Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > morality      Home login  
 AUTHOR
moralityPage 4 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Religion is older than prostitution...

The ancient Greeks taught their morality threw fairytales about the sins and antics of their gods..You knew what would happen if you did various stuff, its impact on the community and what you can expect in return..

(if this is all there is to what they were doing) Would this really be something that could be called religion?
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 77
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/8/2013 10:20:48 PM
Out of curiosity...why do so many have a problem with the fact that it (the bible) is all made up by people (rulers) who scare/scamthe people into believing? Even back then you had story tellers.

The bible was written by people who couldn't even talk to each other as they were from different times and areas.
"Family" delegated these books ( bible - little books) and kept the lie going.

They published them ALL to fit their long term goal.

Sorry to piss on the rainbow but it went on in ancient times, and still goes on.

Why believe a fairy tale at our age? ESPECIALLY when we know that these ass's are stinking rich and perverted and VERY good at lying?

What's so scary that we have to believe?

Is it that we are so proud that we can't admit that we've been taken for so long so we have to follow through or else be caught being naive throwing good (money, free thought) after bad?

There's a term for this...
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 78
morality
Posted: 4/8/2013 11:16:10 PM
Ignorance is bliss....
 cesska
Joined: 11/7/2011
Msg: 79
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/9/2013 8:08:01 PM
everything that should be in the bible is not in it
translation has changed the true meaning
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 80
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/9/2013 9:01:48 PM
"sunk cost fallacy" that was the term I was looking for. Throwing good money (or time) after bad.

Throwing critical thinking skills out to STAY believing or giving them up to believe as an adult (that a god should be the one you listen to in regards to morals) for the sake of belonging, pleasing or because you are afraid (of rejection, dying, or worse ) to let go of the story, and base your life on your own moral code. hmmm...

What is the term for this? Delusional? Naive? Immature? Stubborn? Brain washed? Petrified? Devoted to a fantasy? Stuck in tradition? Push over? Mistrusting of oneself?

I don't get it, anymore than I get an adult believing they should be a good boy or girl because santa claus knows if you've been bad or good.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 81
morality
Posted: 4/9/2013 10:46:34 PM


What is the term for this? Delusional? Naive? Immature? Stubborn? Brain washed? Petrified? Devoted to a fantasy? Stuck in tradition? Push over? Mistrusting of oneself?

I don't get it,


I think the term you're looking for is "dissonance reduction."

From Wikipedia:
"Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior."

IMO, dissonance reduction causes people to believe in utter absurdities, and as I've said many times (quoting Voltaire), "Those who believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities."

This kind of explains why basically good people do bad things...They are trying to hang on to both their beliefs and their diametrically opposed perceptions. Something has to give, and the first thing that flies out the window is rational reasoning.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 82
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/10/2013 12:20:40 AM
Thanks Dukk, you're certainly in top form tonight. My head is a might fuzzy.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 83
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/10/2013 2:29:46 AM


Religion is older than prostitution...

The ancient Greeks taught their morality threw[sic] fairytales about the sins and antics of their gods..You knew what would happen if you did various stuff, its impact on the community and what you can expect in return..

(if this is all there is to what they were doing) Would this really be something that could be called religion?


I was reading this myself, and my first thought was "yeah, that's the Bible alright. A collection of morality tales, designed to impart basic knowledge of the human condition to readers, in hopes that their lives will be helped along." The only difference between the Greek morality tales and the monotheistic version, is that they had multiple actors playing the parts, and the monotheists insisted on having only ONE star playing god in all their stories.

So yes, if you are going to call Judaism and Christianity religions, because they are based upon or are passed on by way of a collection of morality tales, then you have to accept the Greek tradition as being no different.
morality
Posted: 4/10/2013 12:12:32 PM
^ igorfrankensteen msg 108:

Well...what I'm thinking of is this -

I'm pretty critical of religion, and praising of being objective, and science, etc...but unfortunately this is misunderstood. I don't like using the word spiritual when that's an example of a lack of universality of meaning...but I have no problem with spirituality (certain definitions of) and I myself am very spiritual (except, again, that I don't completely like this word, and it's just that we lack a sufficient development in our terminology to properly express the things we talk about in this area). I appreciate and embrace the richness, color, and benefits that much of what we think of as tradition, and culture, and ritual, and mythology, brings to our world and experience of living. I don't so much distinguish an intrinsic negative difference between monotheism vs polytheism either (except that I'm thinking there is an intrinsic quality in monotheism that helps lead to what I say below). In the case/post above where I'm questioning the categorization/qualification of religion, we're (maybe?) talking about stories which inspire us to reflect on many things, and learn about morality, etc. I have no problem with that. I think that in many cases in the past, and in the present, certain mythologies/relevant cultural elements really are thought about as such by the people, and no more...such that the use of the term "god" or "gods" really is understood allegorically and metaphorically. Many of the people who fall into this category have a problem with our criticisms of religion, legitimately otherwise, because they really are right, of course, in seeing that the criticisms don't apply for them.

However....what I have a serious problem with is when cultural or mythological elements somehow transform and cross over into exhibiting the dynamics which I've elucidated previously as how I define religion and why it's bad. Specifically - When a tradition is observed dogmatically (blindly and stubbornly in a destructive manner); When moral understandings are observed dogmatically such that intellectual and social stagnation sets in; Whenever a (religion) takes on dynamics such that it's either too ambiguous and/or really does intrinsically seem to encourage and inspire bad kinds of mindsets because the people can't be sure how to take it and take it incorrectly or take it too seriously into the wrong direction; When the holy documents or texts, at the bottom of a (religion) despite the actual converse practices of some of the people, are too exclusive versus inclusive (hinduism?); When the (religion) is founded on something dispicable, but this element at the bottom is hidden by an incorrect image or simple inability to interpret (an example of this one might be buddhism: it is one of the (religions?) that is seen as inherently benign, truly peaceful, and only about wisdoms that really are good wisdoms...however, the good or true things of a (religion) are irrelevant (if something is good or true, then just observe it already, identify with the (movement) if it's necessary and the whole of the movement isn't faulty, but otherwise the (movement/philosophy/religion) isn't automatically valid and good based only on it including good or true wisdoms), and...and here's the big one: Isn't the heart of buddhism the idea that "life is nothing but suffering...and the only response to this suffering is to completely rid oneself of all desire of any kind"?)

So...ok...add that to what (anyone) thinks my views are all about.
 adamoof
Joined: 9/12/2011
Msg: 85
What is it? and care to share how you figured out yours.... and where it came from and why you hold
Posted: 4/10/2013 2:05:32 PM
Morality is relative, and there is no consistency in morals,Morality is a reflection of the physical reality ...... for example, here in the West, it is natural to pay thousands of dollars, to save a dog, but on the other hand, we find someone who travels to Africa, to pick up photos for ahungry child in the woods, enjoying seeing a snake to swallow the kid without any prick of conscience.
morality
Posted: 4/10/2013 9:54:05 PM

So what if some people draw some of their ideas of morality from their respective religions...What is wrong with that?

I'll tell you what:

The Bible advocates some morally sound suggestions on how Humans should conduct their lives...On the other hand the Bible has some really creepy stuff about slavery, genocide.However those things were written about centuries ago and were reflective of the prevailing culture at the time.

ALL of it was written about centuries ago. Why aren't the things that you call morally sound suggestions also just reflective of the prevailing culture at the time? How do you know the creepy stuff from the acceptable stuff? From the bible itself? No. From your own mind (well, maybe not yours in particular), and from the general context in which you find yourself that has the prevailing culture of the modern zeitgeist, which was developed via objective questioning and reasoning.

If the commandment had of been “it is ok to steal”.Would that have endured? Or if it had of been “it is ok to kill under any circumstances” Would that have endured? Or if it had of been “it is ok to do anything to others, even if you wouldn’t like it done to yourself “ Would that have endured?

I don't know. Would it have endured? You tell me. What makes it endure, and what makes it go away? Would it be the bible, or humans using objective reasoning to apply to the bible?

Most of us live in societies that were founded on Judeo-Christian principles of what is right and what is wrong.

a) No, not most of us.
b) Are we sure exactly what we can or cannot nail down as judeo christian principles? Is there any ambiguity or discrepancy to what exactly that is?
c) The extent to which we do live according to what judeo christian principles are is part of what screws it all up.

So the moral values of major religions are the product of cultural evolution.Does that not just reflect the Human condition anyway?

I don't see any point or relevance here.

Anyway most people who have religious beliefs do not base their morality solely on their religion.Most likely it is the result of experience and common sense.Which would just be the same as anyone with no religious beliefs.

And so you turn around and almost say what I've been saying...but not quite...falling just short enough, giving it a little subtle twist of dishonesty and diversion, your own spin, and dressing it up to seem like you're saying something else.

So...as I've said for around a year (?) in these forums, it's the way that people like you debate and argue, not so much your stances, which reveals you in all of your dishonest and malign glory.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 87
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/11/2013 9:25:57 PM

Just because I said that is was likely most people with religious beliefs do not derive their morality solely from their religion was something you didn’t want to hear.

So your response was to call me dishonest.Not only once but twice.That is not very moralistic.

I also said it is likely people derive their morality from experience and common sense.What are you in disagreement with that?


what disagreement some have with this is...

because people who claim they get their morality (even a percentage) from religion may be common, but it doesn't make sense and it says that those who don't must be "not as moral" at the minimum for not including "god" in our determination of what is moral.

It's a lie that believers are following that god should determine what is moral (especially when god is a fictional character invented my the most immoral people in the world.).

The problem is these "moral religious ones" want to make laws that we all have to follow. Also their preaching is keeping people dumb by not letting people think, read, debate against their beliefs. The do this to the most vulnerable.

If it was the dark ages, I wouldn't be holding the followers accountable, but there is no excuse now for most to keep believing and passing on the lie that we need a god to "guide" us.

We are not animals that will run amok. We don't need someone telling us how to behave. We do not need them teaching our children that they shouldn't think for themselves and we don't need to pay for them either.

That is immoral.

morality
Posted: 4/12/2013 12:15:31 AM

So your response was to call me dishonest.Not only once but twice.That is not very moralistic.

And I'll call you dishonest for a third time - You are dishonest. And malign. Don't forget malign.
That is "moralistic". It's pretty "moralistic" to be honest, and to expose dishonesty.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 89
morality
Posted: 4/12/2013 10:24:44 PM


If you ever one day grasp the concept of “objectivity” it will be a better option than what you are grasping at the present.


Religious people should tell themselves that every day all they long until they can answer the question...



Did you get it?


Objectively and positively for themselves.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 90
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 6:39:57 AM
Food for thought: http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/12/science-seat-where-morals-come-from/
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 91
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 7:03:13 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by the infallible and all knowing thing.

---------------------------

Christian guy, if you need the infallible moral might of God explained to you, if you have no clue what it means to be all knowing, if it's beyond you to see how your God is allegedly omnipotent and omniscient, and all good... then where do you get the nerve of calling yourself Christian?

You should be ashamed of yourself and the Sunday School teachers at your church should take sticks and beat knowledge into you until you scream for mercy.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 92
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 11:59:16 AM
That'a a good addition to the thread, wooby.

Taking that, and an overview of the range of things that have been put in here, an amusing thing has occurred to me. That is, that there is a similarity between how humans have shown they behave concerning things like morality and religion, and ow they behave about suffering the "collector" bug.

I'm referring to the thing many of us do, where for fun, or for a sense of being at least mildly driven, we go about our lives collecting some specific things or ideas, just for the sake of collecting them. I've been plagued by that bug myself in several ways over the years, lately collecting just enough Wedgwood pottery and glassware, so that I can one day serve a nice tea to friends using it all.

The aspect of collecting that I see with regards to morality and religions, is that I have seen lots of people go about their lives, becoming excited and or comforted here and there, with this or that bit of moral or philosophical guidance, and then one day, they get the notion into their heads, that perhaps EVERYTHING about that philosophy or religion might be "right," and that if they only manage to collect all of it into a single place, that they will have that sense of satisfaction that the "silly thing" collector gets, upon completing their set of whatevers.

Combine that almost magical sense of completeness, with the force of moral and or spiritual authority that allows one to feel "right" all the time, and you have an excellent bio-psychological explanation of the phenomenon of the human religious experience. That sort of experience has never been limited to religions alone, which is why I do not myself support the anti-religious fervor of some who post here, even though I quite agree with the excesses and dangers that they cite as a part of their own opposition to religion.

Another aspect of human dynamics that plays directly into this, is that of the desire to "get things organized, and moved right along." I am convinced that upon themselves recognizing important connections, and valuable insights into how one can best progress through life, many people jump to the idea that rather than wait for everyone around them to organically discover or recognize the same things that they have done, that if they can just put it all down into a book and get everyone to read it....or put it out as a political platform, and get everyone to vote for it...or make it the core of a governing concept, and use force to administer it...that the entirety of our existences might be brought to the same sense of collecting completeness that they have done in themselves. Thereby religions, political movements, philosophical movements, and psychological trick "ways of being" (like EST) are invented.

And they are derived, as in that small article that wooby mentioned, from the natural little bits of social behavior that lots of creatures develop, in order to get along in groups. I would not myself say that studies such as the one mentioned, show that there is a natural, DNA driven urge among living creatures to empathize with each other, or to behave cooperatively, or to organize into interdependent units. Rather, such organization is the logical result of relatively equal entities interacting, and discovering that if they ONLY respond with all-or-nothing hostility to each other, that they will make less progress than if they allow for other possibilities. And since emulation and kinship is a natural result of how we all come into existence, it is logical that we would develop at least rudimentary ideas that could be called a cooperative philosophy...and with the addition of a magical component to help push others into joining, such organically evolved philosophies are turned into religions, or Political parties, or other such "collections" of thoughts.

As people like drinksthesun point out, those beliefs can easily go wrong, because the promoters forget in their collectors fanatical rush for completeness, that getting everyone to adhere by force, in and of itself destroys the very wisdom that is at the heart of the thoughts that so excited and energized them.

There's probably a great Wise Saying to be built there somewhere. Something along the lines, that Wisdom forced upon others, is Wisdom poisoned to death by it's own promoters.
 ChristianGuy777
Joined: 2/26/2013
Msg: 93
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 7:14:23 PM
@Anyone whom it concerns

Hey everybody, in short, the best way I can say what’s up is this…
There’s quite a few of you that think I say ABC while I know it’s not ABC. It’s XYZ…. Yet, you insist its ABC. I know my beliefs and they are not what YOU decide they are. They’re my beliefs and I have been trying to communicate them to you but it’s not exactly going through. At least understand this… what you say is definitely being denied and not being accepted as my beliefs.

@ Spirifire

Hey, let me put it this way. When I was 11 years old… just a kid with a Christian background, I decided that having sex with girls just for fun and just breaking up with em after using them was NOT for me. Unfortunately, that’s the trend among young boys and teenagers. I used to hear them talk, I know. So, why did I, as an 11 year old boy decide it wasn’t for me? (looks up) God, that’s why. Today, I’m a virgin by choice and saving it until marriage.

And that’s the tip of the iceberg of what God did with my life and you look down on that which God has done. Your against someone's ideals who has ideals that aim at 100% moral conduct.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 94
morality
Posted: 4/13/2013 9:17:55 PM


Hey, let me put it this way. When I was 11 years old… just a kid with a Christian background, I decided that having sex with girls just for fun and just breaking up with em after using them was NOT for me. Unfortunately, that’s the trend among young boys and teenagers. I used to hear them talk, I know. So, why did I, as an 11 year old boy decide it wasn’t for me? (looks up) God, that’s why. Today, I’m a virgin by choice and saving it until marriage.

And that’s the tip of the iceberg of what God did with my life and you look down on that which God has done. Your against someone's ideals who has ideals that aim at 100% moral conduct.


I think you are crediting God with your own moral growth. IMO you credit God far too much and yourself far too little...

You don't need a God to keep you on the straight & narrow; all you need is your own conscience.
morality
Posted: 4/14/2013 9:31:33 AM
^

The great cause of much psychological illness is the fear of knowledge of oneself – of one’s emotions, impulses, memories, capacities, potentialities, of one’s destiny.

- Abraham Maslow


Once a man has become self-conscious...he is morally obliged to act in no way that will deaden his preoccupation with his integrity. He is obliged to impregnate all his actions with some sense of their relevance to him, as a man and as a person.

- Jean-Paul Sartre
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 96
morality
Posted: 4/14/2013 9:01:06 PM
Hey, let me put it this way. When I was 11 years old… just a kid with a Christian background, I decided that having sex with girls just for fun and just breaking up with em after using them was NOT for me.

That's you.

This is me:

Hey, let me put it this way. When I was 11 years old… just a kid with a Christian / Jewish mix of background, I had no clue what sex was or even that it existed.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 97
morality
Posted: 4/16/2013 10:39:38 PM


In order to find ourselves, we must first become lost! :)


Extremely profound! (The whole post was)

If we never became lost, we would never seek ourselves and consequently, would spend our lives in a miserable state of inauthentic ignorance. It is for such people that I mourn; they are condemned to spend their lives in worthless pursuits, craving a happiness they will never know.
morality
Posted: 4/16/2013 10:55:15 PM
I don't know where I am, but I am not lost.

or is it

I am lost, but I know where I am.

?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 99
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/17/2013 2:18:01 PM

In order to find ourselves, we must first become lost!


I disagree. Rather, I find that commonly uttered phrase to be an EXTRAORDINARILY badly chosen set of words to use to try to say the positive thing that I think it was originally intended to say.

A vastly better way to say it, might be "before a person is likely to hear new knowledge, they must first stop listening to the loud chanting in their heads, telling them that they already know everything they need to." That does NOT mean "becoming lost," at all. Or perhaps in another application, go with "before you can figure out who you really are, and what you really want, you need to recognize when and how you are instead following notions dictated to you by other people."

The reason I most dislike that standard way that it's expressed, is that the old "in order to find ourselves, we must first become lost" thing gets used over and over by scalawags, scammers, and other deceivers, who want to use a vulnerable persons state of confusion against them, and push them into even LESS real thinking that the person really needs to do. It's also occasionally used as an excuse by that same sort of rip-off artist, to explain away the fact that you just caught them stealing from someone else. They say the old "I had to learn by making the mistake you saw me make," to get you to let them get away with it.

But I of course support the real intent of that phrase.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 100
morality
Posted: 4/18/2013 11:13:17 AM

You've lost me drinkthesunwithmyface!! :)


As long as he knows where he is, he'll probably be OK...

I myself find that it's only when I'm lost AND don't know where I am that there could be a problem. LMAO
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > morality