the subject, therefore why I used the work "think" at all times.

*sigh* Can we take it back a bit and see if we can get this clear Nana?

In your OP you basicly ask does having faith make you happy, and 'complete' and is it okay?

I first questioned what you mean by complete(I still don't know BTW). Then I said no it is not always true that having faith makes you happy, nor complete(what ever it is you mean by this)

If you tell me that this is not what you asked at all, then please do explain, coz my head is hurting.:(

Why should I what?
Why should you "respect what others may believe, however wrong it seems"?

You say (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14722006#post14722006) that if someone holds the belief that "because you're white all blacks are bad or something isn't something that brings peace", but I'd question this. I think there certainly are people who hold some rather abhorrent beliefs, yet have this 'inner peace' you're talking about.

Moreover, how far do you take this? Even if we discount the outright bigots, there's plenty of rather innocuous, contended persons who hold dodgy views thanks to their religion; the same religion that gives them 'inner peace'. Think of those religions that, say, view women or homosexuals as lesser persons.

I most certainly don't respect these beliefs; they are terrible views to hold. And I don't see why I should respect them merely because they bring the believer calm.

I'll respect the right to believe, not (necessarily) the belief itself. But these are two very different things.



Because a moral person treats others the way they wish to be treated.
I see no problem in being a moral person and in holding immoral ideas in contempt.

*sigh* Can we take it back a bit and see if we can get this clear Nana?

In your OP you basicly ask does having faith make you happy, and 'complete' and is it okay?

I first questioned what you mean by complete(I still don't know BTW). Then I said no it is not always true that having faith makes you happy, nor complete(what ever it is you mean by this)

If you tell me that this is not what you asked at all, then please do explain, coz my head is hurting.:(

Peeps, I understand that what I postulate is something you find wrong. You believe having faith doesn't make you happy and complete. I think it does. And more so if you're accepting of what others believe. That's what I was postulating.

Headache better?

I was referring to me all the time. I feel complete, thinking what I do on the subject of creed, Peeps. I don't know nor roesume to know how others may feel on the subject, therefore why I used the work "think" at all times.

Is that a word?

If so, damn you for your gargantuan vocabulary.

Why should you "respect what others may believe, however wrong it seems"?

You say (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14722006#post14722006) that if someone holds the belief that "because you're white all blacks are bad or something isn't something that brings peace", but I'd question this. I think there certainly are people who hold some rather abhorrent beliefs, yet have this 'inner peace' you're talking about.

Moreover, how far do you take this? Even if we discount the outright bigots, there's plenty of rather innocuous, contended persons who hold dodgy views thanks to their religion; the same religion that gives them 'inner peace'. Think of those religions that, say, view women or homosexuals as lesser persons.

I most certainly don't respect these beliefs; they are terrible views to hold. And I don't see why I should respect them merely because they bring the believer calm.

I'll respect the right to believe, not (necessarily) the belief itself. But these are two very different things.

I perhaps should clarify that my OP is a personal thing. That it has to do with what I think rather than make a bold assumption like the one I seem to have done.

Of course the examples you give are wrong. I don't think homosexuality is something faulty, I think women have as many rights as men and should be hold in high esteem (I am a woman, you know). These are not lesser people.

It's just that the acceptance I have come to feel lately has brought an end to inner turmoils. Is that wrong of me to feel, though?

Religion= Epic Fail.

I would say it has succeeded very well.

Is that a word?

If so, damn you for your gargantuan vocabulary.

Typo. Presume was the word I was looking for. And yes, I do have a gargantuan vocabulary.:wink:

I would say it has succeeded very well.

How has it?

How has it?

It holds a grip on a massive amount of the world's population, and Christianity ruled an entire continent for over a thousand years.

Typo. Presume was the word I was looking for. And yes, I do have a gargantuan vocabulary.:wink:

Ah, good. I thought I was even more ignorant than I am. I am pleased.

It holds a grip on a massive amount of the world's population, and Christianity ruled an entire continent for over a thousand years.

The ignorant and scared follow it.

Peeps, I understand that what I postulate is something you find wrong. You believe having faith doesn't make you happy and complete. I think it does. And more so if you're accepting of what others believe. That's what I was postulating.

Headache better?

Much better thanks.:D

Yes that is in fact what I belived you where saying all along.

Postulate - In this thread I can assume you mean hypothersis?

Then my initial posts are still correct. You postulate that having faith make a person happy and furthermore that accepting the faiths of others makes you happy.

This is where I belive your postulate, or your hypothesis is incorrect. It is not a case of subjective morality(I find it wrong you find it right). When you offer up an hypothersis, and do so with question marks, then you are asking us what we thing of such hypothersis.

It is clear that not all those with faith are happy, and it is clear that not all those that accept the faiths of others are happy, so then clearly what you postulate can not be correct.

This is really Nana, all that I was trying to say, I don't understand where we got so mixed up.:D

Ah, good. I thought I was even more ignorant than I am. I am pleased.

If you want to stop feeling this way, you have one of the best tools at your disposition. Google, educate yourself. But do so correctly. It isn't that difficult.

Auto-didacta makes so much sense.:D

The ignorant and scared follow it.

The ignorant and scared make-up most of this world, and need something to follow.

The ignorant and scared follow it.

Rubbish! That my friend is in itelf such an ignorant thing to say.

If you want to stop feeling this way, you have one of the best tools at your disposition. Google, educate yourself. But do so correctly. It isn't that difficult.

Auto-didacta makes so much sense.:D
Google's good, but I feel like an idiot when using it to look up stuff I don't know.
The ignorant and scared make-up most of this world, and need something to follow.
Exactly, Religion=Epic Fail.

Rubbish! That my friend is in itelf such an ignorant thing to say.

To be fair, he never said educated and brave persons do not follow it, too.

Rubbish! That my friend is in itelf such an ignorant thing to say.

I have admitted to being so, but I am not as foolish as those that follow religion.

Exactly, Religion=Epic Fail.

Then how do you propose to deal with the unsuccessful and miserable when they find out all their good deeds will not see them any Heaven, and their evil ones will bring them no Hell?

I have admitted to being so, but I am not as foolish as those that follow religion.

Heh okay then lets test that shall we?

I myself am a religous man. I readily admit to my delusional belifes.

Now can you proove to me the validity of your statement?

Then how do you propose to deal with the unsuccessful and miserable when they find out all their good deeds will not see them any Heaven, and their evil ones will bring them no Hell?

Good and evil are not clear cut. No one punishes either after they're dead. The unsuccessful and the miserable need not turn to something so useless.

I perhaps should clarify that my OP is a personal thing. That it has to do with what I think rather than make a bold assumption like the one I seem to have done.
My point exactly.

I don't think saying, as people often do, 'but that's just my opinion' or, 'but that's just what I believe', are barriers to hide behind; valid ways to deflect criticism. Furthermore, I think religious belief is sometimes used as such a invalid barrier.

(Not that I'm suggesting you're hiding behind anything or trying to deflect criticism.)

Of course the examples you give are wrong. I don't think homosexuality is something faulty, I think women have as many rights as men and should be hold in high esteem (I am a woman, you know). These are not lesser people.
I wasn't suggesting you held these views.

I'm saying someone can hold these views and have 'inner peace', and, moreover, that this inner peace shouldn't be something to stop valid criticism.

It's just that the acceptance I have come to feel lately has brought an end to inner turmoils. Is that wrong of me to feel, though?
It's certainly not wrong to accept others' differences, and neither is it wrong to feel a calm through doing so.

I just want to separate that calm from a block on criticism.

I have admitted to being so, but I am not as foolish as those that follow religion.

Isaac Newton and Martin LutherKing Jr. both followed religion.

Are you claiming that they are more foolish than you?

Heh okay then lets test that shall we?

I myself am a religous man. I readily admit to my delusional belifes.

Now can you proove to me the validity of your statement?

Hmmm, I didn't know you were a guy.


Can you validate religion? Can you prove that any of it is true?

Isaac Newton and Martin LutherKing Jr. both followed religion.

Are you claiming that they are more foolish than you?

In that particular field? Yes.

Good and evil are not clear cut. No one punishes either after they're dead. The unsuccessful and the miserable need not turn to something so useless.

Two agnostics/near atheists each said something important on this matter.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."

"There is no surer sign of decay in a country than to see the rites of religion held in contempt."

In that particular field? Yes.

Which field is that?

Isaac Newton and Martin LutherKing Jr. both followed religion.

Are you claiming that they are more foolish than you?
Appeal to authority, much?

Moreover, Isaac Newton also believed in alchemy and other dubious things.

Which field is that?

Religion.

Appeal to authority, much?

Moreover, Isaac Newton also believed in alchemy and other dubious things.

Is it an appeal to authority?

I thought I was just pointing out examples of people who were obviously not fools yet were profoundly religious.

Appeal to authority, much?

Moreover, Isaac Newton also believed in alchemy and other dubious things.

And Mozart was a Creationist! *gasp!*

My point exactly.

I don't think saying, as people often do, 'but that's just my opinion' or, 'but that's just what I believe', are barriers to hide behind; valid ways to deflect criticism. Furthermore, I think religious belief is sometimes used as such a invalid barrier.

(Not that I'm suggesting you're hiding behind anything or trying to deflect criticism.)


I wasn't suggesting you held these views.

I'm saying someone can hold these views and have 'inner peace', and, moreover, that this inner peace shouldn't be something to stop valid criticism.


It's certainly not wrong to accept others' differences, and neither is it wrong to feel a calm through doing so.

I just want to separate that calm from a block on criticism.

I do embrace the criticsm, otherwise I wouldn't have posted this thread. Hopefully, and I know you're not saying I am, that I didn't come across as judgmental on my OP.

Google's good, but I feel like an idiot when using it to look up stuff I don't know.

One should never be afraid to search for things one does not know. It's how we learn.

Religion.

Please show how you are more intelligent than Newton in terms of religion.

Here is a link describing some of Newton's theological ideas:

http://www.isaac-newton.org/scholium.htm

Please show how they are wrong.

I do embrace the criticsm, otherwise I wouldn't have posted this thread. Hopefully, and I know you're not saying I am, that I didn't come across as judgmental on my OP.

You embrace criticism!?

One should never be afraid to search for things one does not know. It's how we learn.

Admittedly, I do prefer it to being tought(spelling?) in a classroom, in that situation it goes in one ear and out the other.

Please show how you are more intelligent than Newton in terms of religion.

Here is a link describing some of Newton's theological ideas:

http://www.isaac-newton.org/scholium.htm

Please show how they are wrong.

Evidently he is wiser than I if he could understand that. But all the same, can you prove he's right? No.

My point exactly.

I don't think saying, as people often do, 'but that's just my opinion' or, 'but that's just what I believe', are barriers to hide behind; valid ways to deflect criticism. Furthermore, I think religious belief is sometimes used as such a invalid barrier.

(Not that I'm suggesting you're hiding behind anything or trying to deflect criticism.)

Criticism based on what though? Lack of proof, that is the very definition of faith.


I wasn't suggesting you held these views.

I'm saying someone can hold these views and have 'inner peace', and, moreover, that this inner peace shouldn't be something to stop valid criticism.

For the record I am just knocking this around and these comments are not necessarily directed at you. You would have to examine this person and see if they do exhibit the qualities of inner peace. The very idea that you can have "inner peace" and in the next minute burn a cross on a lawn in the next moment, do seem to be at odds with one another. What they describe as inner peace may be what we call resolve. Inner peace can stop criticism especially if said criticism lacks merit.



It's certainly not wrong to accept others' differences, and neither is it wrong to feel a calm through doing so.

I just want to separate that calm from a block on criticism.

Accepting that we have differences is okay and maybe even learn from those differences is good. What happens however when those beliefs do not get you where you want to go? Again just knocking this around.

Because a moral person treats others the way they wish to be treated.

but among the ways a moral person wishes to be treated is to be called on their shit if they wind up holding wrong or harmful beliefs - or even beliefs that are just poorly grounded. to wish to be treated otherwise is to make virtues out of ignorance and sloppy thinking.

Criticism based on what though? Lack of proof, that is the very definition of faith.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14722005&postcount=15

Faith means: "Fuck proof; I am right, and nothing will ever dissuade me."

Isaac Newton and Martin LutherKing Jr. both followed religion.

Are you claiming that they are more foolish than you?

in at least one respect. and given what we know of the lives of both mlk jr and newton, certainly they were foolish in other ways as well.

Evidently he is wiser than I if he could understand that. But all the same, can you prove he's right? No.

You do realise that you can't prove anything right in science either? Do you then consider science to be foolish or 'epic fail'?

Is it an appeal to authority?

I thought I was just pointing out examples of people who were obviously not fools yet were profoundly religious.
Firstly, I think it is an appeal to authority: 'this person is a mathematical genius/civil rights leader, and thus we should take their religious beliefs seriously'.

Secondly, I think one can be, say, a mathematical genius and a fool, especially in some respects. For example, I think Newtons occult beliefs were rather foolish, and that some of his dealings with the Royal Society and Leibniz were foolish in manner.

in at least one respect. and given what we know of the lives of both mlk jr and newton, certainly they were foolish in other ways as well.

After all, would one defend extra-marital affairs without consent as "not foolish" because Martin Luther King Jr. partook of them?

You do realise that you can't prove anything right in science either? Do you then consider science to be foolish or 'epic fail'?

Can one prove anything, then?

in at least one respect. and given what we know of the lives of both mlk jr and newton, certainly they were foolish in other ways as well.

Sure. Now all we need if for RoI to find an example of how he is less foolish than they were and show that it was due to their theism.

You do realise that you can't prove anything right in science either? Do you then consider science to be foolish or 'epic fail'?

I don't trust science, there can only ever be theories.

I don't trust science, there can only ever be theories.

Are you saying there can be no facts?

Can one prove anything, then?

Technically no. Can you prove I exist? Can you prove that you exist?

Are you saying there can be no facts?

Yeah.

Criticism based on what though?
Based on any number of ethical, scientific, philosophical or theological standpoints.

The very idea that you can have "inner peace" and in the next minute burn a cross on a lawn in the next moment, do seem to be at odds with one another.
Why so?

Why is the bigot precluded from having inner calm?

Technically no. Can you prove I exist? Can you prove that you exist?

For practical application? Yes. No true proof exists, but we have to have something like reasonable proof, or else the word is useless, and court cases could never be decided.

Yeah.

So, if there are no facts, we can also say that the phrase 'there are no facts' is also not a fact.

So, if there are no facts, we can also say that the phrase 'there are no facts' is also not a fact.

You can say what you like, it doesn't make it true.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14722005&postcount=15

Faith means: "Fuck proof; I am right, and nothing will ever dissuade me."

I don't think it means that at all. It is what you will accept as proof. Can you open your mind to things beyond your touch and possibly all your sense?

I don't think it means that at all. It is what you will accept as proof. Can you open your mind to things beyond your touch and possibly all your sense?

I certainly wont except it as truth.

I don't think it means that at all. It is what you will accept as proof. Can you open your mind to things beyond your touch and possibly all your sense?

Certainly, but you just said: "Lack of proof, that is the very definition of faith."

Faith is refusing to ever be dissuaded, despite any evidence that one is wrong.

Certainly, but you just said: "Lack of proof, that is the very definition of faith."

Faith is refusing to ever be dissuaded, despite any evidence that one is wrong.

Faith is the first sign of madness.

Faith is the first sign of madness.

But did you not just say that nothing can be proved? Would that not mean that believing anything to be true is madness?

But did you not just say that nothing can be proved? Would that not mean that believing anything to be true is madness?

Nope, at least the things I believe are not the stuff out of fairy tales. I don't see how anyone can fall for that crap.

Based on any number of ethical, scientific, philosophical or theological standpoints.


Why so?

Why is the bigot precluded from having inner calm?

Does someone with "inner calm" need to hide beneath a bed sheet? Does someone with "inner calm" need to meet in secret? Does someone with "inner calm" hate? Do they participate in lynchings?


The point of all this is maybe it is also a matter of the beliefs in which you put your faith? In fact I would say they are intertwined. The faith by itself can not be held accountable for all those misfortunes. In general faith is a good thing. I do not need to watch the hammer to know that it will fall if I let go of it. I do not need to measure it to know that it will fall at about 9.8 meters/second ^2

Nope, at least the things I believe are not the stuff out of fairy tales. I don't see how anyone can fall for that crap.

It is hardly worse than what you believe in, since you consider both to have 0% proof behind them.

It is hardly worse than what you believe in, since you consider both to have 0% proof behind them.

There is no proof in anything, but there is common sense.

Does someone with "inner calm" need to hide beneath a bed sheet?

How many bigots do that?

Does someone with "inner calm" need to meet in secret?

Would you not do the same if you were in a nation of a people who hated religion?

Does someone with "inner calm" hate?

Most people hate, including the religious.

Do they participate in lynchings?

Precious few bigots lynch anyone.

There is no proof in anything, but there is common sense.

What is sensible about choosing to believe certain things over others, when none has any proof or evidence behind it?

Certainly, but you just said: "Lack of proof, that is the very definition of faith."

Faith is refusing to ever be dissuaded, despite any evidence that one is wrong.

Well no. Belief in something where there is proof to the contrary is just plain wrong.

If I believe the world is flat and you believe the world is round. We argue back and forth:

Flat

Round


So you say enough is enough and you pull up Google and show me the earth from outer space and show me that is is kind of roundish and i still say it is flat then I am wrong. There are no two ways about it.

What is sensible about choosing to believe certain things over others, when none has any proof or evidence behind it?

There is far less proof of religion than anything I believe in.

Well no. Belief in something where there is proof to the contrary is just plain wrong.

If I believe the world is flat and you believe the world is round. We argue back and forth:

Flat

Round


So you say enough is enough and you pull up Google and show me the earth from outer space and show me that is is kind of roundish and i still say it is flat then I am wrong. There are no two ways about it.

You could claim the Google pictures are lies.

I could tell you it is impossible for a woman to give birth without a source of sperm, and you could deny it.

There is far less proof of religion than anything I believe in.

Did you not just say there is no proof, whatsoever, of anything? Even that you or I exist?

Does someone with "inner calm" need to hide beneath a bed sheet? Does someone with "inner calm" need to meet in secret? Does someone with "inner calm" hate? Do they participate in lynchings?
To all four questions, I'd answer: potentially.

But then, I take 'inner calm' to mean being contented with oneself and one's position/prospects. You sound as if you mean something far more grand by it.

Did you not just say there is no proof, whatsoever, of anything? Even that you or I exist?

And did you not say that we had to take something's as proof or else the word would be irrelevant.

How many bigots do that?

Many


Would you not do the same if you were in a nation of a people who hated religion?

There are those places in this world and yet religion finds a way to come through.


Most people hate, including the religious.

Yes humans do hate. What I am asking is can you have inner peace/inner calm and burn a cross on a lawn?


Precious few bigots lynch anyone.

Right and that is the point. If you say you have inner peace your actions should show that.

When I first walked into one of the local Catholic Churches (first time I'd ever been in one, at age 19), I found a sense of peace and belonging I hadn't felt in ages (as well as a bit of confusion as to what was going on, never having been to a Catholic Church before). I was very skeptical at first, and I needed to think on it for a while, whether or not walking through the doors in the first place was a good idea (I initially went to ask some advice from the priest after Mass). But after doing some serious soul-searching, I decided to convert.

That said, I don't believe that my way is necessarily the only way. If it's something that fills a void in your life, then go with it (as long as you're not hurting anyone else or yourself).

Does someone with "inner calm" need to meet in secret?

have you ever heard about the spanish inquisition?

Many

None that I have met.

There are those places in this world and yet religion finds a way to come through.

And achieves "inner peace".


Yes humans do hate. What I am asking is can you have inner peace/inner calm and burn a cross on a lawn?

Most bigots do not do that. Do you think all bigots are Nazis or KKK members?

Right and that is the point. If you say you have inner peace your actions should show that.

Bigots generally do not take action against other races.

And did you not say that we had to take something's as proof or else the word would be irrelevant.

'Twas it not you who said nothing can be proved, and I who raised an objection?

Faith is what allows the firefighter to run into a burning building to save lives. Of course courage plays a big part.

Faith is what allows the police to pursue a criminal and stand in the way when the risk bodily harm. Faith in the legal system and that the citizens need to be protected.

Without faith there would be no money.

Faith is what allows the firefighter to run into a burning building to save lives. Of course courage plays a big part.

Faith is what allows the police to pursue a criminal and stand in the way when the risk bodily harm. Faith in the legal system and that the citizens need to be protected.

Without faith there would be no money.

equivocation, at best.

'Twas it not you who said nothing can be proved, and I who raised an objection?

Hmmm, now we're arguing against ourselves.

Faith is what allows the firefighter to run into a burning building to save lives. Of course courage plays a big part.

"Faith"? Nonsense.

Faith is what allows the police to pursue a criminal and stand in the way when the risk bodily harm. Faith in the legal system and that the citizens need to be protected.

They have proof that such a legal system and citizens exist.

Without faith there would be no money.

You are talking about faith in a proven entity, which has been shown to function one way. Religion is about faith in a unproven entity, and assumption that it behaves in such a manner when there is no evidence reinforce that assumption.

have you ever heard about the spanish inquisition?

I have and that was not faith at work. That was control. Forcing people to do stuff. It was a way to get rid of people you didn't like or agree with.


Same goes for the witch trials both the European and the American.

Hmmm, now we're arguing against ourselves.

This is NSG. :D On one side I am defending faith from your attacks, and on the other I am fighting Truly Blessed.

I have and that was not faith at work. That was control. Forcing people to do stuff. It was a way to get rid of people you didn't like or agree with.


Same goes for the witch trials both the European and the American.

i was actually talking about the victims

"Faith"? Nonsense.

What? Faith in your fellow firefighters. That water puts out fire. That you can save people before they burn up. Can you think of another good reason why people would do such a potentially harmful thing? To themselves I mean?



They have proof that such a legal system and citizens exist.
We all have seen what happens when they don't have faith. It is still a belief system.



You are talking about faith in a proven entity, which has been shown to function one way. Religion is about faith in a unproven entity, and assumption that it behaves in such a manner when there is no evidence reinforce that assumption.

Here we go with this again. I will save that for our next discussion on Christianity. Faith by itself is a proven entity.

This is NSG. :D On one side I am defending faith from your attacks, and on the other I am fighting Truly Blessed.

'Tis confusing.:tongue:

i was actually talking about the victims

So was I. On the surface it appeared to be about religion. If you dig deeper it largely was not.

what? Faith in your fellow firefighters. That water puts out fire. That you can save people before they burn up. Can you think of another good reason why people would do such a potentially harmful thing? To themselves i mean?



We all have seen what happens when they don't have faith. It is still a belief system.




Here we go with this again. I will save that for our next discussion on christianity. Faith by itself is a proven entity.

去勢牛

What? Faith in your fellow firefighters. That water puts out fire. That you can save people before they burn up.
But this faith is based upon observed events which display a pattern of causation. Arguably, religious faith isn't.

As FS says, you're equivocating.

To all four questions, I'd answer: potentially.

But then, I take 'inner calm' to mean being contented with oneself and one's position/prospects. You sound as if you mean something far more grand by it.

Right, satisfied may be a better word. I don't disagree it is possible. I hope few people like this exist.

So was I. On the surface it appeared to be about religion. If you dig deeper it largely was not.

wait, what?

are you claiming that jews didn't have to practice their faith in secret? or are you claiming that the victims of the inquisition were unable to achieve this 'inner calm'?

But this faith is based upon observed events which display a pattern of causation. Arguably, religious faith isn't.

As FS says, you're equivocating.

We have seen hundreds of firefighters, police, emergency workers crushed in the World Trade Center. We know what happens sometimes to very good people and yet they still get people willing to risking it all. We have seen far too many police shot in the line of duty and yet we have to turn people away from enlisting.


That is the power faith friends!

You embrace criticism!?

Yes, I do. How else can I learn?

Admittedly, I do prefer it to being tought(spelling?) in a classroom, in that situation it goes in one ear and out the other.

I think learning goes both ways: taught and self-taught.

What? Faith in your fellow firefighters.

They have been proven to come through.

That water puts out fire.

Which is proven.

That you can save people before they burn up.

Which is proven.

Can you think of another good reason why people would do such a potentially harmful thing? To themselves I mean?

Because they care about others?


We all have seen what happens when they don't have faith. It is still a belief system.

It requires proof.


Here we go with this again. I will save that for our next discussion on Christianity. Faith by itself is a proven entity.

I thought you said faith involved believing something without proof.

wait, what?

are you claiming that jews didn't have to practice their faith in secret? or are you claiming that the victims of the inquisition were unable to achieve this 'inner calm'?

It very complicated issue. Yes of course the Jews were targeted as were heretics and so on and so forth. However politics had as much to with as anything else.

Faith is the first sign of madness.

Do you really think faith equates to madness? What an odd assumption to make. Why do you say this? I would really like to know, RoI.

We have seen hundreds of firefighters, police, emergency workers crushed in the World Trade Center. We know what happens sometimes to very good people and yet they still get people willing to risking it all. We have seen far too many police shot in the line of duty and yet we have to turn people away from enlisting.
Yes (though recruitment rates in the US seem to be the opposite of here in the UK), but would you not say that the faith you describe above is different to religious faith?

I imagine most theologians would.

Yes, I do. How else can I learn?

Most people I know dislike criticism, including myself.
Do you really think faith equates to madness? What an odd assumption to make.

Putting all ones faith in an unknown entity is surly insane.

They have been proven to come through.

Some have some have not. More importantly how do you know it will save you?



Which is proven.


Which is proven.


Because they care about others?

And yet they could just stand back and watch like we all do.



It requires proof.
Does it?



I thought you said faith involved believing something without proof.

All the more stronger is your belief if you have some proof. Still requires faith though.

Most people I know dislike criticism, including myself.

Then you're in for a rude awakening. People will always criticize you, for better or for worse. One needs to learn to listen to these critics objectively and apply what one can to better oneself.

For example, Peepelonia was criticizing my OP, but did so politely. Chumblywumbly did so too. And I saw I did make a mistake, so I retracted. Now I know that, for another time, I must not commit the same mistake since it opened up a way for misunderstanding.

Putting all ones faith in an unknown entity is surly insane.

I still wouldn't go as far as labeling this practice 'insane'. It would be contradicting.

Some have some have not. More importantly how do you know it will save you?
Through witnessed events, and an idea of causation formed by such witnessing.

Rather different to much religious faith; think of faith through revelation.

Yes (though recruitment rates in the US seem to be the opposite of here in the UK), but would you not say that the faith you describe above is different to religious faith?

I imagine most theologians would.

I am not sure it in entirely is. Maybe because they are faced with death every time the go out. You have to believe in the end that everything will be okay otherwise how could you suit up?

Then you're in for a rude awakening. People will always criticize you, for better or for worse. One needs to learn to listen to these critics objectively and apply what one can to better oneself.

For example, Peepelonia was criticizing my OP, but did so politely. Chumblywumbly did so too. And I saw I did make a mistake, so I retracted. Now I know that, for another time, I must not commit the same mistake since it opened up a way for misunderstanding.


I accept it, and am used to it. But that does not mean I like it.
I still wouldn't go as far as labeling this practice 'insane'. It would be contradicting.

In what way would it be contradictory?

I accept it, and am used to it. But that does not mean I like it.

I don't like it either, but I embrace it nevertheless.

In what way would it be contradictory?

It would contradict what I postulated in the OP. Your faith is your faith and I am nobody to tell you that just because you place it blindly on your deity, you're crazy.

Another one that comes to mind. Since Christians do not have the monopoly on faith. How about the Buddhist monks that stood up to the government in Myanmar?

It would contradict what I postulated in the OP. Your faith is your faith and I am nobody to tell you that just because you place it blindly on your deity, you're crazy.

It is your right to do so. Freedom of speech.

But luckily I'm not crazy.

It is your right to do so. Freedom of speech.

But luckily I'm not crazy.

My rights end where yours begin.

My rights end where yours begin.

Surely there's some overlap. You can say what you like to me, it doesn't matter if it is insulting or discriminative, if it is your opinion I will listen.

Surely there's some overlap. You can say what you like to me, it doesn't matter if it is insulting or discriminative, if it is your opinion I will listen.

I would have done so some time ago. Not anymore. See, I didn't find God, or Allah or Buddah or Freya. I just found peace to some inner conflicts. My OP was not a call to look for God (or whatever the name of your deity may be). I'm just saying that if your faith, if what you believe brings you light (truth? I don't know), then believe it.

Of course, I will clarify, do so with a conscience, not with blindness.

Some have some have not. More importantly how do you know it will save you?

What would you have me do? A fire is evident, Hell is not; no proof. Firefighters are evident; that a guy who born from a mother who never had sex has to save me is not.

And yet they could just stand back and watch like we all do.

Point being?

Does it?

Hell yes.


All the more stronger is your belief if you have some proof. Still requires faith though.

The problem with faith is that it cannot be dissuaded by evidence or facts.

I would have done so some time ago. Not anymore. See, I didn't find God, or Allah or Buddah or Freya. I just found peace to some inner conflicts. My OP was not a call to look for God (or whatever the name of your deity may be). I'm just saying that if your faith, if what you believe brings you light (truth? I don't know), then believe it.
lol, your OP sounded to me as though you were trying to convert people to some crazy cult.

Of course, I will clarify, do so with a conscience, not with blindness.

I like that.

It very complicated issue.

no, it isn't. either some jews responded to the inquisition by hiding their jewishness or none did. since it is historical fact that some did - some going so far into hiding as to have left descendants who didn't even realize that their non-public religious traditions were jewish in origin.

given that, either crypto-jews who were forced into hiding by the inquisition did not have (and were incapable of achieving) inner peace, or secrecy does not have any necessary connection to inner peace at all.

What would you have me do? A fire is evident, Hell is not; no proof. Firefighters are evident; that a guy who born from a mother who never had sex has to save me is not.


Point being?


Hell yes.

The problem with faith is that it cannot be dissuaded by evidence or facts.

The point of this is faith is around all the time. You may call it something else but it is there.

This brings up another good point. If one cares about others more than himself/herself, what do you think would bring about such a feeling? Where does it come from? Certainly not self preservation. Certainly not a pay check as many are paid way more? You can call it goodness or what ever but it has to come from somewhere. So my question is where? Most are well aware that they are in harms way so to speak.

no, it isn't. either some jews responded to the inquisition by hiding their jewishness or none did. since it is historical fact that some did - some going so far into hiding as to have left descendants who didn't even realize that their non-public religious traditions were jewish in origin.

given that, either crypto-jews who were forced into hiding by the inquisition did not have (and were incapable of achieving) inner peace, or secrecy does not have any necessary connection to inner peace at all.

I do have to concur with FS on this. Many Jews, during Isabella I's edict had to either abandon Spain and become slaves to the Portuguese king or renounce their faith altogether. These were "judíos marranos" or "conversos". Many, in order to keep their religion and heritage alive, resorted to worshipping in secret.

no, it isn't. either some jews responded to the inquisition by hiding their jewishness or none did. since it is historical fact that some did - some going so far into hiding as to have left descendants who didn't even realize that their non-public religious traditions were jewish in origin.

given that, either crypto-jews who were forced into hiding by the inquisition did not have (and were incapable of achieving) inner peace, or secrecy does not have any necessary connection to inner peace at all.

Yes of course they were the "Enemy of the State" . I will not deny religion played a role but also politics played a role. Some converted to Christianity. Some ran away likely. Muslims too and Protestants.

The point of this is faith is around all the time. You may call it something else but it is there.

It requires evidence or physical proof.

This brings up another good point. If one cares about others more than himself/herself, what do you think would bring about such a feeling? Where does it come from? Certainly not self preservation. Certainly not a pay check as many are paid way more? You can call it goodness or what ever but it has to come from somewhere. So my question is where? Most are well aware that they are in harms way so to speak.

The desire to appear suitable to a mate. One tends to favor a mate who is willing to risk himself for others, since it means he is more dependable, less likely to abandon the family.

The desire to appear suitable to a mate. One tends to favor a mate who is willing to risk himself for others, since it means he is more dependable, less likely to abandon the family.

That's in a purely evolutive and preservation of species take, Parkus.

That's in a purely evolutive and preservation of species take, Parkus.

Sure, but the fellow was evidently going to imply it came from some sort of "divine spark", so I presented the scientific explanation. That does not mean I do not admire those who risk their lives to save others.

Sure, but the fellow was evidently going to imply it came from some sort of "divine spark", so I presented the scientific explanation. That does not mean I do not admire those who risk their lives to save others.

Oh, I got you, don't worry. Perhaps I was thinking in having more of an altruistic approach to this subject.

Yes of course they were the "Enemy of the State" . I will not deny religion played a role but also politics played a role. Some converted to Christianity. Some ran away likely. Muslims too and Protestants.

do you answer the question
Does someone with "inner calm" need to meet in secret?
with a "sometimes" or not?

Oh, I got you, don't worry. Perhaps I was thinking in having more of an altruistic approach to this subject.

Silly idealist. :tongue:

Silly idealist. :tongue:

Silly realist.:wink:

It requires evidence or physical proof.



The desire to appear suitable to a mate. One tends to favor a mate who is willing to risk himself for others, since it means he is more dependable, less likely to abandon the family.

Wow. Now that is a good one. They run into burning buildings to impress women. Well you made my day, that was not hard.

do you answer the question

Sorry I had to scroll back over your post looking for the question. I think this is the question:

Are you claiming that jews didn't have to practice their faith in secret? or are you claiming that the victims of the inquisition were unable to achieve this 'inner calm'?

I am claiming that the Jews probably did practice in secret and likely did not have inner peace during the Inquisition, due to what was going on around them namely torture and murder of the friends and neighbors. Although it was officially sanctioned murder. They may have had inner peace with respect to their religion in that by not converting they were holding true to their beliefs. I would say it would depend on the person in question.







with a "sometimes" or not?[/QUOTE]

Oh, I got you, don't worry. Perhaps I was thinking in having more of an altruistic approach to this subject.

I think that can be true, too.

I would save my family from a fire because of what I can rationalize as being 'evolutionary' pressure. I'm 'built' that way, to protect the genepool.

I would save a friend, for the same reason - preservation of the genepool doesn't stop at your own progeny.

So - why do people tackle fires in anonymous territory? Either - they have the capacity to subconsciously view a far greater proportion of the population in terms of 'belonging to the genepool' - or there is some other mechanism at work. I'm inclined to think it's a little of each - a little of 'protecting those who are like us' and a little of the kind of altruism that makes people do other voluntary service.

Wow. Now that is a good one. They run into burning buildings to impress women. Well you made my day, that was not hard.

Unconsciously, yes. Animals risk their lives for their mates; now why do you suppose that is?

Silly realist.:wink:

How can a realist take things seriously?

The desire to appear suitable to a mate. One tends to favor a mate who is willing to risk himself for others, since it means he is more dependable, less likely to abandon the family.

Unconsciously, yes. Animals risk their lives for their mates; now why do you suppose that is?
I think you're straying into error here, Parkus.

As I've posted this before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14633113):
To quote Richard Joyce, who tackles this point brilliantly, you're committing "the basic blunder of confusing the cause of a mental state with its content... Suppose Fred is looking after his sick wife. When asked why he does so, he reports sincerely that he wishes to alleviate her suffering for her sake, because he loves her.

An evolutionary psychologist", or you, "might then tell us that it is to Fred's reproductive advantage to look after his spouse, fo[r] then he will have help raising his offspring, adding that the love that Fred feels for his wife is the output of a proximate mechanism by which natural selection ensures that a person helps his mate when she needs it. Thus an evolutionary explanation has been provided for a cognitive/emotional/behavioural phenomenon: Fred's love for his wife. But this explanation reveals nothing about the content of Fred's motivations, and doesn't show he 'really' cares about his reproductive fitness and only derivetavely cares about his wife's welfare...

When we explain a person's behaviour and mental states by appealing to the fact that his genes have replication-advancing characteristics, we are giving reasons for his mental states and behaving in this way. But to conclude that these are therefore his reasons - the considerations in light of which he acts - is a gross mistake... I am not claiming that a person's reasons must always be obvious and apparent to her; all I am saying is that they are not all 'ultimately' concerned with genetic replication."

(The Evolution of Morality, pp.17-18; author's emphasis)
We can't reduce the motivations of firefighters simply to mating ritual, to evolutionary reasons alone; to do so would be to ignore the firefighters' own motivations.

I think you're straying into error here, Parkus.

We can't reduce the motivations of firefighters simply to mating ritual, to evolutionary reasons alone; to do so would be to ignore the firefighters' own motivations.

Their own motivations come from successful genetics more than any divine source.

Their own motivations come from successful genetics more than any divine source.
I agree, but they are their own motivations, not that of genetics or evolution.

Even if the firefighters' desire to endanger their lives to save others might be the result of natural selection, might be the result of the choices of their ancestors mating, that's not to say that the firefighter gives any head to this when they head into the inferno. They have their own motivations which won't be dealing with genetics.

It's like saying the only reason I give my brother a hug when I see him is because of [insert evolutionary reason for displaying affection towards immediate genetic grouping], and ignoring the fact that I love my brother and don't see him often.

As Joyce says in the passage I quoted, that's "confusing the cause of a mental state with its content".

I agree, but they are their own motivations, not that of genetics or evolution.

Right.

Even if the firefighters' desire to endanger their lives to save others might be the result of natural selection, might be the result of the choices of their ancestors mating, that's not to say that the firefighter gives any head to this when they head into the inferno. They have their own motivations which won't be dealing with genetics.

I never claimed a firemen think: "chicks dig men who risk themselves".

It's like saying the only reason I give my brother a hug when I see him is because of [insert evolutionary reason for displaying affection towards immediate genetic grouping], and ignoring the fact that I love my brother and don't see him often.

I already made it clear that this was not my point.

As Joyce says in the passage I quoted, that's "confusing the cause of a mental state with its content".

I never made that confusion. I merely stated that humans are willing to risk their lives because it is evolutionarily feasible, and that if it were not, it would never happen.

I think that can be true, too.

I would save my family from a fire because of what I can rationalize as being 'evolutionary' pressure. I'm 'built' that way, to protect the genepool.

I would save a friend, for the same reason - preservation of the genepool doesn't stop at your own progeny.

So - why do people tackle fires in anonymous territory? Either - they have the capacity to subconsciously view a far greater proportion of the population in terms of 'belonging to the genepool' - or there is some other mechanism at work. I'm inclined to think it's a little of each - a little of 'protecting those who are like us' and a little of the kind of altruism that makes people do other voluntary service.

i'd argue that the mechanism by which kin selection and the like actually operate in our decision-making isn't actually restricted to kin. its all about the sympathy. we don't run calculations on how closely related the drowning child is to us before pulling them from the water. instead, we operate from a much more general feeling of sympathy. the genetic basis for our wide-ranging sympathy presumably benefited evolutionarily from disproportionately affecting kin for a very long time, thus didn't get swamped by selfishness or even a more conditional altruism. and having become more-or-less fixed in the gene pool, and with social praise and encouragement built around it, it stays with us and just goes along with our increasing interactions with non-kin.

or to put it another way, kin selection may explain how our altruism got this far, but the thing on which kin selection operated is not itself based on kinship.

I think that can be true, too.

I would save my family from a fire because of what I can rationalize as being 'evolutionary' pressure. I'm 'built' that way, to protect the genepool.

I would save a friend, for the same reason - preservation of the genepool doesn't stop at your own progeny.

So - why do people tackle fires in anonymous territory? Either - they have the capacity to subconsciously view a far greater proportion of the population in terms of 'belonging to the genepool' - or there is some other mechanism at work. I'm inclined to think it's a little of each - a little of 'protecting those who are like us' and a little of the kind of altruism that makes people do other voluntary service.

Perhaps we should say it's an altruistic and evolution need we experience. When its about our own, it can be looked both ways. But when a stranger risks his/her life for someone unknown, altruism plays a part in this decision.

Could we argue too that it also has to do with a need to be heroic?

I never claimed a firemen think: "chicks dig men who risk themselves".
OK. I was thrown by your saying that the reason fireman do the things they do is because of "[t]he desire to appear suitable to a mate", though perhaps I've taken your position far too strongly.

I merely stated that humans are willing to risk their lives because it is evolutionarily feasible, and that if it were not, it would never happen.
I would say that humans are able to risk their lives because it is at times 'evolutionarily feasible', but that our will is of a different matter.

Again, though, I may be being a tad harsh on you.

i'd argue that the mechanism by which kin selection and the like actually operate in our decision-making isn't actually restricted to kin. its all about the sympathy. we don't run calculations on how closely related the drowning child is to us before pulling them from the water. instead, we operate from a much more general feeling of sympathy. the genetic basis for our wide-ranging sympathy presumably benefited evolutionarily from disproportionately affecting kin for a very long time, thus didn't get swamped by selfishness or even a more conditional altruism. and having become more-or-less fixed in the gene pool, and with social praise and encouragement built around it, it stays with us and just goes along with our increasing interactions with non-kin.

or to put it another way, kin selection may explain how our altruism got this far, but the thing on which kin selection operated is not itself based on kinship.

I think it IS based on kinship... but that it's one of those fuzzy areas where 'kin' doesn't necessarily follow the same biological genetic patterns we might follow if we were tracing kinship, scientifically.

So - my friend is kin, my family are kin... maybe some of my family aren't kin, etc. ANd maybe some of these people have this 'kin' identifier aplying to much broader spectra.

Perhaps we should say it's an altruistic and evolution need we experience. When its about our own, it can be looked both ways. But when a stranger risks his/her life for someone unknown, altruism plays a part in this decision.

Could we argue too that it also has to do with a need to be heroic?

You could argue it has to do with a need to be heroic, but I can assure you that that wouldn't be an important motivator if my 2 year old was in the building on fire. 'Being heroic' would be way down that list.

OK. I was thrown by your saying that the reason fireman do the things they do is because of "[t]he desire to appear suitable to a mate", though perhaps I've taken your position far too strongly.

That is part of the reason they risk their lives, at least genetically speaking. But that does not mean firemen are actually thinking or reasoning that out, it just means that the brave are more likely to pass on their genes, so we are often unconsciously trying to gain recognition.

I would say that humans are able to risk their lives because it is at times 'evolutionarily feasible', but that our will is of a different matter.

Again, though, I may be being a tad harsh on you.

You can certainly claim a lot of it is human will, but that will is impossible unless it is worth a damn. Like I said before, animals often endanger themselves for their mates and children.

Hmmm, I didn't know you were a guy.


Can you validate religion? Can you prove that any of it is true?

No but then I have already admited to having a delusional belief. So can you prove the validity of your statement then?

Certainly, but you just said: "Lack of proof, that is the very definition of faith."

Faith is refusing to ever be dissuaded, despite any evidence that one is wrong.

And that again is quite wrong. Faith is simply beilief in something without proof. Anything else you care to say about it is plainly wrong, and you show your own ignorance by declaring such.

Nope, at least the things I believe are not the stuff out of fairy tales. I don't see how anyone can fall for that crap.

Yet by your own admission you cannot know that, therefore by you very own 'logic' you are foolish and belive in crap.

There is no proof in anything, but there is common sense.

Man you really are something. Define common sense, and after that, I'll explain to you why there really is no such thing.

Do you really think faith equates to madness? What an odd assumption to make. Why do you say this? I would really like to know, RoI.

He won't answer you properly, it seems that he knows not how to debate and prefers insult instead.

You could argue it has to do with a need to be heroic, but I can assure you that that wouldn't be an important motivator if my 2 year old was in the building on fire. 'Being heroic' would be way down that list.

I know preservatiion of the species, of kith and kin and altruism are way at the top of motivators, NTS. But you cannot deny some people to feel the call to be heroes. Some people would like nothing better than to vanish in a blaze of glory.

But that isn't at the heart of it all.

He won't answer you properly, it seems that he knows not how to debate and prefers insult instead.

Yes, it seems that way. I cannot begrudge people for their faith, you see. I don't think it equates to madness. Some people may be blind in their faith, true, some people may go to extremes and do attrocities for said faith (and this can be faith in a deity or faith in a person), but faith in itself... equating to madness? I don't think so, or perhaps I don't want to believe so. What's your take on this one, Peeps?

Yes, it seems that way. I cannot begrudge people for their faith, you see. I don't think it equates to madness. Some people may be blind in their faith, true, some people may go to extremes and do attrocities for said faith (and this can be faith in a deity or faith in a person), but faith in itself... equating to madness? I don't think so, or perhaps I don't want to believe so. What's your take on this one, Peeps?

Faith is not madness. Faith in a creative deity is certianly delusional.

We all place our faith in something, in fact we do it all of the time. Now I expect the rebutals to be along the lines of divisions of faith. People will try and say that religous faith is not the same as the faith we have that the sun will reapear tomorrow.

Really though faith just means belief in something without proof.

To Ring of Is, I would ask(as I tried to do yesterday) from where does his assertion that thoses who specifcaly have faith in a creative God are foolish, come from? I suspect he can't really tells us, because he doesn't really know.

In other words he has heard this from somewhere and placed his faith in the validity of it, without even thinking about it. That is faith, that is how we all work, I would call that normal human behaviour, no not mad at all.:D

Faith is not madness. Faith in a creative deity is certianly delusional.

We all place our faith in something, in fact we do it all of the time. Now I expect the rebutals to be along the lines of divisions of faith. People will try and say that religous faith is not the same as the faith we have that the sun will reapear tomorrow.

Really though faith just means belief in something without proof.

Exactly. And although certaily there are some distinctions, faith is not madness. We all believe in something.

To Ring of Is, I would ask(as I tried to do yesterday) from where does his assertion that thoses who specifcaly have faith in a creative God are foolish, come from? I suspect he can't really tells us, because he doesn't really know.

He certainly cannot, yes.

In other words he has heard this from somewhere and placed his faith in the validity of it, without even thinking about it. That is faith, that is how we all work, I would call that normal human behaviour, no not mad at all.:D

Yes, that's true.

He won't answer you properly, it seems that he knows not how to debate and prefers insult instead.

Yes, it seems that way. I cannot begrudge people for their faith, you see. I don't think it equates to madness. Some people may be blind in their faith, true, some people may go to extremes and do attrocities for said faith (and this can be faith in a deity or faith in a person), but faith in itself... equating to madness? I don't think so, or perhaps I don't want to believe so. What's your take on this one, Peeps?

WTF!? When did I insult any one?

WTF!? When did I insult any one?

No one, neither Peepelonia nor I ever said you insulted anyone. Calm down, Kentian.

To Ring of Is, I would ask(as I tried to do yesterday) from where does his assertion that thoses who specifcaly have faith in a creative God are foolish, come from? I suspect he can't really tells us, because he doesn't really know.


To believe in something so outlandish one would have to be mad. It's the same as leprechauns and aliens.

To believe in something so outlandish one would have to be mad. It's the same as leprechauns and aliens.

But why is it outlandish? How can you prove that just because someone has faith, he/she is mad?

No one, neither Peepelonia nor I ever said you insulted anyone. .
You both did. You two said I prefer insulting people to arguing.
Calm down, Kentian
I am calm, I'm just irritated.

But why is it outlandish? How can you prove that just because someone has faith, he/she is mad?

To believe in something that's not there is crazy.

Faith is not madness. Faith in a creative deity is certianly delusional.

I am not picking on you I am just interested in your argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.


So my question to you and others. Do you feel your belief is a fixed false belief? If you do then why not believe something else? I would ask what about it is false?


We all place our faith in something, in fact we do it all of the time. Now I expect the rebuttals to be along the lines of divisions of faith. People will try and say that religious faith is not the same as the faith we have that the sun will reappear tomorrow.

I would add why is not the same? I think it comes down to where you put your trust. Do you put your trust in the works of man such as; Society, Laws, Money, and Business or do you put your faith in something spiritual or as some might say eternal?


Really though faith just means belief in something without proof.

This also has to do with what one accepts as proof. What is proof? What does it take for an individual to believe in anything?


To Ring of Is, I would ask(as I tried to do yesterday) from where does his assertion that those who specifically have faith in a creative God are foolish, come from? I suspect he can't really tells us, because he doesn't really know.

It just means he doesn't accept what others do as proof. He doesn't respect our sources let's say. He puts his faith in the works of men. If I can't see it, touch it, feel it, smell it, taste it, it doesn't exist. Not just for him but for everyone.


In other words he has heard this from somewhere and placed his faith in the validity of it, without even thinking about it. That is faith, that is how we all work, I would call that normal human behavior, no not mad at all.:D

Right, now you nailed it. Science can never be wrong. People never make mistakes.

You both did. You two said I prefer insulting people to arguing.

I am calm, I'm just irritated.

I didn't say you like insulting people. But it certainly seems that way. All we're asking is that you yourself provide proof to your claim that faith equates to madness.

To believe in something that's not there is crazy.

Do you believe that some people are good?

Do you believe that some people are good?

There is no good and evil. Just people.

There is no good and evil. Just people.

So, what Hitler did to the Jews wasn't evil. He was just a person then?
Or, this: all the work Mother Theresa did wasn't good, she was just a person?

Just because faith makes a person feel good should not get in the way of healthy scepticism.

I recall when Pentecostalism was introduced into my school (this is many, many years ago). I asked several of its adherents why they took it up and every single one said it was because it made them feel good. This struck me as a very superficial and insincere reason for taking it up.

(Sorry, Nanatsu no Tsuki, I don't mean to suggest you are superficial and insincere.)
I know about Pentecostalism. I think I know why it made them feel good. I bet they got filled with the Holy Spirit or something. That happened to me and it feels good.

So, what Hitler did to the Jews wasn't evil. He was just a person then?
Or, this: all the work Mother Theresa did wasn't good, she was just a person?

The things the did are perhaps good and evil, but they themselves were not.

The things the did are perhaps good and evil, but they themselves were not.

So Hitler was not bad? Mother Theresa was not good? They certinly were the driving forces behind their actions. Good and evil does exists, and we humans are capable of the most horrible acts, and the kindests. I think these two characters embody and prove my point.

So Hitler was not bad? Mother Theresa was not good? They certinly were the driving forces behind their actions. Good and evil does exists, and we humans are capable of the most horrible acts, and the kindests. I think these two characters embody and prove my point.

Nope, they prove that there are good and evil deeds, not people.

To believe in something that's not there is crazy.

Yes of course, but can you proove that God is not there?

Yes of course, but can you proove that God is not there?

No, but can anyone prove he is? No, so I don't believe in him.

I am not picking on you I am just interested in your argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.


So my question to you and others. Do you feel your belief is a fixed false belief? If you do then why not believe something else? I would ask what about it is false?

None of the above I use the word to denote a belief without proof, or an opinion without objective grounding.



I would add why is not the same? I think it comes down to where you put your trust. Do you put your trust in the works of man such as; Society, Laws, Money, and Business or do you put your faith in something spiritual or as some might say eternal?

Well exactly, I do not see a vast differane, and until somebody says I mean specificaly fiath in a creator God, then, faith means what faith means.


This also has to do with what one accepts as proof. What is proof? What does it take for an individual to believe in anything?

Ahh this though is interesting. Note I use the word proof to mean objective and verifiable. In that case there really is no proof for God, there is though plenty of evidance, which can be subjective.



It just means he doesn't accept what others do as proof. He doesn't respect our sources let's say. He puts his faith in the works of men. If I can't see it, touch it, feel it, smell it, taste it, it doesn't exist. Not just for him but for everyone.

Then that is a sign of his age and inexperiance.



Right, now you nailed it. Science can never be wrong. People never make mistakes.

Umm what?

I didn't say you like insulting people. But it certainly seems that way. All we're asking is that you yourself provide proof to your claim that faith equates to madness.

Heh I find it very funny that a 'rationalist' declines to debate rationaly!

There is no good and evil. Just people.

You see there you go agian with your faith fueled platitudes. Elaborate, rather than give us one shoot one sentance sayings of the great sages. Why for example do you say this, do you honestly belive it, why? Where is you proof that what you say here is true?

Nope, they prove that there are good and evil deeds, not people.

Here is anothor of thoese moralistic sayings, I think you'll like it.

A man is defined by what he does, not what he says nor what he thinks.

If doing is defining then doing evil makes the man evil. Yes? No?

No, but can anyone prove he is? No, so I don't believe in him.

Stop trying to change track there, remember what I posted in answer to.

You said that beliving in something that is not there is crazy, which in itself was in response to why you think religious people are crazy.

Now you have just admited that you don't infact know if God is there or not. Does a lack of knowledge about a thing make that think non existant?

Isn't it crazy to decide not to belive in something because one lacks knowledge of it?

You have made your mind up based on a lack of knowledge, surly the only uncrazy response to that is to say 'well I don't know, it may be true it may not, I just have not got enough to make up my mind about it'

Why for example do you say this, do you honestly belive it, why?
I believe it, people are not good and evil. People do things that are good, and are evil. The people themselves are just that- people. Some do good, and some do bad.
Where is you proof that what you say here is true?
Where's the proof that what I'm saying isn't true?

I believe it, people are not good and evil. People do things that are good, and are evil. The people themselves are just that- people. Some do good, and some do bad.

Where's the proof that what I'm saying isn't true?

No mate you can't have it both ways. Either back up your claim with objective proof, or declare that you hold to this belife without such proof and come join the rest of the fools!:D

As to my proof of the opposite, did I not just provid that, in my post, but I see you have left it unquoted.

Here is anothor of thoese moralistic sayings, I think you'll like it.

A man is defined by what he does, not what he says nor what he thinks.

If doing is defining then doing evil makes the man evil. Yes? No?

I would say all 3. Thinking, acting, and most importantly doing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil

Evil, in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe intentional negative moral acts or thoughts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil

Good" is a broad concept and is difficult to define, but typically it deals with an association with life, continuity, happiness, desirability, or human flourishing.

And of course being the opposite of evil: Kind, Just, and Selfless.

Nope, they prove that there are good and evil deeds, not people.

And who commit these deeds, RoI? People. Hence, some people are evil and some people are good.

And who commit these deeds, RoI? People. Hence, some people are evil and some people are good.

No, doing something evil is not the same as being evil.

Let's say there are "evil" people, are they incapable of doing good?

No, doing something evil is not the same as being evil.

Let's say there are "evil" people, are they incapable of doing good?

Again what defines a man is his actions.

If I am a good man but spend my time doing evil, what kind of a man am I?

No, doing something evil is not the same as being evil.

Let's say there are "evil" people, are they incapable of doing good?

Of course they are capable of doing good. Just like good people can do incredible harm. But it's not just because there are these deeds that we claim to be evil or good. It also has to do with intention and capability. People have these, people are capable of doing harm because they feel it, they have the intention to harm. People are capable of doing good because they also feel it and have the intention.

Of course they are capable of doing good. Just like good people can do incredible harm. But it's not just because there are these deeds that we claim to be evil or good. It also has to do with intention and capability. People have these, people are capable of doing harm because they feel it, they have the intention to harm. People are capable of doing good because they also feel it and have the intention.

So as one can be ambiguous they can not be put into set groups ogf good and evil.

So as one can be ambiguous they can not be put into set groups ogf good and evil.

But they can be labeled good or evil. A person can be both. It's not about deeds, but about feelings. So yes, people can be inherently good or inherently evil, or both.

So as one can be ambiguous they can not be put into set groups ogf good and evil.

I think you have it the wrong way around. Actions are neutral while your intentions may be good or evil.


For example killing someone could be considered "Evil". What about killing someone to prevent a robbery, what about killing someone who was intending to kill another person?

This brings us back to the person since intentions come from the person. Therefore that person can be "good" or "evil".

Is it possible to start out with Good intentions and end up doing evil -> Yes

Is it possible to start out on a neutral intentions and do good or evil -> yes

Is it possible to start out with evil intentions and do good -> rarely, in fact I am not even sure this is possible.

Some might use, say Robin Hood as person who by doing "evil" ended up doing good. I would say he did an evil act that was justified/allowed by the population. Stealing is wrong. Stealing a loaf of bread even while starving is still wrong although it may be understandable and/or justified it is still evil when you come right down to it.

I think you have it the wrong way around. Actions are neutral while your intentions may be good or evil.


For example killing someone could be considered "Evil". What about killing someone to prevent a robbery, what about killing someone who was intending to kill another person?

This brings us back to the person since intentions come from the person. Therefore that person can be "good" or "evil".

Is it possible to start out with Good intentions and end up doing evil -> Yes

Is it possible to start out on a neutral intentions and do good or evil -> yes

Is it possible to start out with evil intentions and do good -> rarely, in fact I am not even sure this is possible.

Some might use, say Robin Hood as person who by doing "evil" ended up doing good. I would say he did an evil act that was justified/allowed by the population. Stealing is wrong. Stealing a loaf of bread even while starving is still wrong although it may be understandable and/or justified it is still evil when you come right down to it.

Or to put it another way.

If a man brags he is a braggart. Not because he thinks of bragging, nor talks of bragging, but because he is activly engaged in the act of bragging.

I think you have it the wrong way around. Actions are neutral while your intentions may be good or evil.


For example killing someone could be considered "Evil". What about killing someone to prevent a robbery, what about killing someone who was intending to kill another person?

This brings us back to the person since intentions come from the person. Therefore that person can be "good" or "evil".

Is it possible to start out with Good intentions and end up doing evil -> Yes

Is it possible to start out on a neutral intentions and do good or evil -> yes

Is it possible to start out with evil intentions and do good -> rarely, in fact I am not even sure this is possible.

Some might use, say Robin Hood as person who by doing "evil" ended up doing good. I would say he did an evil act that was justified/allowed by the population. Stealing is wrong. Stealing a loaf of bread even while starving is still wrong although it may be understandable and/or justified it is still evil when you come right down to it.

Exactly this. The good or the evil lies within us. We make the actions goor or bad.

But they can be labeled good or evil. A person can be both. It's not about deeds, but about feelings. So yes, people can be inherently good or inherently evil, or both.

Feelings? What?

Feelings? What?

Ay ay ay. Evil and good can be construed as feelings. Feelings of good towards others, feelings of harm towards other.

Ay ay ay. Evil and good can be construed as feelings. Feelings of good towards others, feelings of harm towards other.

I think you're confusing evil with hatred.

I think you're confusing evil with hatred.

Not at all.

Here are a few distinctions:

Evil: in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe intentional negative moral acts or thoughts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which describes acts that are kind, just, or unselfish.

Good: adjective better bet′·ter, best

Etymology: to unite, be associated, suitable > gather
noun

something good; specif.,
that which is morally right
worth; virtue; merit the good in a man
something contributing to health, welfare, happiness, etc.; benefit; advantage the greatest good of the greatest number
something desirable or desired
interjection

used to express satisfaction, pleasure, agreement, etc. and, in some exclamatory phrases, to express surprise, consternation, etc.: orig. a euphemism for God good! good grief!)


Hatred: (or hate) is a word that describes intense feelings of dislike. It can be used in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects (e.g. vegetables) to hatred of other people, or even entire groups of people. Hatred can lead to much negativity, such examples can include violence and genocide.

Not at all.

Here are a few distinctions:

Evil: in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe intentional negative moral acts or thoughts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which describes acts that are kind, just, or unselfish.

Good: adjective better bet′·ter, best

Etymology: to unite, be associated, suitable > gather
noun

something good; specif.,
that which is morally right
worth; virtue; merit the good in a man
something contributing to health, welfare, happiness, etc.; benefit; advantage the greatest good of the greatest number
something desirable or desired
interjection

used to express satisfaction, pleasure, agreement, etc. and, in some exclamatory phrases, to express surprise, consternation, etc.: orig. a euphemism for God good! good grief!)
Jesus Christ, why did you go into the entire language?

Hatred: (or hate) is a word that describes intense feelings of dislike. It can be used in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects (e.g. vegetables) to hatred of other people, or even entire groups of people. Hatred can lead to much negativity, such examples can include violence and genocide.
Ah, you just contradicted yourself, Rukia-chan.

Ay ay ay. Evil and good can be construed as feelings. Feelings of good towards others, feelings of harm towards other.

I believe one's actions are more important than one's intentions. Many so-called "evil" persons had good intentions.

I believe one's actions are more important than one's intentions. Many so-called "evil" persons had good intentions.

I belive you are correct.:D

I believe one's actions are more important than one's intentions. Many so-called "evil" persons had good intentions.

Like Hitler.

Like Hitler.

I guess that is a valid example, yes.

I believe one's actions are more important than one's intentions. Many so-called "evil" persons had good intentions.

on the other hand, what do we should in the case of someone who has entirely bad intentions but utterly fails at accomplishing them? and not just fails to do anything 'evil', but actually keeps accidentally winding up doing good. They hate every minute of their long record of unintentionally saving buses full of children while trying to kick puppies and missing (thereby stepping into the street and causing the bus to stop before coming to the train tracks whose gates were open despite the oncoming train) and such, and intend to try again tomorrow.

do they really fall into the category we normally call 'good people'?

on the other hand, what do we should in the case of someone who has entirely bad intentions but utterly fails at accomplishing them? and not just fails to do anything 'evil', but actually keeps accidentally winding up doing good. They hate every minute of their long record of unintentionally saving buses full of children while trying to kick puppies and missing (thereby stepping into the street and causing the bus to stop before coming to the train tracks whose gates were open despite the oncoming train) and such, and intend to try again tomorrow.

do they really fall into the category we normally call 'good people'?

I would say yes. Try this one.

If I constantly preach to others a philosphy of non-violence, and then go back and beat me wife on a daily basis.

What label or labels are valid for me?

If I constantly preach to others a philosphy of non-violence, and then go back and beat me wife on a daily basis.

What label or labels are valid for me?

In Spanish that's called: Predicar la moral en paños menores.

In Spanish that's called: Predicar la moral en paños menores.

Which means?

Which means?

To preach while in your underwear.

To preach while in your underwear.

Hehheh and I guess the conertation is one of being a hypocrit?

Hehheh and I guess the conertation is one of being a hypocrit?

Indeed. Say honor thy mother and father while at the altar and then go home and you don't even call them. Respect peers, and then you go home and criticize them. You get my meaning.:wink:

on the other hand, what do we should in the case of someone who has entirely bad intentions but utterly fails at accomplishing them? and not just fails to do anything 'evil', but actually keeps accidentally winding up doing good. They hate every minute of their long record of unintentionally saving buses full of children while trying to kick puppies and missing (thereby stepping into the street and causing the bus to stop before coming to the train tracks whose gates were open despite the oncoming train) and such, and intend to try again tomorrow.

do they really fall into the category we normally call 'good people'?

I, like RoI, do not believe a person is good or bad, merely his actions.

You hypothetical scenario bears little in common with reality.

I would say yes. Try this one.

If I constantly preach to others a philosphy of non-violence, and then go back and beat me wife on a daily basis.

What label or labels are valid for me?

Hypocritical, wife-beating son of a bitch.

Hypocritical, wife-beating son of a bitch.

Indeed it is.

Hypocritical, wife-beating son of a bitch.

Ahh I'm glad you said that. So then you would agree that the words and thoughts, are supperceded by the actions?

That if you think good, and talk good, but do evil then you are evil?

Ahh I'm glad you said that. So then you would agree that the words and thoughts, are supperceded by the actions?

That if you think good, and talk good, but do evil then you are evil?

RoI has been caught at his own argument! LOL!

Ahh I'm glad you said that. So then you would agree that the words and thoughts, are supperceded by the actions?

That if you think good, and talk good, but do evil then you are evil?

No, no one's actions make them evil.

RoI has been caught at his own argument! LOL!

No, being a "hypocritical, wife-beating son of a bitch" does not mean someone's evil.

No, being a "hypocritical, wife-beating son of a bitch" does not mean someone's evil.

Capable of evil. It does mean that. In that moment, this person was evil.

No, being a "hypocritical, wife-beating son of a bitch" does not mean someone's evil.

Heh you need to explore my question a bit fulley to realise your mistake.

If I am labeled a hypocrit, then why is that so?

I, like RoI, do not believe a person is good or bad, merely his actions.

You hypothetical scenario bears little in common with reality.

it doesn't need to be realistic, it's a thought experiment designed to test principles. the question is, does such a person properly belong grouped with those who do good that they intended to do?

Heh you need to explore my question a bit fulley to realise your mistake.

If I am labeled a hypocrit, then why is that so?

Being a hypocrites does not make one "evil".

The only truly "evil" entities are sci-fi/horror films.