The Best Guide

[nPeace]

I feel I have to answer this too - given that this is just so delusional and lacking the required knowledge as to why people behave as they do. It is just ludicrous to expect any group of people to behave en masse according to some set of rules. We can try to educate and enforce the rules we do set but it is a fact of life that we are all born different, and into varied circumstances, along with having very different childhoods. To try to flatten this out would almost be like turning us all into clones or robots. And you must know that about 25% of us have a mental health issue during our lives, or are born with some impairment, so as to contribute to behaviour. If God was so beneficent why not give us all a level playing field?

One does not expect something that is happening.
The need to expect anything only arrives if said thing has not occurred.
Evidently, that would be you, and people alike, who have not been privileged to see this.

And you might have noticed - there are many competing religious beliefs not just the one.

 

[nPeace]

What have these to do with the written words of religion? These latter are supposedly taken as being the words of God but have no impartial evidence as to being such. But many simply believe this. All that you have quoted are irrelevant - and aspect of governance - and where laws are brought into being by voted assemblies.

Your words...
And sorry, but it is the written word that is the problem, with so many believers taking the literal approach whilst so many more try to interpret these so as to fit the circumstances - and which is why we still have so many religions still discriminating as to sex, gender, and sexual orientations.

I must have misunderstood you.
What were you trying to say?
What were you trying to say, as to the reason for many religions disagreeing on things from the Bible?

Nah, the people who wrote the Bible essentially got these laws from their predecessors - but getting a religious person to understand this is probably a step too far - because they seem to ignore what went on before religion was on the scene.

You can demonstrate what you claim here. So far, no one has.
Give it a try, if you stand behind your claim.
I only ask for one piece. Just one.
Nothing?

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's not hard to find the facts on these matters.
The Roles of Respect for Parental Authority and Parenting Practices in Parent–Child Conflict Among African American, Latino, and European American Families
African American and Latina girls showed significantly more respect for parental authority than did European American girls.

We also should ask, where these "African Americans" came from.
African Americans are largely the descendants of enslaved people who were brought from their African homelands by force to work in the New World.

I was talking about respecting the child - so no spanking in the more advanced countries - given it has been shown to have plenty of negative effects.

Why that is worth noting, is the same reason, we ask where atheists got their morality, they like to brag about.
People take what they have with them.
People took their religion, and the values associated with that, wherever they went... or were forced to go.
This is easily understood, and not unreasonable to accept.
African Americans have made basic and lasting contributions to American history and culture.

You think people stop thinking if they don't have a religion? It hardly takes much to work out morality. Like to test that?

Is there a reason you singled out LGBTQ+?

These are the things that most likely will cause issues with the religious - because of what was written down long ago (set in stone) and where progress often is very slow as to any revisions - if there is any. Not taking into account when these religious texts were written - or they are just taken literally.

The "Golden Rule" cannot in any way be compared to the tit-for-tat "rule".
The tit-for-tat "rule" says, "You kill my dog. I kill your cat."
The "Golden Rule" says, love your enemy, and do only good to them, even when they do bad to you, because, what you want for yourself - only good, is what you should want for them."

The problem with persons misapplying that rule, is that their selfishness, usually becomes the rule. "What I want, for you, is whatever I want for you, so I must do unto you, what I want for myself... which is what I want for you."
So, if what I want for you, is for you to die, this is what I want for myself.
Twisted, uh.

Perhaps you haven't come across this before - so you are forgiven.

The Tit-for-Tat Strategy in the Context of Game Theory (thoughtco.com)

In the context of game theory, "tit-for-tat" is a strategy in a repeated game (or a series of similar games). Procedurally, the tit-for-tat strategy is to choose the 'cooperate' action in the first round and, in subsequent rounds of play, choose the action that the other player chose in the previous round. This strategy generally results in a situation where cooperation is sustained once it begins, but noncooperative behavior is punished by a lack of cooperation in the next round of play.

 

[Mock Turtle]

One does not expect something that is happening.
The need to expect anything only arrives if said thing has not occurred.
Evidently, that would be you, and people alike, who have not been privileged to see this.

No idea what you are on about here but you apparently have little understanding of why people often do what they do.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You can demonstrate what you claim here. So far, no one has.
Give it a try, if you stand behind your claim.
I only ask for one piece. Just one.
Nothing?

When not much was written down? How on earth are we going to expect such evidence? Hardly means that laws were not in effect though - and passed on by tradition and word of mouth of course.

 

[nPeace]

I was talking about respecting the child - so no spanking in the more advanced countries - given it has been shown to have plenty of negative effects.

You mean you are singling out one or two things to determine how respect is shown. Or are you using particular examples?

The reasons that method does not work, is there are different opinions / views, and as I mentioned... extremes of that one thing you chose, out of scores.

You think people stop thinking if they don't have a religion?

Of course not. Who in their right mind thinks that if one does not have a religion they don't have a brain?

It hardly takes much to work out morality. Like to test that?

Sure. Why not.
What test do you propose?

These are the things that most likely will cause issues with the religious - because of what was written down long ago (set in stone) and where progress often is very slow as to any revisions - if there is any. Not taking into account when these religious texts were written - or they are just taken literally.

There are a whole set of things that cause issues with religion.
Need a list?

• Smoking
• Over indulgence of alcohol
• Over indulgence of food
• Abuse of drugs
• Sexual immorality
  • Adultery
  • Fornication
  • Oral, and anal sex
  • Pornography
• Extreme, and violent sport and entertainment
  • Boxing
  • Car racing
  • G.T.A.
  • etc.
• Gambling
• Abortion
• etc.

As you can see, LGBTQ+ is just a tiny fraction, and the list isn't exhausted.

What was written down in stone, long ago, applies to all of these, even though a law may not explicitly state, "Don't ...", because, as I already explained, a principle does not change, but is a fundamental truth, on which laws are built.
These laws are based on principles... set in stone.
What is more, they work.

Perhaps you haven't come across this before - so you are forgiven.

The Tit-for-Tat Strategy in the Context of Game Theory (thoughtco.com)

In the context of game theory, "tit-for-tat" is a strategy in a repeated game (or a series of similar games). Procedurally, the tit-for-tat strategy is to choose the 'cooperate' action in the first round and, in subsequent rounds of play, choose the action that the other player chose in the previous round. This strategy generally results in a situation where cooperation is sustained once it begins, but noncooperative behavior is punished by a lack of cooperation in the next round of play.

Yes, I know tit-for-tat. I wasn't born yesterday, you know.

Still, there is no comparison between Tit-for-Tat, and the "Golden Rule"... unless this "Golden Rule" is not the one I know of.
Is there a 'Golden Rule' game?

 

[nPeace]

No idea what you are on about here but you apparently have little understanding of why people often do what they do.

Wow. Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself of something.

 

[nPeace]

When not much was written down? How on earth are we going to expect such evidence? Hardly means that laws were not in effect though - and passed on by tradition and word of mouth of course.

Not much was written down? Are you serious? Have you looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The fact is, some people don't want to accept the much that was written down.
Instead, they like to make all sorts of assertions, and expect people to accept them as true... because they said it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not much was written down? Are you serious? Have you looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The fact is, some people don't want to accept the much that was written down.
Instead, they like to make all sorts of assertions, and expect people to accept them as true... because they said it.

Yeah, like the parts where God condones slavery.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, that is exactly what I need. Evidence.

But, of course, you cannot use the guide for that. Because you cannot use the guide to provide evidence that the guide is true. For that would be circular reasoning, wouldn't it?
I could do the same to prove that Pinocchio is true. Or the subject of any book is factually true.

So, what have you got?

Ciao

- viole

"...you cannot use the guide to provide evidence that the guide is true."
Huh

Can you use a manual, to prove that the manual is useful to the customer for the product they bought?
If someone claims they followed the instructions of the manual, and the product was damaged, would your company be able to win a case against the customer, with claims of misuse / negligence?

If the court, wants to determine that the product was used properly, what do you think they will ask for?

 

[nPeace]

Not very close

Hmmm

I'm bringing a new perspective to how scripture impacts human beings. I'm drawing an important distinction between a human's conscious mind, and their unconscious brain.

All of the apologist arguments I've ever heard, implicitly restrict themselves to the domain of the conscious mind, and they ignore the unconscious brain.

I'm here wondering why you think this is new.
You said...
With all that said, I understand that in the conscious mind of the apologist, it's easy and natural to ignore those passages, or to try to discredit them in some way.

BUT!!! Once again, we ignore our subconscious brains at our peril ! The science is quite clear, propaganda working at the subconscious level is a powerful force!

As of this post, you have never addressed the topic of the conscious mind as opposed to the unconscious brain. So, as long as your responses are limited to the realm of the conscious mind, you're correct, there is probably little benefit to either of us to continue.

You're right. I don't think I actually addressed this, other than to say, it's a pointless exercise, that finger pointing thing.
You basically addressed it for me though, when you said... "we ignore our subconscious brains at our peril"

The thing that stands out to me though, which is always so obvious on these forums, is that the "we" always applies to the theist. The atheist. No.

So the finger always points away from you, but I think my time is better utilized, spending it on something other than pointing back.
So, I leave that there, and move on.

I find atheists tend to have an extremely hungry ego, so I usually let them feed it.

But I urge you to at least spend a few minutes to try to understand the mind / brain idea I've offered you.

This is what I mean. Why would you think your understanding on this subject is any greater than mine?
Why would you even think that your subconscious has not gotten the best of you... as you suggesting is the case with "those "apologetics""?

As believe I said earlier, I acknowledge the entire field of theology. If the context is a theological one, then I agree with you that theologians have explained all of the inconsistencies. But those explanations are ALSO implicitly ONLY in the context of the conscious mind, and they do not consider how their scripture impacts the subconscious brain.

I think you basically said this at the beginning, though.

I think this point is splitting hairs. What I believe you said was that your one book is better than all the thousands of other books. So for all practical purposes, I don't think I'm being disingenuous to summarize your claim as I did. Do you really think I was far off from your intention?

Yes, you were really far off from your intention what I made clear.

 

[icehorse]

This is what I mean. Why would you think your understanding on this subject is any greater than mine?
Why would you even think that your subconscious has not gotten the best of you... as you suggesting is the case with "those "apologetics""?

I've studied the mind / brain distinction extensively. Most people have not. Perhaps you have, but if so, you've STILL not responded to the claims I'm making in this regard.

I acknowledge the power of propaganda, and I know it applies to me as well. That's why I'm very careful about what I read or watch or listen to. For example, we do not have a TV in our house because we know how damaging commercials are.

OTOH, to this day, I have never heard a religious apologist admit that their scripture is propaganda. I have never heard an apologist even address the point and try to argue that their scripture is not propaganda. So far in this thread, your responses have been the same as I always get.. evasive.

 

[icehorse]

So the finger always points away from you, but I think my time is better utilized, spending it on something other than pointing back.
So, I leave that there, and move on.

Wait, what?? YOU started this thread. YOU are the one who led the discussion with an extraordinary claim. Of course - in this thread - fingers will point towards you, that's the discussion you asked for

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not much was written down? Are you serious? Have you looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The fact is, some people don't want to accept the much that was written down.
Instead, they like to make all sorts of assertions, and expect people to accept them as true... because they said it.

Haha - you call this 'much'? I can see your problem.

And aren't they still being deciphered?

 

[Mock Turtle]

You mean you are singling out one or two things to determine how respect is shown. Or are you using particular examples?

The reasons that method does not work, is there are different opinions / views, and as I mentioned... extremes of that one thing you chose, out of scores.


Of course not. Who in their right mind thinks that if one does not have a religion they don't have a brain?


Sure. Why not.
What test do you propose?


There are a whole set of things that cause issues with religion.
Need a list?

• Smoking
• Over indulgence of alcohol
• Over indulgence of food
• Abuse of drugs
• Sexual immorality
  • Adultery
  • Fornication
  • Oral, and anal sex
  • Pornography
• Extreme, and violent sport and entertainment
  • Boxing
  • Car racing
  • G.T.A.
  • etc.
• Gambling
• Abortion
• etc.

As you can see, LGBTQ+ is just a tiny fraction, and the list isn't exhausted.

What was written down in stone, long ago, applies to all of these, even though a law may not explicitly state, "Don't ...", because, as I already explained, a principle does not change, but is a fundamental truth, on which laws are built.
These laws are based on principles... set in stone.
What is more, they work.


Yes, I know tit-for-tat. I wasn't born yesterday, you know.

Still, there is no comparison between Tit-for-Tat, and the "Golden Rule"... unless this "Golden Rule" is not the one I know of.
Is there a 'Golden Rule' game?

Not bothering with too much here, but do you really think that one cannot work out morality without a basis in religion? And as to why so many rules of behaviour are common to peoples all around the world whether they have the same religion or not or have none. But where these have been different in earlier societies or small groups. Living in larger numbers now, the rules tend to become more set - and without having to have any religion. Whether people obey them is still down to personal autonomy and/or ability to function properly.

And sorry, your understanding of the tit-for-tat theory was not as you mentioned - responding badly after being treated so - given it does the same as the Golden Rule until bad behaviour is returned - so much like the Golden Rule, as I mentioned.

 

[viole]

"...you cannot use the guide to provide evidence that the guide is true."
Huh

Can you use a manual, to prove that the manual is useful to the customer for the product they bought?
If someone claims they followed the instructions of the manual, and the product was damaged, would your company be able to win a case against the customer, with claims of misuse / negligence?

If the court, wants to determine that the product was used properly, what do you think they will ask for?

Yes, but there is evidence of the product the manual refers to. Say a car. And that exists without a guide. The car ontology is independent of the guide. And that is why, in this case, the guide might be true and useful.

if I buy a car, and the guide refers to that car, I can collect evidence that the guide is true by testing its effect on the car.

But in your case there is no evidence of any product it refers to. So, ceteris paribus, your guide is as useful as a guide to protect against kryptonite, which is likewise useless in determining the truth of kryptonite and Superman.

For, your God’s sins, is Superman’ kryptonite, and their existence cannot possibly be determined by using the respective guides alone.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

I've studied the mind / brain distinction extensively. Most people have not. Perhaps you have, but if so, you've STILL not responded to the claims I'm making in this regard.

I did.

I acknowledge the power of propaganda, and I know it applies to me as well. That's why I'm very careful about what I read or watch or listen to. For example, we do not have a TV in our house because we know how damaging commercials are.

OTOH, to this day, I have never heard a religious apologist admit that their scripture is propaganda. I have never heard an apologist even address the point and try to argue that their scripture is not propaganda. So far in this thread, your responses have been the same as I always get.. evasive.

Well there you go. I did respond to your claims... only not in agreement with you... if that's the only way you would see my response as valid.
I find that's usually the case on these forums. An answer is not an answer, unless it says, 'I see it your way'.

I say it's the subconscious, and... in some cases, conscious, of atheists... and anti-theists, that clouds their ability to recognize, or to admit their own thinking as propaganda.

Here, I answered more directly. Hope that's clearer.

 

[nPeace]

Wait, what?? YOU started this thread. YOU are the one who led the discussion with an extraordinary claim. Of course - in this thread - fingers will point towards you, that's the discussion you asked for

Did you miss the point?
The point is, the atheists and anti-theists are never subject to what they accuse theists of.
Moreover, they are not usually willing to even consider that.

Do you know of the saying, "Get off your high horse."?
We both understand that concept. When we are on a high horse, everything else, and everyone else is below us.
Isn't that true?

So, we will never see ourselves as we point.
That's why I try to avoid getting into the finger pointing exercise... which you made me do, in my previous post.
See. Now you got me pointing fingers.

I retract my finger. I'm not too late am I?

 

[Viker]

The best guide. A light in the darkness. A flame in the night underneath a moonlit horizon.

 

[nPeace]

Haha - you call this 'much'? I can see your problem.

And aren't they still being deciphered?

What's more than they?