Philosophy Now Forum

Wyman wrote:Most suicides I think. Nihilists.

I doubt there's any evidence to show that nihilists commit suicide any more than religionists.

Wyman wrote: Faith in nothing breeds violence to oneself. .

How do you work that out?

Or is it the workings of a feeble American brain that can't understand how to live without making up some shit about the world to feel whole?

Wyman wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:... Thus, scientifically, Krishnamurti is simply wrong. ...

Not really, as he didn't say "war" did he, he said "violence" and the history of all religions shows a continued pattern of violence towards those within and without the respective faith. Even more so with the theist religions as they can brook no other 'God'.

Yah. The connection between war and violence is reeeeeally tough to make. Yah.

Faith in nothing breeds violence to oneself. Better you then me.

Actually, that does make some sense...

I have not found that those who claim they have no "faith" at all are particularly well-adjusted human beings. In additional to their lack of self-knowledge, they're generally unhappy, uncharitable and generally self-centred folks.

And that's statistically observable too -- how many Atheist charities, hospitals, educational foundations, humanitarian aid programs and so forth can you mention? I'll bet I can give you ten by people of faith for every one you can even find by research.

Immanuel Can wrote:Yah. The connection between war and violence is reeeeeally tough to make. Yah.

Oh! Stopped being scared your bastard of a 'God' will punish you for talking to me then.

Actually, that does make some sense...

I have not found that those who claim they have no "faith" at all are particularly well-adjusted human beings. In additional to their lack of self-knowledge, they're generally unhappy, uncharitable and generally self-centred folks. ...

You don't get out enough then and is this a very charitable thought? How Christian of you. Me, I've found those with faith a fairly stingy bunch who only give to look good and are a particularly pompous and sanctimonious lot. I watch them pass by the homeless every Sunday on their way to church with nary a glance.

And that's statistically observable too -- how many Atheist charities, hospitals, educational foundations, humanitarian aid programs and so forth can you mention? I'll bet I can give you ten by people of faith for every one you can even find by research.

And I'll bet there's an agenda behind every one of them, not least that you do it to get eternal servitude at the feet of your 'Lord'. The history of the Christian church is replete with child and female abuse at the hands of the charitable.

The irony is that it's the poor who give the most to the needy.

Atheists who give more,
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20111125

Immanuel Can wrote:Rubbish. Atheists killed 148 million in the last century alone, mostly in the name of purges, "reeducation" and the Brave New World. And many of their victims were not even people of "faith," though some certainly were.

So how did "faith" cause all that?

It's an empirically absurd quotation.

You skip the fact that both Stalin and Hitler were the product of a strict Christian upbringing. They taught them well apparently.

Arising_uk wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Rubbish. Atheists killed 148 million in the last century alone, mostly in the name of purges, "reeducation" and the Brave New World. And many of their victims were not even people of "faith," though some certainly were.

So how did "faith" cause all that?

It's an empirically absurd quotation.

You skip the fact that both Stalin and Hitler were the product of a strict Christian upbringing. They taught them well apparently.

Do they strike you as adhering to the Golden rule? They didn't do it in the name of Jesus.

Wyman wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Wyman wrote:Faith in nothing breeds violence to oneself. Better you then me.

Who has faith in nothing?

Most suicides I think. Nihilists.

Most suicides aren't nihilists. They are people with many issues closer to home and immediate than philosophical. What a generalized, silly thing to say. I have faith in very little, yet I care for myself while I'm still here.

Dontaskme wrote:Islam were the pioneers of every informational technological advancements we see in the world today. They were experts in their field who had minds that were before their time, who made the west look like they were living in the dark ages in comparison.
The west were purportedly to have stolen their genius and innovative ideas passing them off as their own, subduing the humbly obedient and hospitable muslim's in the process. A true warrior of peace is not afraid to die for truth and justice. Islam are true warriors of peace and love.

Not sure what ISIS is all about though? .........maybe Islam and the west are in collusion to bring about the one world order, and chaos has to be part of that order for lasting change and a better standard of living for all...but who knows what the heck is going on? It's almost like the ultimate battle between good V evil has to be fought, but then wouldn't this battle be a violation of our human rights and free will to live and believe in who and what we want to be and do, as long as it's not harming another being?

The last thing the world want's is to fall into an oppressive society, neither does it want a world of unmitigated liberty free from obligation.

I don't see how a one world order would work...I don't see how the alternative would work either, can't even see how human beings living together in perfect harmony would ever work period!!!

I guess we're all just muddling through life the best we can and that's all we can do. If it all blows up in our face then that's what ourselves have willed as a collective.

No, it was the Arabs.

[Edited bt iMod]

Wyman wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Wyman wrote:Faith in nothing breeds violence to oneself. Better you then me.

Who has faith in nothing?

Most suicides I think. Nihilists.

I think it will be discovered that most people who want to commit suicide have lost hope, and the ones who have committed suicide had lost all hope.

I can not, yet, see how having faith in nothing is even possible, but not having any faith I do not think would lead to suicide thoughts. What not having any faith, in something else, may actually lead to, create, or cause is more faith, or belief, in one's own Self.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:....That is HOW we can and WILL find truth, also in and through the process of Wanting, to change, Honestly and Openly who we are, for the better, WHO we actually are IS discovered and realized, also.

I'd love to respond, but...the sheer volume of your response is daunting, as I have limited time on this forum, and I suspect others have limited time to follow.

I much prefer to deal with things in subject-specific bites, and I think it makes others much better able to read what we discuss and to participate themselves.

Perhaps we can both become more concise. With what part of your previous offering would you like to start? Just cut-and-paste, and I'll reply on point to that.

Thanks.

I would like to start at the beginning and move on from there looking at and into everything, but I understand you have limited time on this forum so you can start wherever you like.

Dalek Prime wrote:Do they strike you as adhering to the Golden rule? They didn't do it in the name of Jesus.

Do unto others? Maybe they were doing just that from their formative experiences of Christianity.

Melchior wrote:No, it was the Arabs.

[Edited bt iMod]

How do you explain all the foreign fighters?

ken wrote:I would like to start at the beginning and move on from there looking at and into everything, but I understand you have limited time on this forum so you can start wherever you like.

Fair enough.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:A "religion" is not something that mysteriously appeared and overrides all human beings. Every religion is just an ideology devised/inspired, through human beings, and then taught through word of mouth of, or in written words from and to, human beings. Religions are ever changing things. They are not fixed things.

Nice assumptions. Now prove them.

ken wrote:Which ones, exactly, do you perceive to be assumptions?

Okay. First, that the term "religion" means anything more than "the entire group of things people believe, except Atheism." In other words, that "religion" fails to recognize any important distinction between vastly different belief systems, and ought to be interrogated further before it is treated as informative of anything. It's a meaningless "catch-all".

Secondly, that whatever is meant by "religion," ALL of them are equally "just an ideology devised through human beings." That not one of them is an expression of truth or the facts as they actually stand. That needs to be shown.

Thirdly, that religions are transmitted by "word of mouth" primarily. For the record actually shows that some are "oral" traditions, as we say, and some are "written" traditions: and words on a page do not move around the way oral expressions do, so it makes a big difference to how reliably we know what the particular tradition actually originally said. Moreover, some are attended by things like eyewitness testimony and independent historical evidence, whereas others are only a version of events reported by one man, or even by his successors after his death but not witnessed by them. We need to distinguish the quality of the evidence there. Is "word of mouth" the actual way of transmitting all "religions"?

Fourthly, you need to show that whatever "religions" you mean, none of them are supposed to be "fixed," but all are supposed to be "ever changing," and thus to show that "ever changingness" (in whatever respect you mean that) is a quality all that can rightly be called a "religion" must have.

That's four major assumptions that you deliver as if we should all agree. Okay, if we should all agree, there must be reasons why you suppose those four things to be true. I was asking how you'd prove them -- to yourself or us.

That's substantial, isn't it? You can see why I didn't just tackle your whole message. There was a lot to discuss, even with point #1 there.

henry quirk wrote:Well, the nutter is just another imperfect, limited, creature while god is (presumably) perfect and unlimited. The nutter has a limited, imperfect, understanding and is therefore motivated in a limited, imperfect, way while god, with his perfection and infinitude, has a perfect understanding and motivation. So, presumably, if god wants to slaughter, he has excellent reasons.

And they are morally good reasons, according to Immanuel Can. He wants me to believe that good and beautiful people I have known and loved, and countless others that I never met, but admire, are, at this moment, being subjected to some appalling torture. Not only that, but I should praise a god who has it in his power to stop it, but doesn't. In addition, my only escape from a similar fate is to kiss the immortal and invisible arse of this psychopath. I'd rather take the torture.

Henry Quirk wrote:And if that doesn't work for you, consider this: what we know of god comes largely through supposedly inspired writings, that is, a perfect infinity dictated stuff to a number of limited, flawed, monkey-things. Not surprising, then, the end result often reflects human bias, dream, and nightmare as much as it does god's intent(ions).

Indeed. It's a point I've made frequently; people create gods in their own image. It is infantile narcissism.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:I would like to start at the beginning and move on from there looking at and into everything, but I understand you have limited time on this forum so you can start wherever you like.

Fair enough.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:A "religion" is not something that mysteriously appeared and overrides all human beings. Every religion is just an ideology devised/inspired, through human beings, and then taught through word of mouth of, or in written words from and to, human beings. Religions are ever changing things. They are not fixed things.

Nice assumptions. Now prove them.

ken wrote:Which ones, exactly, do you perceive to be assumptions?

Okay. First, that the term "religion" means anything more than "the entire group of things people believe, except Atheism." In other words, that "religion" fails to recognize any important distinction between vastly different belief systems, and ought to be interrogated further before it is treated as informative of anything. It's a meaningless "catch-all".

But I never assumed any thing like that. Why did you assume that is what I assumed?

Immanuel Can wrote:Secondly, that whatever is meant by "religion," ALL of them are equally "just an ideology devised through human beings." That not one of them is an expression of truth or the facts as they actually stand. That needs to be shown.

In the first one you describe what you, yourself, assumed I was assuming 'religion' meant, now you have no idea what I meant when I said 'religion'. You assumption in the first one is null and void by you now having no idea what I meant by 'religion'.

By the way your assumption here is wrong also. The truth is ALL of them, in fact, could ALL be an expression of truth or the facts as they actually stand. I NEVER said any otherwise and I especially NEVER assumed anything like your suggesting/assuming here. In fact I am pretty sure they are ALL somehow an expression of some truth or some of the facts as they actually stand, BUT, they are ALL still ideas devised through human beings. Do you think/assume that anything else, besides human beings, decide what is truth or the facts as they actually stand? Any concept of truth or the facts as they stand has to come from some sort of perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact. This idea, perspective, viewpoint, or any other form of seeing and understanding ALL come through or devised through thought. ALL truth or facts are devised through or in thought of through human beings and then expressed taught to human beings. ALL religions were probably once an expression of truth and/or the facts as they stand/appeared to stand, but, through misinterpretations, miscommunication, etc., that truth and fact as it stood gets lost and thus the expression also gets lost.

Immanuel Can wrote:Thirdly, that religions are transmitted by "word of mouth" primarily.

When did I ever say that? How could you even come to this assumption.

Immanuel Can wrote: For the record actually shows that some are "oral" traditions, as we say, and some are "written" traditions:

Which is EXACTLY what I said.

Immanuel Can wrote: and words on a page do not move around the way oral expressions do, so it makes a big difference to how reliably we know what the particular tradition actually originally said.

That may be true, but it only works if and when the original text is available. Also, unless the actual writer is still living there is no way of knowing for sure in what context what is written is actually and truly meant. Just look at how wrong your interpretations and assumptions of what I have written just here are so far, now imagine if you were relaying what I wrote through "oral" traditions or "written" traditions. the actual message could be completely lost. Your mis-interpretations and wrong assumptions could completely ruin what I actually meant. And, that was in just only four short sentences that you have completely misunderstood Me.

I think you will find that how big a difference you are implying may not be that big after all. Just see how many actual meanings of any word in any dictionary actually means the exact same now as it did when it was originally written. For example if I now said you are 'gay' would I mean the same thing as I would have if I said it just a relatively few short years ago? The meaning of any written words can change so much and/or so frequently that we may never really know for sure its original meaning. Without the original text with the original writer the "tradition" meaning could be lost just through one person, let alone thousands upon thousands of years and people translating and transferring the "original" meaning.

By the way ALL religions and even ALL written words actually do come from may not necessarily be 'word of "mouth"' but from "voices" within the head. These even seemingly easy to understand voices/words or knowing/knowledge can be misinterpreted and written incorrectly or hard to explain in easily understood words in writings.

Immanuel Can wrote:Moreover, some are attended by things like eyewitness testimony and independent historical evidence, whereas others are only a version of events reported by one man, or even by his successors after his death but not witnessed by them. We need to distinguish the quality of the evidence there.

But has been proven many times eyewitness accounts can be completely different from what really happened.

Immanuel Can wrote: Is "word of mouth" the actual way of transmitting all "religions"?

It has been, before AND after paintings and writings came into existence. 'Word of mouth' is an actual way most thoughts/knowledge is repeated, relayed, transmitted and transferred between human beings. But I guess that "word of mouth" may be becoming less of the actual way of transmitting all religions and all thoughts and knowledge with the invent of the internet, social media and text messaging. People may talk less by 'word of mouth' messaging nowadays but talk more by 'word of written' messages. It is still the same principle, though, of passing or transmitting thoughts from within one human body on to and into another human body.

By the way I have NEVER said "word of mouth" was the only way of transmitting all "religions", but transmitting all "religions" is done only through words, through human beings, with messages orally, written, painted, etc.

Immanuel Can wrote:Fourthly, you need to show that whatever "religions" you mean, none of them are supposed to be "fixed," but all are supposed to be "ever changing," and thus to show that "ever changingness" (in whatever respect you mean that) is a quality all that can rightly be called a "religion" must have.

Easily, can you name one anything, let alone one religion, that is fixed and unchangeable?

Language, itself, is one very dynamically changeable thing, ALL religions are best understood and passed on through some sort of language, so what a particular tradition actually originally said, well would have probably been changed, and changed in more ways than some people would like to imagine.

Immanuel Can wrote:That's four major assumptions that you deliver as if we should all agree.

That was three major assumptions that you made, which were wrong.

And, by the way, you just made another assumption again here, which again is totally wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: Okay, if we should all agree,

Stop assuming I am saying or have ever said "we should all agree", go back and re-read what I actually did write.

Immanuel Can wrote: there must be reasons why you suppose those four things to be true.

If your assumptions were right, which they mostly are not, then the reason why I would "suppose" the things I say is true, is nearly the exact same reason the things you say, you also "suppose" are true. That reason is that is what I see and/or think, based on all of my past experiences, is to be true. The difference between you and I though is I NEVER believe what I say to be true, and, I do not want nor like to ever assume anything.

Immanuel Can wrote: I was asking how you'd prove them -- to yourself or us.

Hopefully I just have already, but I may need more evidence, proof, and/or supporting sound, valid arguments for some people.

Immanuel Can wrote:That's substantial, isn't it?

Not really. I am prepared to and enjoy going into much, much more detail and depth.

Immanuel Can wrote: You can see why I didn't just tackle your whole message.

Yes, you already explained that you have limited time here in this forum, so if you only want to take this in tiny little steps like you are here, then that is totally understandable.

Immanuel Can wrote:There was a lot to discuss, even with point #1 there.

I am sure if you did away with, and thus took out, all of your assumptions and just asked Me directly, straight forward questions for clarity first, then there would actually be a lot less to discuss. If, and when, you do this, i think you will find that what you think I am saying and meaning is actually NOT what I am saying and meaning.