The Hypochristian and the Bully
The Urban Dictionary defines the "Hypochristian" ...
"Contraction of the words 'hypocrite' and 'Christian'. Any Christian who claims to follow the teaching of Christ but whose belief structure, values and/or actions directly contradict such a claim. Typically, hypochristians support things such as the Death Penalty, engage in heavily in proselytizing and judgement of others whose beliefs differ from theirs. Additionally, they often oppose things that go against their beliefs such as gay marriage, evolution, and other scientific law amidst wide amounts of ethical, scientific, moral, and logical arguments (even within their own supposed claim of beliefs) that would prove otherwise. Hypochristians are best categorized as individuals so stubbornly and fanatically devoted to their beliefs that they border on sheer stupidity."
Yesterday, Stephen Colbert did a scathing report on the Michigan Senate Republicans amendments to an anti-bullying bill (SB 137) in which the bill under subsection 8 does not prohibit statements of religious belief or moral conviction. The language is claimed to advocate a "license to bully" which Republicans deny.
Douglas Laylock, University of Virginia Law School Professor said...
“Taking it for what they probably meant, instead of what they said, how should we understand this First Amendment caveat? It is not reasonably interpreted to mean that one student can bully another as long as the bullier has a sincere religious motivation. Rather, it should be taken to mean that a statement of religious belief or moral conviction, made within the bounds of civility, is not bullying – even if the recipient of the statement claims to have foreseeably suffered great emotional distress by being subjected to this disagreeable opinion,” he said. “Can the bullier repeat the statement over and over even after the target makes clear that he does not want to continue this conversation? Generally no, in the law of workplace harassment, and I would think not in the bullying context either. Students have a right to express their views and to try to persuade people who disagree with them; the initial approach or the first statement cannot be labeled as bullying. That’s what section 8 ineptly tries to say. When a speaker persists after it becomes clear that the conversation is unwelcome, and persists to the point that he violates the bill’s vague definition of bullying (or a better drafted definition in school policies implementing this bill), then he is bullying despite his religious motivation.”Is that Hypo or Hyper there is a huge difference which is applied.
If you look closely, you'll notice the very first line in the explanation...
"Contraction of the words 'hypocrite' and 'Christian'."
This forum is over two months old, so they do not want me to reply. So I will not reply.
What ATM laid here is spot on. Who cares about the conclusion or even the definition. What is important to notice is the insanity of our world. If this world is all somebody's got, they should just give up.If that were the case, you would be forced to live in a cave and eat nuts and berries.
Bull, ATM I would make more money than any God and be a hedonist. I would simply give up being good.
So, anyone who doesn't follow your god is bad. Hilarious lie. And, you claim to spread good news. See how your faith accomplishes little else than conflict?I am just saying that if there ain't one there is no reason to be good. Humanity and moralism is trumped by happy and pleasure. Get my stuff now and he who dies with the most toys wins. I was trying to fit in with the hypocrite concept, backwards. If you do not believe in soul or a god, you are a hypocrite to be good.
That has to be the most childish, immature and irresponsible comment today. Well done. It is very sad that grown adults are unable to think for themselves and understand something as simple as being good.
Well that is a said state of affairs. Like ol'e Buddha said to the priest. One should be good just to be good. But to buy into that you have to believe in the wisdom of Buddha.
Someone who does not believe in anything unseen or empirical that does good is a hypocrite for their is no intrinsic value in doing good. Plato to Ghandi to Descarte to Wittgenstein all tried to say it otherwise but concluded there is no good reason to be good. I think even Einstein dabbled in the subject.I think it depends on ones definition of "being good". It's pretty subjective. Someone might think that a person is only good if they never curse, have casual sex, drink, fight, etc. To others it might be more about how we treat each other and the planet that determines goodness.
Beautiful. And you just treated us to good. Thank you.
No intrinsic value in being good? According to Aristotle the key to happiness is doing good. So, there is no hypocrisy in good being done by the non believer. Your post shows the hypocrisy possible with belief. If you perform for nothing more than the reward, how are you better than a trained dog?
Emile, finish reading Aristotle he concludes only good for others is accomplished by doing good. Your dog speaks well. Because he is trained.
Give us a citation from Aristotle that supports your claim???? You cannot and not from any other esteemed Philosopher.
My post made you respond, in inaccurately. Which was my purpose.
I understand that I am still only one of 600 or so people with a bachelor of Science in Philosophy. We do not take lightly your bull. You can cuddle with the bachelors or art in philosophy for they love your bull.
But true logicians see your fallaciousness.Men generally agree that the highest good attainable by action is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with happiness.
ARIST. Nico. I.4.
So, I suppose you can claim a Bachelor of Science in Philosophy; although I don't see that you are going to be able to support that claim. Or, maybe, you cheated on your exams?
But, considering the grammatical and spelling errors in your post; I'm not sure that would have done the trick.You do not show that happiness is the same as good. You may be happy doing bad. Aristotle understood pleasure. But he did not equate it with good. Try again. Pay attention here. There is no reason to do good. Good can only be justified by belief. No belief, no reason for GOOD. I do not care what you believe in, but you must believe in something in order to have a reason to do good.
Therefor someone who claims no belief and who does good is a hypocrite.First, that is ridiculous. Good creates happiness, by that quote. Did you bother to read it? I don't care if your definition of good is not the same as another person's. You didn't stipulate that it had to be.
Second, everyone has beliefs. To claim otherwise is deluding oneself.
Third, I was paying attention. I just don't happen to think you have the slightest idea what you are talking about.That is by far one of the most ridiculous things anyone can say, and couldn't be further from the truth. It shows nothing but a superiority complex built entirely on arrogance.
I must say Eric, your posts have gone seriously downhill. They would be funny if not so sad.
You attack me, not my logic. So by Aristotle my logic is true. For a man does not assail another lest he cannot find error in what he speaks.
Good is not mentioned in your quote. Happiness which should be translated pleasure is.
The Hypocrisy of not understanding why someone can be a good person and do good things without believing in god indicates just the kind of person one is. I'm glad you have your beliefs for the sake of the rest of us.
Perhaps sometimes religion stunts moral and ethical maturity.Any and all good are done toward a greater cause, which is that higher purpose.
That greater cause might be
The mind concept called God,
The community of men,
or the selfish pursuit of one particular individual
of which he alone get to determine what that greater good is.
Even a trained dog is considered better unto his master than an untrained one.
If there be any hypocrisy in this, then who is innocent? None.
If by working unto the greater cause, the individual doing the work does not receive the full benefit of that cause itself, then hypocrisy belong to that greater cause, and the man remain innocent.
And you find that that good is actually Evil.
The Greatest of men are those who combine their God concept, service unto their community and personal pursuit into to one, which would be the greatest Good unto him.
That one shall reap his reward, which is the inheritance of the Greatest of all Good.
For this is the reward of Good, in that there is no hypocrisy in it, and always gives its best.Perfect point Kess, dogs can do good for a master or because they are taught like you to do good. Only belief and Love are intrinsic reasons to do good.
give us a "reason" why you do good. You cannot. End of debate. There is no "reason" to do good. To do good requires love and belief. You are a hypocrite if you declare no belief but do good. Love and belief cannot be supported by reason. They must be supported by themselves without proof or reason or empirical data.
You Rad man and you ATM, if you do good for good's sake are hypocrites period and end of story. If you do good you lie about not loving and believing.
give us one reason why you would do good. Note, all you have done so far is attack me for this thought, that has reason behind it. I can respect your attacks on me, because they are with reason. I endanger your idiocy. Now respond with reason or admit love and belief.Oh dear, you must be so ethically/morally immature that you don't understand why someone would do good without the fear of God. Which is discussed in Kohlberg's stages of moral development below, it states that one can't understand or comprehend moral reasoning at a stage more than one stage beyond their own. So I'll do the right and good thing and help you. The mere fact you can't understand why anyone would be good without the fear of God's punishment indicates exactly your stage level. Have a look at stages 5 and 6 for your answers.
KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE: Might Makes Right
QUESTIONS: What must I do to avoid punishment? What can I do to force my will upon others?
STAGE 2: INSTRUMENTAL EXCHANGE: The Egoist
QUESTIONS: What's in it for me? What must I do to avoid pain, gain pleasure?
STAGE 3: INTERPERSONAL (TRIBAL) CONFORMITY: Good Boy/Good Girl
QUESTION: What must I do to be seen as a good boy/girl (socially acceptable)?
STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER (SOCIETAL CONFORMITY): The Good Citizen
QUESTION: What if everyone did that?
STAGE 4 ½: The Cynic
QUESTION: Why should I believe anything?
STAGE 5: PRIOR RIGHTS AND SOCIAL CONTRACT: The Philosopher/King
QUESTIONS: What is the just thing to do given all the circumstances? What will bring the most good to the largest number of people?
STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES: The Prophet/Messiah
What will foster life in its fullest for all living beings? What is justice for all?
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Koh … opment.htm
Once again, love has nothing to do with belief in God, it's a little disturbing that you don't understand that. I've been happily married for almost 25 years with three kids, I have a slew of wonderful friends and family and give both my time and money to charity. I do good because it's the right thing to do, you can't understand that because you can't understand or comprehend anything beyond one stage beyond yours.
Rad Man, what the heck is a good person? It is not a scientific explanation. It is not intrinsic or empirical. Good is a value placed based on a belief in a value system. Who cares if it is God? I do not. I base mine on love. Base yours on a doorknob, I do not care. Without belief in something there is no such thing as good. Good is not scientific or mathmatic or logic. Good can only be based in belief. So if you have no belief, you cannot believe in good.
Again, this shows your moral immaturity. Judging by the percentage of Atheists who make there way to prison, it appears your comprehension good is lacking. I'm truly sorry to be so hard on you, but your insistence that Christians only can love and be good exclusively is irrational and shows immaturity.
I made it clear that it has nothing to do with Christians. refocus boy. It has to do with belief in nothing.
I'd give it up rad man. This guy appears to be playing the part of a troll on this thread. Odd.
I think he is morally stunted and is unable to understand. It's not worth the energy. He can't see beyond himself, poor soul. I've seen way to many well educated people who are morally stunted, not that I think he is well educated. Just look at the names he's been calling me? I only hope he recognizes his issues and acts on them. He thinks good requires a belief as if I need to believe something to be kind.
Well, I do agree with the premise. Not his argument. In order to be perceived as good, by him, one has to have the same value system. But, who is to judge what is good, but the individual? By his reckoning, one must be judged by others in order to be validated. I disagree with that, except within the parameters of society. We all have to function within the law in order to coexist. Being law abiding has nothing to do with being good, individually. It has to do with actions that are perceived as good by the society one lives in.
You started a thread about a guy who was going to derail a train. By his conscience, that was good. By law, it isn't. By my value system, it isn't. I'm not advocating we allow violence and anarchy; but I do recognize that his conscience judges things differently and that, by his value system, good has been thwarted.Being good includes not hurting people. When religion teaches us to hurt others the religion should be questioned. This is where ethics and maturity comes into play and this is the part he is unable to comprehend.
I think, maybe, what you don't comprehend is that this is your value system. Add it is mine. Which doesn't make it the only value system, the right value system or what will eventually be the value system mankind adopts.
No Emily, being good by being kind and not hurting others is not just MY value system. I do however understand your perspective on this, and I realize there are cultures who are taught it's good to kill for God or country however I maintain there is a universal good, we just have to look past the propaganda and understand ethics.
You are still judging from your perspective. Your understanding.
I am in 100% agreement with you, but we simply agree. It doesn't make other perspectives wrong. They are wrong from where we stand. To say those who disagree simply don't understand ethics isn't fair to them.Sometimes people are taught to do the wrong things and to go against what they know to be right. Take the OT and the Quran for example. There are passages in both that teach people to murder others by telling them they are doing a GREATER good. This is simply manipulation and causes trauma with maturity. Why do you think the military recruits the very young? Because most people with a fully developed brain would say no if not trained to do so. Most know what is right and wrong, but for some it's conditioned out with lies.
They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. Rom 2:15
God's law is written into your heart, eh?
So, how many disobedient children have you bludgeoned to death with a rock today?Was the third one preemptive? You know, just in case?
That's just a waste. You could have kept him for later.
Well if he looked at you then that's fair. My oldest is now a full head taller than me so I have to wait until he's asleep.
Sorry, but Gods' law is not based no morals or ethics, it is based on worship and obedience. Morals and ethics only come from logic, reason and rationale, concepts that are completely devoid in religions and their followers.
On a more serious note, there is a problem with the notion that gods laws are inherently known by humanity. What about psychopaths and sociopaths? Did gods magic marker run out of ink for their hearts? They have no empathy or compassion, and a lot of times they are incapable of recognizing that what they do is wrong.
There is a fine line between lack of knowledge or recognition and a general lack of caring. Looking at the definition of both of them, It's not a lack of understanding nor recognition.. It's more of an apathy than anything. According to the dictionary, a sociopath lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. This does not equate to a lack of knowledge. The Joker comes to mind in this scenario. He knew what was right or wrong.. He simply didn't care.
I'm afraid I disagree. That only applies if the person in question agrees with you on some level. I realize this makes no sense to you, but it is possible for a person to recognize good in a way so alien to your understanding that their idea of good is your idea of bad. And there would be no way to find common ground. That does not, in their mind, make them bad. It makes you bad. You can accuse them of being morally stunted but they would consider you morally bankrupt. Not everyone considers how their actions affect others as a criteria for judging good.
Example: I'm looking at my dog at the moment; through the glass of the patio door. He thinks he is a sweet heart. I think he has Tasmanian devil DNA. The glass is the only thing protecting us from chaos. When I come in from playing with him I'm usually bruised. He is that rough. Nothing can convince him that his behavior patterns are wrong, because he honestly believes he is showing love. That doesn't make him bad. Although, I realize it makes him less than desirable as a sire to anything I don't view him as bad.
That is a dog. People are much more complex. I realize none of us are dogs. But, our perception can be so diverse that good and bad is not seen in the same light.This is about moral maturity. Your dog may be a good dog he's just ignorant and needs to understand he's hurting you. A person may think that killing is the right thing to do, but just because he thinks it's right doesn't make it right. Most of the time people have to be trained to kill because it goes against what we know is right. Militaries have been using religion to help solders kill for thousands of years. It's easier if your told God is directing the killing.
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Koh … opment.htmThrow up any link you want. No soldier I know is religious. It isn't God suggesting it is good. It is in the nature of men.
That to the side. You are arguing your idea of morality. You do realize that your understanding is not the only understanding, the correct understanding or the universal understanding. It is the understanding you and I were raised with. It is arrogance to think we are the final authority on the subject. Right and gold are obviously completely different to a jihadist. They are completely different to people in at least two third world countries I have been in long enough to have some knowledge of. Morals are generated by the society one lives in. You can't call someone morally immature because you think their morals are off base.You can't compare jihadist's or any other religious doctrines with morals and ethics because religions don't teach morals and ethics.
Yes, we are the final authority, those who use logic, reason and rationale.You know, you take way more crap than I do, and I really don't understand why. Everything you say always makes perfect sense to me.
You are the final authority? Okee dokee. That is good to know.
That is why your philosophy causes so much conflict.
Once again, your reading comprehension problem is rearing it's head. I never said I was the final authority, did I? Why can't you read what people write as opposed to what you believe they write?
????????? You wrote Yes, we are the final authority, those who use logic, reason and rationale.
Unless, at this point, you are saying that you don't use logic, reason and rationale. If so, why did you use the word 'we' in your post?Yes, please note the word "we" - notice that it is not the word "I"
"I" do hope you understand.
Simple, there are a lot of people who use logic, reason and rationale, which is where they get their morals and ethics. You'll quickly find very few of them, if any, are believers.Normally, when an individual uses the word "we", it is implied and intended to be inclusive of the individual using the term. Otherwise there is another term.. "They" or even "those"
You do understand that only applies if it supports his point. It doesn't in this case,.so it couldn't possibly apply.
I get that, but Emile concludes the term 'we' means 'I' - it doesn't.
Now you have the reading comprehension problem. You said we. That included you. You attempted to convince me it didn't, now you are trying to argue that it did. Make up your mind ATM. It's too late to salvage any dignity for yourself, but at least you could garner respect by being honest.
"We" does not mean "I", but "we" includes "you".
To help you out on this, since word definitions are not your strong suit. You said we. I said you in response. The term you is inclusive of all in the group referenced. You is not necessarily singular. But, you already knew this. The fact that you think no one else reading the exchange does also is laughable.
Not at all.. Our reading comprehension skills are too limited to see that his point is completely valid, reasonable, and logical and as such, no backpedaling needed
Where do you get that notion? You really need a remedial reading course, your ability to synthesize words is atrocious.
Everyone thinks that we are using logic, reason and rationale, and yes in this instance the word WE does include YOU!
Stop it Jerami!! ATM is always right. He has made this amply clear. What part of 'he has the moral high ground' are you not getting? Sheesh.
Sorry, you don't use logic, reason and rationale, Jerami.
You've never heard the statement "no atheists in foxholes"? I read where some solders said they they would kick them out and wouldn't trust them.
Both the OT and the Quran were used to inspire men to commit acts they wouldn't normally. Killing is something most don't want to do.
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
I am aware that in some cultures people do things they think are good, while we think them bad. If you are hurting someone and think it's good you have been misguided. Stoning a woman to death for an affair is simply wrong, but was taught by religion. The study of ethics and morality in a secular society is very real. If someone is morally immature they will act like a child. Sometimes religion stunts the growth as it doesn't inspire much thought as to right or wrong, it doesn't want you to think. That's why buddy there doesn't understand why anyone can be good without being like him. He admits to being good because of the fear of God and can't understand why someone would be good without it. Do you know how many people have asked me why do don't kill someone if I'm not afraid of God?I was banging my head against a wall on this, then I read ATM's post. I was not aware that only we are right. I need to get used to the idea of owning the moral high ground. Attempting to understand what motivates others was such a ridiculous endeavor. It is so much easier to turn my head up to look down my nose.
Will this new stance incur more chiropractic visits? I don't know, I think I'm already getting a crick in my neck from trying.I don't think your getting this. I'm not saying our society is right at all. I'm talking about individuals.
Have a look at the link and see if it makes sense.
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Koh … opment.htmI've read this before. Yes. It makes sense. Yes. I agree with it. No. You aren't getting my point. Judging others by your standards of morality is an exercise in ego. To classify them morally stunted is unfair, without a complete understanding of who they are and how they arrived at their system of values.
Out of curiosity, what level do you consider yourself at? What level would you think you are perceived at, here in this forum?Well I know I'm no Gandhi. But if I analyze my arguments it seems I've been saying pretty much what 5 says. Notice it also says most prison inmates never get past 1 or 2. All they see is pleasure or punishment which means they don't understand being good for the sake of being good. Just as buddy says we can't be good without a belief.
First, I think his primary argument was that everyone believes something. Not that belief makes you good.
Second, I honestly think and operate within the parameters of five. Which is incredibly interesting. We both think that, we disagree more than we agree on most matters here. Do you think everyone thinks that? Do we all simply want to perceive ourselves as morally mature?
And, you know the dog is thinking that how?
I can see it in his eyes?
You do have a point. But, when the tail is wagging and he is frolicking around he is happy. He is also happy when I praise him for doing what I want. Although he is naturally upbeat, he does shows signs of frustration when he doesn't get what he wants, so I do know when he is unhappy.Train him, by doing so he'll know who the boss is. Get some treats and teach him to sit and wait to get it. If he's not gentle he gets nothing. If he is showing signs of frustration he doesn't understand the pecking order.
I missed this one. Been there. Done that. He is very attentive at those moments. However, play time and the moments reserved to show affection are still a difficult time for him. As crazy as it sounds, I prefer him to be who he is. He shouldn't have to perform at every moment.
You are full of it. You do not address the issue. I never said you believed or did not in God. I said if you believe in anything because good is a belief system.
You cannot discuss because you are <personal attack removed>.Screw that Rod boy, it is not a belief in God I speak of and I made that very clear. If you do not believe in anything you cannot believe in good. Good requires a belief. If you cannot get that you are not on track.
(sigh) and
The "Urban Dictionary"
............Here's what Wikipedia says about it, in part------------
"Urban Dictionary is a Web-based dictionary that contains more than seven million definitions as of 2 March 2013.[2] Submissions are regulated by volunteer editors and rated by site visitors. Time's Anita Hamilton included it on her 50 best websites of 2008 list.[3][4]
Contents
1 History
2 Content
3 Quality control
4 Traffic and users
5 See also
6 Books
7 References
8 External links
History
The site was founded in 1999 by Aaron Peckham while he was a freshman computer science major at California Polytechnic State University. One of the first definitions on the site was "the man", defined as "the faces of 'the establishment' put in place to 'bring us down'".[5]
The website was referenced in a 2011 District Court complaint by ATF agents to document the meaning of the vulgarism "murk" as used in a criminal threat. It also consists of names and slang.[6]
Content: {end of quote}
Before you use the "Urban Dictionary" to try to create a legitimate discussion, please go to a legit source (if indeed there are any legit sources left) and provide actual legitimate words and definitions instead of riding the coattails of a group of people whose ignorance and rebelliousness causes them to coin insulting words that actually would fit themselves better than their intended targets.this coming from the person who doesn't think that actual science is a legitimate source? This post is so funny I almost dropped the computer.
JM who the hell are you speaking of? Man learn how to comment! Say you you are responding to or is that beneath your brain.
what the hell are you talking about? I responded to the person that I was replying to, and it's right in line with the comment I made a response to. This coming from a christian who is all about love and acceptance, cursing at the atheist? Great example. I can feel the love.
Not "liking" the definition does not preclude it's relevance, poignant in it's delivery. If anything, your post made it legitimate.
No, it didn't make it legitimate at all.
You could talk about a myriad of falsified or misleading subjects, but just because someone replies to it doesn't legitimatize that subject or that action, nor the accusations included in it and surrounding it.
- Emile Rposted 12 years ago
0Your title is misleading. I thought this thread was going to be a joke about an evangelical and an atheist.
I think it's the duty of legislators to word things as confusingly as possible. It leaves ample room for money to be made by lawyers arguing what they meant.Can't judge a book by it's cover, can you?
The Right has been charged with specifically putting in the language that allows them the freedom to bully anyone anytime, as long as it can be justified as a religious belief or even a moral conviction, very much like we see from Christians here.
Do you mean it's unfortunate the Right has been charged for something they didn't do? Or the Right has been charged for some unfortunate thing they did do?
Sorry, that's not quite how I wanted it to come out. I've changed it now. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't mean to argue. You could be right. But, I took the statement you included by Douglas Laylock to mean that they simply poorly worded the law. That what was actually meant was that religious pestering would be considered bullying if it continued. Did I misunderstand?
Oh yes, Laylock does say the language is poorly worded, which is why it needs changing, much to the chagrin and dissatisfaction of the Right, who are very pleased with it's current state.
Who was it that said "Ya cain't fix stupid" I think it was Lary the Cable Guy, and he was right.
Ya can't legislate it away either.
Cockroaches and stupidity has survived everything that the earth has thrown at it sense the beginning of time.
There are some things that we just have to accept as being there.
Don't gotta agree with it;
Stupidity is kinda like cow patys out in the pastor. We can step in them when they are still wet, or walk around them. Or .. we can wait till the sun dries them out, turn them over and find fish bait.Are you actually suggesting we should accept the Right's language?
I thought you were suggesting we turn the Right into fish bait.
I don't know which? the rights or the lefts,
I just want to go fishing.As long as it's only politicians we're using to make the bait; I guess it doesn't matter what party they come from.
Well I went back and read what I said.
I thought that I said, "that which they are sitting on (standing for) is what the fish bait feeds off of. Ho Ho
Edit ... just stoped by the house for a bite to eat gotta go and renew tags on a PU truck. back in a bit
Well really, I feel sorry for the pastor. I hate to think though how you might have stepped on a cow paddy in him.
He might be attempting to say that if we do not have love or do not believe in Love then how "good" can it really be? Can we have LOVE and not believe in love? If we do love or believe in love we can not say that we do not believe in "anything".
If I were to say that you have to believe in "something" ... many people would think that I am implying that you have to believe a creator of some kind, when I am not.Insightful Jerami, but we all know what's going on.
sorry for butting in. Sometimes I'm a little slower than most people. With not geeting on here consistently.
No no no. you are certainly no slower than anyone. I know you saw something I didn't and are trying to let me know. I always read every comment you make wether I agree are not, you've got my respect.
The thing called love becomes obvious when we look at the way the human thinks. We have a conscious and a subconscious mind. The conscious mind is the deliberation side. It takes new information and dissects it, processes it, categorizes it, and files it away. The person who does martial arts knows that one uses the conscious mind to learn the art, but the art must become automatic to you if you want o be able to use it.
Same with riding a bike. Thinking about it is important when you are learning, but thinking and deliberating are too slow when you need to react. The better you become at riding the more automatic it gets.
The same can be said for any job we do well. The musician who has to think about the next note almost invariably misses a beat.
So in effect, the consciousness is used to educate the subconscious instinctive side of our minds so that actions can be quick and automatic when needed. That’s how we have survived. We have been able to educate our instinct. We can make information so much a part of us that based on it we can change our automatic responses.
We actually, as the above sentence implies, make things part of ourselves. We acquire new skills and new information and they become part of who we are.
In fact the human has two aspects: One aspect tries to make things part of itself, the other rejects things. If you hate math it will never be part of your life. If you hate another human being you are saying very literally most of the time that you do not want them to be part of your life.
This is, of course, the dynamic behind the us vs them attitude humans so often adopt. An attitude that spawns terror and horror and atrocities.
Love is something felt by human and other life forms. It is relational. You love your wife, your children, your relatives, your friends. All these forms of love are different because they allow different aspects of those relationships to become a literal part of you.
Yes, love is spawned by an attraction. You like the way someone smiles, you find them interesting, easy to get along with. All those attributes contribute to creating love between two people. But the part that is love and results in the desire for commitment, is the desire to make the other person part of who you are. Part of yourself.I agree with everything you said .. except that "I Think" you left out one itty bitty part.
The subconcious part of the brain can be stronger than the concious part of the mind.
You can love a person even when you logically forbid yourself to do so. I am not comparing the two as being the same when I say this. You loving the person that you are with is not totaly a decision that you analiticaly chose to do.
I think that we do not truly find peace of mind unless the subconcious and the concious minds by whatever means avaliable come together as one which is to say ... becoming one with self. That being said, unless you are one with self it is imposible to truly become one with another.
If I am truly at peace with myself, how can I declare upon another? I don't think I could unless I logically determined they are in the process of destroying my oneness of mind.
OR SOMETHING LIKE THATI like it and you are right.
I read a while ago about a split brain patient who both loved and hated her husband. One arm would try to stop the other arm from hitting him. One side is conscious and the other is not. For most of us this is internal conflict, but for her it was a battle of two brains.Well what is obvious about this is that the subconscious is where we live most of the time. We do most things on automatic while using the conscious mind to think about other things and occasionally do some error control.
The two are not separate to begin with. It is just easier to talk about the mind that way. The subconscious is pure instinct. But again, instinct educated by our environment, helped along by the conscious, as well as predisposed by our genetics.
But you are right. Relationships where in one person does not like themselves are usually destructive as much as anything else. There are of course many variables in the dynamic between any two people. But the pattern I outlined is the same any way you slice it.
Being one with yourself is simply solving the majority of your inner issues and being able to feel good in your own skin. That can be hard to accomplish for some. The younger you are the worse it is by and large, but some people never come to terms with themselves and are never at peace with themselves.
The point is that the reason for love is the same as the reason you learn new skills The pattern and mechanism are the same. There really is no such thing as a selfless act because all acts are of and by the self, for the self. Even love is exceptionally selfish.
That is to say what could be more selfish than wanting someone to be part of who you are? It is by no means a bad thing. I'm just pointing out the means by which love comes about.
And yes of course you can fall in love subconsciously because the feeling of love as all emotions, come from the subconscious as a precursor to conscious thought.. They initiate it most of the time.
They tell us that something is being seen as positive or negative by the subconscious. They most often represent needs, real and imagined.
Loving your work and making it part of your life, making any interests part of you, making other people part of you, it is all the same thing in different form, so to speak. .
Sometimes I go nuts while agreeing with "some" of what most everyone posts here in these forums
I understand why you say and believe the things you do. I agree with more of them than you think.
But at the same time, I agree (a little) with what the other guy is saying too.
Everybody is a little right and a little wrong at the same time.
Everybody needs a little tweeking. always will , ... cause we keep untweeking ourselves.- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
This is kind of a funny subject to argue over. So one thinks it takes a belief to be kind, one doesn't... who cares, maybe just be kind, right? It seems like there is nothing we wont debate.
You incredibly correct Beth. But what do you do when someone says you can't be good without a belief and if you are good you have a belief, but wont admit it?
You try to do the right and good thing and help the poor soul for he is lacking in understanding.It isn't even a debate. It is pure nonsense to believe goodness has anything to do with religions, quite the contrary.
How so, Emile? Is that based on the delusion that everyone operates on a belief system?
I wonder if that's just going to needle at you until she answers. lol
No. She said something to the effect that we just like to debate.
Yes, slap the kids around to keep them in line, just like God would do. Because, he's a loving God.
There's this Simpson episode where these twin girls are making fun of Lisa.
They call her a tree hugger and tell her if she loves vegetable so much she should marry a carrot.
Lisa, losing all hope of reasoning with them, finally agrees that yes, indeed she is going to marry a carrot.
The twins squeal with delight that Lisa has admitted that she is going to marry a carrot.
This is pretty much how it goes when I make jokes around you. So enjoyable.So, you actually believe your jokes are that clever that we don't obviously know they are incredibly lame jokes?
That would be redefining marriage and destroy its sanctity. We've all heard that's wrong, wrong, wrong.
Oh no your fine, I just had to prevent myself from saying something un-atheist like.
I haven't posted on the forums for a good while...But reading through this thread brings to mind something...
Morals and ethics are determined by society in a given area. Deep down we are nothing more than domesticated animals...If we took away all of our societal influences there are those of us who would behave quite the contrary to what we consider normal human behavior.
Just my thoughts...And it is a good thought. Hopefully it makes sense to others. It's basically what I've been attempting to get across. Without much success.
I'm not sure you are entirely on the mark here. Not long ago we were taught slavery was just. But some thought it was not, mostly the slaves of course, but even some who were not slaves understood it was wrong even though they were taught it was just.
Even a shorter time ago women and black could not vote, they were taught they could not vote, but they understood it was wrong.
I have a friend who grew up in South Africa's apartheid. He was labels coloured so he was able to work along side whites, but was not permitted to go to office parties. He was taught it was write, but knew it was wrong.
I could go on an on, but I think you should be able to get the point.True...But it took someone to change the thinking process of society for these types of things to no longer be considered as something "moral" or "ethical"...
The same can be said and done with anything that one person feels is "right" or "wrong"...
Looks at the LGBT community...Society is slowly changing its stance on that as well...
we: Pronoun
- Used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category
I: Pronoun
Used to refer to oneself.
Does that help?Why, when you know someone was right and you were in the wrong, do you continue to attempt to sidestep? You are saying what was obvious in the first place, and what you denied; until too manypeople pointed out for you to continue to pretend you were in the right.
Why do you do this?No, many people are not pointing anything out, it is YOU, the one who has some of the worst reading comprehension skills here.
And which dictionary did you get that from?
From Dictionary.com:
we [wee] Show IPA
plural pronoun, possessive our or ours, objective us.
1.
nominative plural of I.
2.
(used to denote oneself and another or others): We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses.
3.
(used to denote people in general): the marvels of science that we take for granted.
4.
(used to indicate a particular profession, nationality, political party, etc., that includes the speaker or writer): We in the medical profession have moral responsibilities.
From merriam-webster.com:
we pronoun, plural in construction \ˈwē\
Definition of WE
1
: I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural — compare i, our, ours, us
Each definition speaks to plural.. meaning more than just one which is a plural pronoun of I..
Does this help you??That's what I said, now you can direct your post to Emile, who does not understand.
It can be contributed to poor reading comprencion when we read what we ourselves wrote and do no understand that which we have written.
And yes ... everyone knows that this was a self inclusive remark. And I don't use spellcheck.I get a kick out of ATM. Sometimes, I think it's a game to see if he can argue someone into believing the opposite of what makes sense. That's when I'm being charitable.
No Emile, it is your extremely poor reading comprehension skills, which continue to plague these forums time and again.
By definition, "we" includes me, but "we" is not solely me. Do you understand yet?
Everyone understands that. Your reading skills need honing. If you don't know what you means, this explains your problem at this point.
That is your delusion ATM. Anyone else reading through this exchange would not be so deluded.
Others here don't have the same reading comprehension problems as you.
Funny, because everyone who has chimed in sees you are wrong. I guess, only those who agree with you can be right. You are never, ever wrong. Your ego is blinding you to reason ATM. I'm laughing.
"Funny, because everyone who has chimed in sees you are wrong."
When we had a debate and when everyone chimed in saw you as wrong, I never saw you retracting your words and admitting you wrong, but you left the forum with your "obstinance". I guess you are never wrong either.Not only me and ATM, but Rad man, wilderness, gmwilliams, Zelkiiro, Slart O'Brien.....are all the same person!!!
You meant RADMAN forgot to add MeliSSa... haha! I have caught you in your debauchery and revealed you to the world. It was only a matter of time.
edit... oh... I thought Radman posted that list... never mind. I will catch you later.
Refresh my memory. What was the debate on?
Actually, I think I do remember. I stand behind my assessment of your statements. You can't compare people from third world countries and aborigines to animals. I find it offensive and will say so again if you insist on doing it.That is your obstinancy, or might I say idiocy? I said all human beings irrespective of third or first or fourth world are animals and you are still insisting that I said something which I didn't in spite of me repeatedly showing the post and RadMan and, I think it was, wilderness repeatedly pointing to you that I didn't say any such things as you accuse. "Funny, because everyone who has chimed in sees you are wrong." but still you keep on insisting that it is not the person who said it that knows better but the one who read and misunderstood it.[ If everybody had misunderstood, it might have been my fault, but you are the only one who misunderstood]
So if I may quote the bible, "remove the log from your eye Emile before removing the speck ...."
PS:
"compare people from third world countries and aborigines to animals. "
So what are you proposing, that I'm "comparing" myself with an animal(for I'm from the third world)? So what am I comparing you, the whites and westerners with, gods? You have a very high opinion about yourself Emile to condescend to speak for the third world, but what you are doing is jumping to conclusions and as Slarty pointed out to you, attacking straw man.But I can understand why you insist that I said only aborigines and third world people are animals.
You are a theist Emile and just like any other theist you consider human beings as privileged, special and divine. The idea that humans are just another species of animal with nothing special except that it is on the top of food chain is offensive to you, that is you hate to consider yourself as an animal. So, for you, it is easy to make a straw man - that I called aborigines as animals, and attack it than to accept the conclusion that you along with every other human being is an animal, which does not fit your theistic world view. So instead of saying you do not want to consider yourself as an animal but want to consider yourself as special, you say I insulted the aborigines and third world people calling them animals.
And just like any other theist you made the conclusions first and the conclusions are more important to you and you are least bothered whether that conclusions follow the premises and you reject anything that does not validate your conclusion.
You are not here to discuss, but to validate your claims(which was already pointed out to you by so many people) just like any other believer. "Funny, because everyone who has chimed in sees you as a person who is not here to discuss, but make claims. I guess, only those who agree with you can be right. You are never, ever wrong. Your ego is blinding you to reason Emile. 'We' are laughing."No, you want to label me a theist in order to justify your words. I do not think humans are above animals. Your words made it clear that you think some humans are below others. That philosophy is the beginning of the rationalization for crimes against humanity.
In full fairness to you, you have argued vehemently that you did not mean that some people are less evolved than others. That some people are animals, while others aren't. I am willing to accept this to be true. But, your argument, as presented, did appear as if you did. And that appearance could easily be used by another as validation of such a heinous belief. Maybe, you should consider your argument and revise it; in order to assure that such an interpretation would be more difficult to arrive at.There is nothing to justify, I called every humans animals while it is "you" who made it some to justify your claim.
Funny, because everyone who has chimed in sees you are wrong. I guess, only those who agree with you can be right. You are never, ever wrong. Your ego is blinding you to reason Emile. I'm laughing.
It's also funny that in your dictionary all means some.
Remove your log Emile before criticizing ATM, you are the worst hypocrite.I edited my post, prior to you posting this one. See above.
I'm afraid I stand by my assessment of your argument. I don't see it as ego. I see it as an unfortunate case of you not presenting your case unambiguously.I would have agreed with you Emile that it was my communication failure, for English is not my mother tongue, but for the simple reason that other people who read it understood it as the way I meant it and pointed it out to you. And again, I explained to you that what you understood is not what I meant and repeatedly told you that I consider "all" humans as just another species of animals but you are, even now, insisting that I said what I haven't said or meant, that some humans are animals.
So whose problem is that?Whose ego? Both of ours. You do realize that a consensus of three does not invalidate other interpretations? This moment is the first moment you have admitted that it is possible another interpretation might have been there. And it is the first moment I have admitted that I don't think you really thought that, but simply chose your words in a manner that might have been regrettable.
I am aware that "we" is not solely you and so is Emile. What we are getting at is that you used the term "we" when discussing logic and rationale, but when Emile and I called you out on how arrogant you sounded, you then moonwalked to say that it didn't mean You specifically in an effort to disassociate yourself from your statement.
I can't. He's killing me with his obstinance. I fell out of my chair laughing earlier.
You fell out of your chair? That isn't safe... maybe he should be called A Dangerous Man instead.
His use of one word is not worth the discussion. I think we all know what was meant.
Deleted
one shows up and the other disappears.... now he will need a smart phone and a comp. to post at the same time... this is how the best trolls do it.
Well, I think it is their idea of fun. We should all have fun. Don't you think?
We are having fun... look at us post at the same time... I mean, look at *me post at the same time. I knew there was a reason we thought alike. Emile and I are one and the same. (sigh) Im awfully bored, it's time for lunch and I desperately don't want to go to work today.
Hey. I deleted a post. If you saw it, I apologize profusely. I thought I was responding to riddle666.
Perhaps, it's the only argument they believe might muster a win.
Related Discussions
- 42
Why is it so important to some that everyone must share their spiritual or relig
by annerivendell 11 years ago
Why is it so important to some that everyone must share their spiritual or religious belief?Or even their lack of belief? We cannot ALL be the only ones who know the truth about life,or God, or the bible yet so many people are convinced that they do know, and what's more, the rest of the world are...
- 29
Can a bully ever become a trusted President?
by Joan King 11 years ago
Can a bully ever become a trusted President?Mitt Romney wants to be president but admits to bullying a gay teenage student. As the report goes, Romney didn't like the bleach blond hair of the student draped over one eye so he tackled him, pinned him to the ground and cut off his hair as the...
- 10
What makes your religious belief unique?
by wayseeker 12 years ago
What makes your religious belief unique?
- 16
Battling work place bullies!
by everywomanssecret 13 years ago
A quick question or as I prefer to call it - food for thought. Have you ever been bullied in the work place? Or, anywhere for that matter. If so, how did you deal with it? I am writing an article on bullying and wanted to offer some advice for anyone who may be going through it right now. 'What you...
- 8
Do people choose a religion or does a religion choose them?
by Readmikenow 6 years ago
Do people choose a religion or does a religion choose them?If you're raised in Israel chances are you'll be Jewish. If you grow up in Saudi Arabia, good chance you'll be Muslim and if you grow up in Rome you have a good chance of being Catholic. Yet, people leave their religions and choose...
- 21
Did you choose your religious / non-religious belief?
by Neil Coulson 10 years ago
Did you choose your religious / non-religious belief?Most people are born into a religion, have you ever thought about changing?I ask, not to be antagonistic, but to understand if your belief is of blind faith or by choice.