After reading this, I think you will conclude my health is indeed improving. The brain fog is lifting. I am almost back to being mentally the @Anonymint of 2013 yore that originally captured some of your interest (when you were still a borderline atheist if I am not mistaken?).
Btw, it seems eating the seeds of the Papaya fruit has done something to drastically improve the recovery of my liver and gut health post the anti-TB regimen. Makes me dizzy and flying in cloud after digesting them, but that fades after a couple of hours. The rest of the time the benefits are outstanding thus far.
You argued that there was "Nothing morally wrong with stealing" but that you would prefer to live in a society where it was not allowed and legal.
Because I argued morals (as so defined to be absolute truths) do not exist, because there are no observable absolute truths. If morals do exist, only an omniscient God knows what they are. Not any human interpretations. Any such omniscient God can only communicate directly with the believer about this, not through middlemen. Even Jesus spoke about this and praying in your closet directly to God for the synagogues are for those who want to be adulated as believers.
You incorrectly applied logic. If A is true and B is not A, does not make B false.
And thus this does not follow. I said live in society, not attempt to destroy a society. How can someone rationally live in a society that they are trying to destroy.
Youre ostensibly presuming that humans have to be fearful of an unobservable absolute truth in order to become rational, which to me is incredulously illogical and irrational on the face of it. Why would anyone be rational if theyre being irrational by believing in implausibility of absolute truth (as already elaborated in my prior posts in this discussion with you).
You also stated that there is nothing morally wrong with theft and presumably murder as well. At best these are simply local social norms under your system with no inherent meaning or significance.
Indeed some tribes might still mutilate female clitoris and sacrifice each other at the altar and it is none of our fscking business!
Feel free to offer them your ideas, but if you think you have the absolute truth and they are wrong, then in my philosophy youre evil because youve tried to elevate yourself to be an omniscient God and the judge of humans. (Because again we cant observe universal/absolute truths in order to verify them)
That does not mean you should not try to offer ideas to them about how certain beliefs are self-destructive. As long as you dont preach it as an absolute truth that they are commanded to obey. The use of fear doesnt employ the rational prefrontal cortex. Quoting from my 2013 blog post:
I will take that as a compliment. If it makes you feel better the feeling is not mutual. I do think your worldview facilitates evil but I do not think you are evil.
I agree our struggle to communicate could be seen as a necessary learning process, thus complementary (not complimentary).
Well I hope so, but I do wonder if you could slide into being a zealot. But I must admit, having never interacted with you verbally, perhaps Im reading more between the lines than is really there. Im also antagonized by those who judge with biases, absolute truths, and incoherent comprehension, but not in a way that I need to prove something to every single case (at least not any more). Just want to get my philosophy solidified and communicated well.
You got that precisely transposed. My worldview is not evil, but I might be evil because Im only human.
Passing false witness is condemned in the Bible. Please be more circumspect.
It is not false but true to the best of my understanding and wisdom.
You passed judgement before confirming whether your demonizing interpretations were coherent and correct. You could have instead stated your interpretations and asked for clarifications before stating your demonizing conclusions.
Your careless haste could possibly be construed to exemplify your underlying motive to make demonizing conclusions.
The above are factual and non-slanderous (not even disrespectful) conclusions, not subject to any interpretation. The could possibly be construed is not an absolute statement, thus the statement is factual.
Youre engaging a 30+ year programmer in the area of logic which is thus my speciality. God help you, lol.
It is a heresy to tell people they need an authority to tell the readers how to interpret what Jesus meant. Jesus communicates directly to the reader.
Once again this is yet another example of trying to organize and force people to a monolithic orthodoxy (belief system). The Bible is supposed to mean different things to different readers.
It is okay to discuss ideas, but not from an authoritative/canonical stance, because no humans interpretation can be absolute truth.
I think you have not yet grasped that I am trying to avoid the megadeath that comes from the slippery slope of zealots who think they have some absolutely justified ends that justifies the means. You probably think you will never personally become a Zionist, Crusader, or other ideologues who burned humans at on the stake (as the Zionist Mossad did at 9/11), but how could you be sure when you self-profess that you promulgate the concept of absolute truth?
Btw, I was indeed asking you to not pass judgement, because you are not the judge, and only make statements of material fact. That is what Matthew 7 means. Cast the plank of wood out of our own eyes before looking for the speck of dust in someone elses. Who is above sin? The point is to try to work towards harmonious and fair and accurate mutual understanding. And this is the dilemma of claiming absolute truth. It turns you a human into a judge of other humans. Which is evil and the Bible condemns it in numerous verses. Even in 1 Samuel 8 and in the 10 Commandments, the Lord is demanding that we form our relationship directly with him and no middlemen. No charlatans who think they possess the truth. This is the necessary humbleness I was referring to. Which must admit we can not have the absolute truth.
Btw, it seems eating the seeds of the Papaya fruit has done something to drastically improve the recovery of my liver and gut health post the anti-TB regimen. Makes me dizzy and flying in cloud after digesting them, but that fades after a couple of hours. The rest of the time the benefits are outstanding thus far.
I stated that I would not want to live in a society that did not punish such actions and doubted whether one could find a society that would tolerate them.
I distinguished moralistic (absolute truth) ideological ends and stated these arent ever valid thus never justify means. For the remaining ends, I stated these are not ends because they have no total ordering. Thus there are no ends. Instead we live in societies and follow the rules of our chosen society.
I distinguished moralistic (absolute truth) ideological ends and stated these arent ever valid thus never justify means. For the remaining ends, I stated these are not ends because they have no total ordering. Thus there are no ends. Instead we live in societies and follow the rules of our chosen society.
You argued that there was "Nothing morally wrong with stealing" but that you would prefer to live in a society where it was not allowed and legal.
Because I argued morals (as so defined to be absolute truths) do not exist, because there are no observable absolute truths. If morals do exist, only an omniscient God knows what they are. Not any human interpretations. Any such omniscient God can only communicate directly with the believer about this, not through middlemen. Even Jesus spoke about this and praying in your closet directly to God for the synagogues are for those who want to be adulated as believers.
This leads to the logical conclusion that we can and should steal as long as we can get away with it and not get caught get either via clever misdirection or finding loopholes in the law.
You incorrectly applied logic. If A is true and B is not A, does not make B false.
This also leads to the logical necessity of an all powerful and ever growing state to increasingly monitor and observe its citizens ensuring compliance with an ever growing law.
And thus this does not follow. I said live in society, not attempt to destroy a society. How can someone rationally live in a society that they are trying to destroy.
Youre ostensibly presuming that humans have to be fearful of an unobservable absolute truth in order to become rational, which to me is incredulously illogical and irrational on the face of it. Why would anyone be rational if theyre being irrational by believing in implausibility of absolute truth (as already elaborated in my prior posts in this discussion with you).
I clearly stated that anyone is free to have their own beliefs as long as their beliefs do not impinge on me.
You also stated that there is nothing morally wrong with theft and presumably murder as well. At best these are simply local social norms under your system with no inherent meaning or significance.
Indeed some tribes might still mutilate female clitoris and sacrifice each other at the altar and it is none of our fscking business!
Feel free to offer them your ideas, but if you think you have the absolute truth and they are wrong, then in my philosophy youre evil because youve tried to elevate yourself to be an omniscient God and the judge of humans. (Because again we cant observe universal/absolute truths in order to verify them)
That does not mean you should not try to offer ideas to them about how certain beliefs are self-destructive. As long as you dont preach it as an absolute truth that they are commanded to obey. The use of fear doesnt employ the rational prefrontal cortex. Quoting from my 2013 blog post:
Quote from: unheresy.com/Information Is Alive.html#Existential_Fear
The fear emotion is inherited from the primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer time period when mortal danger was omnipresent. Fear stimulates a fight-or-flight adrenaline spike in response to extreme stress. Adrenaline rushes are thrilling and addictive, especially when the threat is low-grade, not thoroughly exhausting, and thus repeatable because it only exists in the imagination. Adrenaline (plus cortisol) shuts down rational thought in the pre-frontal cortex. Production of the steriod cortisol spikes to redistribute more energy to the muscles and nerves, depleting energy from the immune system, digestion, and toxic waste processing necessary to maintain health.
It is quite simple. I think ideologues are evil. And youve done more to convince me of that than anyone else Ive ever known.
I will take that as a compliment. If it makes you feel better the feeling is not mutual. I do think your worldview facilitates evil but I do not think you are evil.
I agree our struggle to communicate could be seen as a necessary learning process, thus complementary (not complimentary).
Well I hope so, but I do wonder if you could slide into being a zealot. But I must admit, having never interacted with you verbally, perhaps Im reading more between the lines than is really there. Im also antagonized by those who judge with biases, absolute truths, and incoherent comprehension, but not in a way that I need to prove something to every single case (at least not any more). Just want to get my philosophy solidified and communicated well.
You got that precisely transposed. My worldview is not evil, but I might be evil because Im only human.
Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.
That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.
That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.
Passing false witness is condemned in the Bible. Please be more circumspect.
It is not false but true to the best of my understanding and wisdom.
You passed judgement before confirming whether your demonizing interpretations were coherent and correct. You could have instead stated your interpretations and asked for clarifications before stating your demonizing conclusions.
Your careless haste could possibly be construed to exemplify your underlying motive to make demonizing conclusions.
The above are factual and non-slanderous (not even disrespectful) conclusions, not subject to any interpretation. The could possibly be construed is not an absolute statement, thus the statement is factual.
Youre engaging a 30+ year programmer in the area of logic which is thus my speciality. God help you, lol.
In the past I have seen you refer to Matthew 7:1 as a prohibition against judgement.
This is one of the most commonly misunderstood verses of the Bible. I believe you would benefit from reading this commentary on the true meaning of this verse.
http://thediscerningsheep.blogspot.com/2014/12/matthew-71-most-misunderstood-bible.html?m=1
This is one of the most commonly misunderstood verses of the Bible. I believe you would benefit from reading this commentary on the true meaning of this verse.
http://thediscerningsheep.blogspot.com/2014/12/matthew-71-most-misunderstood-bible.html?m=1
It is a heresy to tell people they need an authority to tell the readers how to interpret what Jesus meant. Jesus communicates directly to the reader.
Once again this is yet another example of trying to organize and force people to a monolithic orthodoxy (belief system). The Bible is supposed to mean different things to different readers.
It is okay to discuss ideas, but not from an authoritative/canonical stance, because no humans interpretation can be absolute truth.
I think you have not yet grasped that I am trying to avoid the megadeath that comes from the slippery slope of zealots who think they have some absolutely justified ends that justifies the means. You probably think you will never personally become a Zionist, Crusader, or other ideologues who burned humans at on the stake (as the Zionist Mossad did at 9/11), but how could you be sure when you self-profess that you promulgate the concept of absolute truth?
Btw, I was indeed asking you to not pass judgement, because you are not the judge, and only make statements of material fact. That is what Matthew 7 means. Cast the plank of wood out of our own eyes before looking for the speck of dust in someone elses. Who is above sin? The point is to try to work towards harmonious and fair and accurate mutual understanding. And this is the dilemma of claiming absolute truth. It turns you a human into a judge of other humans. Which is evil and the Bible condemns it in numerous verses. Even in 1 Samuel 8 and in the 10 Commandments, the Lord is demanding that we form our relationship directly with him and no middlemen. No charlatans who think they possess the truth. This is the necessary humbleness I was referring to. Which must admit we can not have the absolute truth.