The Best Guide

[nPeace]

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.

Think about it.
You have one good tree.
It drops fruit with seed, and it branches out.
If the tree is say, contaminated, all of it's fruit will be bad... but there will be some good, wouldn't they?
Some of the offspring will go from bad to worse... but there will be some good.
No matter how far from good, the offspring goes... there will be some good... no matter how tiny a fraction that good will be.

That's the reality of life.
We all have elements of morality, because of that one tree.

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.

I say, for you to say that, you do not understand the Golden rule.

Jesus said, if you love those loving you, of what benefit is it.
Jesus also said, love your enemies, and do good to them. Pray for them.
The apostle Paul reflected those words by saying, If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. Return evil for evil, to no one. Be peaceable with all.

So clearly, they understood the Golden rule. You don't seem to.

 

[nPeace]

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

This is a strawman viole. We are discussing the Bible. Not God.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Think about it.
You have one good tree.
It drops fruit with seed, and it branches out.
If the tree is say, contaminated, all of it's fruit will be bad... but there will be some good, wouldn't they?
Some of the offspring will go from bad to worse... but there will be some good.
No matter how far from good, the offspring goes... there will be some good... no matter how tiny a fraction that good will be.

That's the reality of life.
We all have elements of morality, because of that one tree.

Well you have one thing right, as to humans tending to be born with some inbuilt morality - from some evidence we get studying babies and the very young - but mostly it comes from parenting, peer groups, and similar such - even as to some doing some thinking for themselves.

I say, for you to say that, you do not understand the Golden rule.

Jesus said, if you love those loving you, of what benefit is it.
Jesus also said, love your enemies, and do good to them. Pray for them.
The apostle Paul reflected those words by saying, If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. Return evil for evil, to no one. Be peaceable with all.

So clearly, they understood the Golden rule. You don't seem to.

Haha. The Golden Rule states to treat others as you would want to be treated yourself - and with variations as to such. So this coincides basically with the tit-for-tat theory - as to respect for others until they do otherwise. The Golden Rule says nothing as to what happens when people don't obey the Golden Rule - whereas the tit-for-tat does, so that is the basic difference

.Golden Rule - Wikipedia

 

[Mock Turtle]

What's more than they?

You think one source of information, and which might simply be from one religious perspective is 'much'?

 

[viole]

This is a strawman viole. We are discussing the Bible. Not God.

A Book which refers to something without independent evidence. My point.
So?

Ciao

- viole

 

[icehorse]

I asked you to respond to my claim about the conscious, the subconscious, and propaganda, to which you responded:

I did.

I know you're juggling lots of simultaneous conversations in this thread. So I went back through the thread and reread those times you responded to me. You did so with posts #52, #75, and #91.

As I reread these posts, it seems to me that the closest you got to actually addressing the propaganda claim was in post #91 in which claimed that atheists were always "finger pointing" at theists, but it was never the other way around.

I will REITERATE that I believe we are ALL susceptible to propaganda. I said it before, I'm saying it again now. Atheists and theists alike, we are ALL susceptible to propaganda.

I'm not saying scripture is the only propaganda around. Of course not! Propaganda is everywhere (which I also implied when I mentioned my ban on watching TV).

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.

I'm more than happy to admit that I'm using propagandistic techniques in my criticisms of scripture. That does not make my claims wrong!! Propaganda can be used to spread truths or lies.

But ultimately this is not about HOW I'm delivering my claims. It's about whether my claims are true or not.

I encourage EVERYONE, atheists and theists alike, to read the book "Incognito", by David Eagleman. Eagleman is a neuroscientist and professor at Stanford. This book talks about the split between the conscious mind and the unconscious brain extensively. A central point of his research is that our conscious mind accounts for only a tiny, tiny percentage of what the brain is doing. Most of what's going on in our brains is outside of our conscious control.

==

So my main claim in this thread is this: Abrahamic scripture is riddled with damaging, divisive messages. For centuries, holy men and theologians and parents and elders have developed all manner of approaches to try to hide this fact. But the scripture damns itself. And neuroscience tells us that no matter how apologists attempt to spin the scripture, when we expose ourselves to it, our subconscious brains will absorb it's damaging, divisive messages.

 

[nPeace]

A Book which refers to something without independent evidence. My point.
So?

Ciao

- viole

Not relevant to this thread.
The point is, the book is claimed to be a guide in life. Has it been shown to be.
The fact is, we can use a manual to demonstrate its usefulness to a the product.
We can use the Bible to demonstrate its usefulness in life.
So. Irrelevant strawman arguments belong somewhere else. Not here.

 

[nPeace]

I asked you to respond to my claim about the conscious, the subconscious, and propaganda, to which you responded:



I know you're juggling lots of simultaneous conversations in this thread. So I went back through the thread and reread those times you responded to me. You did so with posts #52, #75, and #91.

As I reread these posts, it seems to me that the closest you got to actually addressing the propaganda claim was in post #91 in which claimed that atheists were always "finger pointing" at theists, but it was never the other way around.

I will REITERATE that I believe we are ALL susceptible to propaganda. I said it before, I'm saying it again now. Atheists and theists alike, we are ALL susceptible to propaganda.

I'm not saying scripture is the only propaganda around. Of course not! Propaganda is everywhere (which I also implied when I mentioned my ban on watching TV).

You are forgetting something... your own mind - subconscious and conscious.
Propaganda does not only come from the likes of TV and books.

I'm more than happy to admit that I'm using propagandistic techniques in my criticisms of scripture. That does not make my claims wrong!! Propaganda can be used to spread truths or lies.

But ultimately this is not about HOW I'm delivering my claims. It's about whether my claims are true or not.

I encourage EVERYONE, atheists and theists alike, to read the book "Incognito", by David Eagleman. Eagleman is a neuroscientist and professor at Stanford. This book talks about the split between the conscious mind and the unconscious brain extensively. A central point of his research is that our conscious mind accounts for only a tiny, tiny percentage of what the brain is doing. Most of what's going on in our brains is outside of our conscious control.

==

I did my research. I am well aware - more than you think... of the mind.
You don't even know if I am a psychologist... professionally learned.

So my main claim in this thread is this: Abrahamic scripture is riddled with damaging, divisive messages. For centuries, holy men and theologians and parents and elders have developed all manner of approaches to try to hide this fact. But the scripture damns itself. And neuroscience tells us that no matter how apologists attempt to spin the scripture, when we expose ourselves to it, our subconscious brains will absorb it's damaging, divisive messages.

I'm saying ... as I said before... how many times...
Let me try another way.
If you read something with a mind that is affected subconsciously... or consciously, in some cases, by your own ... let's call it propaganda, you will see things you want to see, and ignore what you don;t want to see.

Oh wait. No. It's the apologists that do that. Not you. No. Never you. Lol.
What more can I say, Seems I don't know how to make it any clearer... but I hope you gave me at least some credit, for trying.

 

[nPeace]

@icehorse I think you want to discuss some aspect of the Bible that you consider clear cut terrible, which "apologist" should agree with you on.
So, to be fair, I want to give you a fair opportunity and chance.

Pick your best point... It must be your best, because you get only one chance at this.
Show me one terrible thing in the Bible, which there is no good explanation, and which shows the "apologist" to be driven by his bias.

Please make sure to fill in the details, because I am not going to help you with that.
Fair?

 

[icehorse]

You are forgetting something... your own mind - subconscious and conscious.
Propaganda does not only come from the likes of TV and books.

It strikes me that you're not really reading my posts. Once again, I've already granted this AND I've already agreed that I'M employing propaganda. That has NOTHING to do with the propagandistic nature of scripture.

In other words, if I never started this conversation with you, the nature of the scripture would still be propagandistic. You continue to try to personalize this and it's not personal. The scripture is how it is, regardless of how we talk about it.

I did my research. I am well aware - more than you think... of the mind.
You don't even know if I am a psychologist... professionally learned.

Great! Forget about the conversation we've had so far. I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on the idea that the scripture is propagandistic in nature?

If you read something with a mind that is affected subconsciously... or consciously, in some cases, by your own ... let's call it propaganda, you will see things you want to see, and ignore what you don;t want to see.

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about cognitive bias? Yes, of course, I've read my Kahneman, I agree that bias is yet another powerful mechanism. But bias is separate from the mechanism of propaganda.

Oh wait. No. It's the apologists that do that. Not you. No. Never you. Lol.
What more can I say, Seems I don't know how to make it any clearer... but I hope you gave me at least some credit, for trying.

You keep trying to make this personal. The nature of the scripture remains the same, regardless of who is reading it. Sure, the skeptic's conscious mind will come to different conclusions than the apologist's conscious mind.

But at the subconscious level, it DOES NOT MATTER whether you're a skeptic or an apologist.

 

[icehorse]

I think you want to discuss some aspect of the Bible that you consider clear cut terrible, which "apologist" should agree with you on.
So, to be fair, I want to give you a fair opportunity and chance.

Pick your best point... It must be your best, because you get only one chance at this.
Show me one terrible thing in the Bible, which there is no good explanation, and which shows the "apologist" to be driven by his bias.

Please make sure to fill in the details, because I am not going to help you with that.
Fair?

No, it's not fair at all. But as a sign of good faith, I'll START with this example. (I reserve the right to find other examples, and perhaps better ones )

If we forget Christianity for a minute and zoom out to the general discussion of morals and ethics, the modern consensus is that things like human sacrificing or scape-goating are morally wrong. We would condemn the Mayans or Incas or Aztecs when they engaged in human sacrifice, correct?

Now when we bring our focus back to Christianity, one of it's principle messages is something like "Jesus died for our sins".

This IS a prime example of human sacrifice and/or scape-goating. So however your priest or pastor tries to spin it, your subconscious brain is registering the message that in Christianity, human sacrifice and scape-goating are approved.

 

[nPeace]

No, it's not fair at all. But as a sign of good faith, I'll START with this example. (I reserve the right to find other examples, and perhaps better ones )

If we forget Christianity for a minute and zoom out to the general discussion of morals and ethics, the modern consensus is that things like human sacrificing or scape-goating are morally wrong. We would condemn the Mayans or Incas or Aztecs when they engaged in human sacrifice, correct?

Now when we bring our focus back to Christianity, one of it's principle messages is something like "Jesus died for our sins".

This IS a prime example of human sacrifice and/or scape-goating. So however your priest or pastor tries to spin it, your subconscious brain is registering the message that in Christianity, human sacrifice and scape-goating are approved.

Hmmm.
Am I being unfair to use my time wisely?
Should I use my time to show someone something if it will make no difference at the end of the day?

After questioning myself, I think I am fair to any skeptic, to give them the opportunity to provide their best argument.
The reason being, as I said before, the so called errors in the Bible, are really the errors skeptics make, of not knowing or understanding the Bible, and so they either give their own narrative, and attack that, or they just don't give context any consideration, and thus ignore the Bible where convenient.
The other thing is, they never say that they are wrong, when shown to be, they just are happy to go to something else.

So, you really think I must use up my time going from one thing to another?
For what? What is a good reason for me to do this?

I'm giving you one shot. If it is a clear winner, you win all the others by default.
If you lose, you lose all the others by default.
That's the deal. Take it, or leave it.
My time is useful, to me.

So is this the one you are going with. The scapegoat thing?

 

[icehorse]

The reason being, as I said before, the so called errors in the Bible, are really the errors skeptics make, of not knowing or understanding the Bible, and so they either give their own narrative, and attack that, or they just don't give context any consideration, and thus ignore the Bible where convenient.

This shows me that you are - once again - dodging the question of propaganda. This shows me that you're preparing to make a theological defense of the bible. Narratives and context do not defend against propaganda.

 

[nPeace]

This shows me that you are - once again - dodging the question of propaganda. This shows me that you're preparing to make a theological defense of the bible. Narratives and context do not defend against propaganda.

Seems to me you just confirmed that you want me to waste my time, because if I were dodging I would not be willing to address anything you have to offer. I would not give you the opportunity. I gave you an opportunity, but do you want that?

I'll ask again. Is the argument you have on Jesus sacrifice? Do you want that answered? What is the problem you find with it?

 

[icehorse]

Seems to me you just confirmed that you want me to waste my time, because if I were dodging I would not be willing to address anything you have to offer. I would not give you the opportunity. I gave you an opportunity, but do you want that?

I'll ask again. Is the argument you have on Jesus sacrifice? Do you want that answered? What is the problem you find with it?

Sure, go for that one.

And BTW, I view your time as being equally valuable as mine. It would appear from your posts that you do not extend me the same courtesy

 

[nPeace]

Sure, go for that one.
Cool. Thanks.

And BTW, I view your time as being equally valuable as mine. It would appear from your posts that you do not extend me the same courtesy

Why do you say that?
I think my time is worth your while.
Seriously though, I listened to you throughout, and I do appreciate that you listened to me.

However, you may have missed the fact that I repeatedly saved you wasting your time, thinking that you could educate me on the subconscious, and those other areas you think i am ignorant of.
All those times, I was basically trying to make one thing clear to you... Don't think you know, and I don't. I'm way ahead of you... every step you took.

You didn't see it.
I have almost three decades in this "business".

Anyway, thanks for the chat. I will get back to you on the scapegoat issue. It's time for me to close for the evening.
Can't promise tomorrow, but so long as I am alive, and have access to the web, I will get back to you.

Have a good night.

 

[icehorse]

However, you may have missed the fact that I repeatedly saved you wasting your time, thinking that you could educate me on the subconscious, and those other areas you think i am ignorant of.
All those times, I was basically trying to make one thing clear to you... Don't think you know, and I don't. I'm way ahead of you... every step you took.

As I said earlier, if you have expertise in psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, motivation science, extrinsic load theory, propaganda science, or other related fields that could come to bear on my claim, I'd welcome your feedback. As of now, you've not responded using any field of science.

 

[viole]

Not relevant to this thread.
The point is, the book is claimed to be a guide in life. Has it been shown to be.
The fact is, we can use a manual to demonstrate its usefulness to a the product.
We can use the Bible to demonstrate its usefulness in life.
So. Irrelevant strawman arguments belong somewhere else. Not here.

Fine, but is that really so?

i am not really sure people follow it. For instance, I am not aware of people stoning people for working on Saturdays, or giving their daughter as wife to her rapist.

so, how useful is that really, if people do not follow it, anyway?

ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

Fine, but is that really so?

i am not really sure people follow it. For instance, I am not aware of people stoning people for working on Saturdays, or giving their daughter as wife to her rapist.

so, how useful is that really, if people do not follow it, anyway?

ciao

- viole

Evidently, you either don't understand what to follow means, or you don't understand the Bible at all.
In either case, you clearly have no case, rational argument, or reasonable objection.

Seems you need help. I'm afraid you are on your own on this one. viole.
This just highlights the sad position of the atheist.

 

[viole]

Evidently, you either don't understand what to follow means, or you don't understand the Bible at all.
In either case, you clearly have no case, rational argument, or reasonable objection.

Seems you need help. I'm afraid you are on your own on this one. viole.
This just highlights the sad position of the atheist.

I would say that the position where there are no left rebuttals, is the real sad one.

Ciao

- viole