Discussion in 'Religion' started by river, Aug 13, 2013.
So religious communities have not stood up against GMO's
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
More than what you have
For as long as you don't define "humane" beyond a particular approach to agriculture, there's no reason you couldn't be
Religion is no better and actually it is worse , since this is the supposed standard on which we live
It has failed , deeply
Worse than you?
Given that the only thing you have attempted is a few entries for an online discussion, I find that hard to believe.
The only thing that protects you from failure is your failure to attempt anything. .... which is arguably the worst sort of failure
You are the failure
And I'm not surprised
Hence why Humanity based religion is where we should go , believe in ourselves , and what is good for Humanity
It's a good step in for people to learn practical knowledge about organic agriculture.
While it's not at all religiously affiliated it's my experience that the religious one's stand out as more organized and committed, functioning more as a community as opposed to a lone maverick.
The hot air you generate on forums like these can't even sprout a single mung bean
Except that the topic at hand (namely, "Is a Humanity based religion where we should go ? Any god concept is excluded) is not as simplistic as matters of "2+2=4"; at least some of us here think that it is not as simplistic.
I find that the problem with your attitude to communication here is that you have an overly simplistic approach to topics, and that you default to faulting and blaming the other party when things don't go your way.
And this is no way to have a productive conversation.
It really shows your attitude when instead of inquiring from the other person something like "This strikes me as too generalized. Could you explain why you think that A is a member of group B?" you flat out accuse the other person of fallacious reasoning and evasion - as if it would already be an objectively established fact that they have committed fallacious reasoning.
People who like to call out others on logical fallacies usually haven't read the introductory texts on the theory of informal logical fallacies, so they tend to have a very limited view of when something is a logical fallacy and when it isn't - namely, the view that whenever something doesn't fit their own ideas of how things should be, it must be that it is wrong or a logical fallacy.
Most informal logical fallacies don't objectively exist, in some decontextualized manner, the way formal logical fallacies do. Whether something is a fallacious hasty generalization or not, for example, depends on the context.
That still doesn't get past the problem that there is a miriad ideas out there on what "sound health practices" are what it means for "Humanity believing in itself."
If food would be produced that way, a large part of the human population would probably starve to death.
How can that be justified in the name of humanity, humanity believing in itself?
What?? We now currently live on the religious standard?
That's news to me.
I disagree. Health requires, among many things, persistent effort, resources and a wise use thereof. This is even more so in the case when a person tries to heal from a disease or develop a healthier lifestyle.
Persistent effort and a wise use of resources are in the long run impossible without a sound metaphysical platform to inform them.
these things can draw from a metaphysical outlook but a metaphysical outlook is not required to maintain the body - millions of life forms illustrate this
An existing habit or tendency is not to be confused with the _establishing_ of a habit or tendency. Like I already said - Health requires, among many things, persistent effort, resources and a wise use thereof. This is even more so in the case when a person tries to heal from a disease or develop a healthier lifestyle.
For example, a person who has been of normal weight all their life has no idea what it is like to be obese and what it takes to lose a lot of excessive weight and how to keep it off.
Or, another example, a person who has been used to exercising ever since they were little, cannot relate or effectively teach it to those who don't have such a habit and who are first trying to establish it as adults.
Successfully establishing new habits, tendencies or qualities and persisting in them requires a metaphysical platform, even more so when when those habits etc. are such that go against the grain of how life is usually lived.
To evidence this, note that the majority of New Year's resolutions that people make, fail by the end of January; there are vast amounts of literature available on how to enhance one's productivity and establish new habits, acknowledging that these things are hard to do for many people. Which goes to show that at least in the human form, maintaining the body is not easy.
My point is that the persistency, etc that is required need not draw from a metaphysical (ie god-based/transcendece) value system
It does, if, like I already said, it is to be a wise use of effort and resources:
Health requires, among many things, persistent effort, resources and a wise use thereof.
You yourself point out many times how a godless outlook on life is ultimately detrimental.
When the specific matter was the fact of a generalisation then it really is as simple as "2+2=4"....
Don't confuse the scope of the topic at large with the specific of the generalisation.
Apologies for wanting people to debate without logical fallacies.
I find that those who complain about having their logical fallacies intend out are those that are either unaware that they use them, or are intellectually dishonest who have gotten away with using them for too long.
That some of us stand up to such behaviour may rile some, undoubtedly, but is it too much to ask that people answer questions posed, and do not argue some against some assumption that was never there.
People just do not read what they are responding to, or if they do then they do not always understand it.
It depends on what you consider productive to be. I find it is a wonderful means of having a productive conversation as it helps keep the conversation on topic and supported, and gives a far better chance of establishing where disagreements lie, rather than just the same old inconsequential verbal barrages most threads devolve into.
I'll call it as I see it. The other person should be quite capable of responding and defending their position. I'm not going to dress things up in cotton wool just to protect their sensibilities.
You'll also note that such "attitude" is generally reserved for those that I find consistently dishonest. If I use it with others then it may be something I need to rein in.
I cannot speak for all your experiences to date. I am aware that that is how some seem to act, but certainly I do not find it to be "usual".
Agreed, which is why the accusation of such (whether worded in cozy language or not) should be supported, which I endeavour to do in all but the most obvious of cases, but for those will happily do so if called to.
And if the person disagrees, surely they have the ability to explain why it is an invalid accusation?
But hey, if you want to further discuss the style of my discussion, perhaps either PM or another thread?
I think that you are nowhere near as open-minded and willing to discuss things as your purport to be.
On the contrary, bigotry, regardless whether it appears under the guise of gender, creed, nationality, geography, annual income, marital status, age, education or many, many, many, many other possibilities has only one reason : difference.
You are confusing the words "discrimination" and "bigotry". While bigotry is not entirely peculiar to religious faith, centuries of custom have moved irrevocably in attaching it to said faith. The Macquarie Thesaurus provides: DISCRIMINATION - n. difference, differentiation, hair-splitting, selectivity. The Macquarie Dictionary provides: DISCRIMINATE - 1. To make a distinction in favour of or against a person or thing.
2. To note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately. 3. To differentiate. Whereas, said dictionary defines BIGOT - A person who is intolerantly convinced of the rightness of a perticular creed, opinion, practice etc. My understanding of bigotry has most often seen it as an ally and synonym of INTOLERANCE rather than one of DIFFERENCE.
The nature of difference can be promulgated by the communities it appears in or learned from forces external to the said the community.
As your use of DIFFERENCE has been clearly demonstrated to be incorrect, your comment is irrelevant.
See opening response for a broad but as yet not exhaustive list of avenues for differences that bigotry can manifest through
In like manner.............irrelevant.
Oh, you know : god .... just a minor detail of theistic philosophical discourse
Your alternative to solving the question of a universal consensus is to convince everyone of the divine rectitude of your eccentric interpretation of christianity [even christians here disagree with you]. Well, I must record here that I find your presumption to messiahship both a risible and a contemptible one.
I believe its the folly of gross materialists to hanker for the fulfillment of desire that the material world technically can not provide ... or alternatively sourly default to the notion of an impersonal universe of no ultimate consequence (with the same said desires spoken before hand raging not-all-the-time -so-quietly in the background if they haven't yet already culminated fully into turning to ash in the mouths of the said parties) with a good measure of cerebral pretensions about civil justice for good press coverage/income protection
What you need or desire has no bearing whatsoever on the actuality of our condition. The sooner we face up to the material world, the sooner we recognise our insignificance then the sooner we will forgo the obsequious cringe that proclaims our inadequacies and forces intellect into subservience to an imaginary capricious provider who may help if everyone kowtows deeply enough. Allied with your presumption to messiahship, your pretensions would be so utterly laughable if they weren't so utterly preposterous.
which, for some funny reason, never acts as anything more than a momentarily reprieve in the standard atmosphere of antagonism that dictates the mainstay of affairs in the material world
Followers of current affairs and history are already aware of the main component of that antagonism. Its elimination through education may take centuries but eventually it will happen. The progress of humankind to maturity, rationallity and reason is inexorable, providing you don't succeed in destroying humankind to prove how peaceful religious faith can be.
It will probably require a bit more diligence on your side of things
I promise to try harder.
OP: The only problem is that there is no universally accepted idea as to what that "better life for people alive in the present and for future descendants" is or should be.
Biggles'OP: That's not necessarily an insoluble dilemma.
Wynn: So how do you propose to solve this problem?
Biggles now: It appears you have not read my posts and understood them. I will encapsulate for you. The process is a centuries-long one of education in the philosophy of the Golden Rule and the anthropological study of its recognition as humans evolved. Its roots are deeply embedded in our psyche and thus, will eventually prevail over the tenets of religious faith.
Biggles: But if there is one point in this question that is certain it is that religion is no solution. Its bigotry, exclusivity and misogyny, its pettiness and the conceit it generates in the believer will prevent forever its being a solution to anything.
Wynn: I guess then that, for example, people who have two functioning kidneys, and who refuse to give one away to a person with kidney failure, are then also bigoted, petty, conceited etc.
IOW, it's in the nature of material life that resources are scarce, and it is impossible to distribute them evenly to everyone without thereby causing harm in the process.
Biggles now: I'll forgive you for jumping to irresponsible conclusions. But it is a pity that your brain muscle is not so well exercised as your leg muscles. I recognise religious charity as one tainted but significant redeeming feature of faith. I invite you to read again what I wrote and note particularly that I said nothing as to generosity and compassion. Though I will note that these features seem to live quite comfortably in the minds of the faithful with those features I had previously noted.
As to an equality in the distribution of resources; Economics and logistics, while most excellent fields of endeavour and reseach, are, to be as kind as possible, peripheral to the topic. Though I do agree that inequality in wealth distribution [which includes resources] is a major factor for unrest and envy and causing violence in many parts of our world. I am suggesting that the universally applied Golden Rule will eventually be more successful than religious faith
Biggles: Nature has no remit to care for us. It will not mourn our extinction. It will thrive and prosper without us.
Wynn: Really? So who is speaking on behalf of nature? Surely just some men.
Biggles now: I am relating what I have observed of nature and our universe from a viewpoint that is unquestionably within nature and within the universe. No other view is possible from humankind for we are a minor and inessential component of both. We owe it to ourselves and to generations that follow that we strive to be the most valuable component of nature so that nature is our ally and not a foe with whom we are constantly at odds.
"Our loyalties are to the species and the planet. We speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves but to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring." Carl Sagan
Wynn: What do Owen's opponents say?
Biggles now: They must have been so thin on the ground that it wasn't worth the effort to seek them out. There can be little doubt that such a formidable social reformer acquired a few opponents along the way. There can be equally little doubt that he acquired the gratitude, admiration and esteem of multitudes within all classes of society. If anyone had anything disparaging of him, they kept it to themselves apparantly.
Yes. You are correct.
However, you are wrong to say there is no God. See this thread.
I don't think I purport to be either anymore when it comes to this site: I prefer discussions to be fruitful rather than frivolous, and there are fewer and fewer things on this site worth discussing where I have not seen the arguments (for or against) before in one guise or another.
But it's your opinion: you're entitled to it, no matter how irrelevant.
Separate names with a comma.