| Author | Post |
|---|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1833 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 6th, 2009 03:58 pm |
|
- God is not a person, but is an impersonal force that can never be offended
- Creation is perfect as it is; there was no fall from grace; God makes no mistakes
- All of creation is constantly changing and growing; all living beings within creation will grow to their full potential and eventually find peace and bliss with complete union with God
- Good and evil are merely illusions
- Individuality is merely an illusion
- Love rules all of creation
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 01:20 am |
|
yoki wrote: - God is not a person, but is an impersonal force that can never be offended
- Creation is perfect as it is; there was no fall from grace; God makes no mistakes
- All of creation is constantly changing and growing; all living beings within creation will grow to their full potential and eventually find peace and bliss with complete union with God
- Good and evil are merely illusions
- Individuality is merely an illusion
- Love rules all of creation
Careful, you might bring the downfall of humanity with this blasphemy.
Love your kitty
Last edited on Fri Aug 7th, 2009 01:23 am by JackFlash
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1833 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 02:37 am |
|
JackFlash wrote: yoki wrote: - God is not a person, but is an impersonal force that can never be offended
- Creation is perfect as it is; there was no fall from grace; God makes no mistakes
- All of creation is constantly changing and growing; all living beings within creation will grow to their full potential and eventually find peace and bliss with complete union with God
- Good and evil are merely illusions
- Individuality is merely an illusion
- Love rules all of creation
Careful, you might bring the downfall of humanity with this blasphemy.
Love your kitty
Thanks, he is a good cat.
And yes, in actual fact I am trying to deceive the minds of the fundies and religious right with the concept that god might really be in control, might really be merciful, and most of all, might really be love - true and utter blasphemy to the fundie American.
I understand though how those thoughts about god are dangerous, seditious and unAmerican.
|
Torquemada
Yoda
| Joined: | Mon Aug 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 8th, 2009 08:37 pm |
|
Ew. I'm glad I'm over this. I lean more towards Objectivism now. Compassion is overrated. 
____________________
Let's Take a Vote.
|
Merlin
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6427 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 9th, 2009 04:33 am |
|
Yoki.... after spending 2 or 3 months learning Kabbalah, I have this to say:
It's the same old bullshit as every other monotheistic religion... discover who the "Creator" is, do everything you think he wants you to do, be a stick-up-your-ass stuffed shirt and holy, and he will like you. It was a sneaky way to turn you into a Jew.
Yeah, whatever. kthnxbye.
|
Zac Efron
Belvedere
| Joined: | Wed Jul 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 9th, 2009 04:54 am |
|
Merlin wrote: Yoki.... after spending 2 or 3 months learning Kabbalah, I have this to say:
It's the same old bullshit as every other monotheistic religion... discover who the "Creator" is, do everything you think he wants you to do, be a stick-up-your-ass stuffed shirt and holy, and he will like you. It was a sneaky way to turn you into a Jew.
Yeah, whatever. kthnxbye.
I'm a Jew. What's wrong with that?
|
Merlin
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6427 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 9th, 2009 05:44 am |
|
| You're as jewish as porkchop the pig.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1833 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 9th, 2009 11:26 pm |
|
Merlin wrote: Yoki.... after spending 2 or 3 months learning Kabbalah, I have this to say:
It's the same old bullshit as every other monotheistic religion... discover who the "Creator" is, do everything you think he wants you to do, be a stick-up-your-ass stuffed shirt and holy, and he will like you. It was a sneaky way to turn you into a Jew.
Yeah, whatever. kthnxbye.
Remember my old signature line, because I can't...lol... but I think it went something like this: "Every failed attempt to organize spirituality results in a religion."
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 06:28 pm |
|
Torquemada wrote: Ew. I'm glad I'm over this. I lean more towards Objectivism now. Compassion is overrated.
I think you'll get past the Objectivism crap. It's a philosophy that couldn't possibly be less objective.
In essence, Ayn Rand and Objectivism are attempts to turn dogs into cats. Mankind isn't a solitary animal. We instinctively have social hierarchies. Rand thinks everyone should eschew friends, reject their support system, ignore their peers, and go off and do nothing but a single task all their lives.
What a horrifying philosophy. The purpose of life is for me to design really good, say, software, tell everyone to fuck off and leave me alone, and eventually die alone? Really, Rand?
I guess it's sort of how Rand lived her own life - she alienated just about everyone she came into contact with, flagrantly cheated on her husband and burned all her bridges, and died alone, miserable, and addicted to painkillers. Did write a few good books, though.
|
Merlin
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6427 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 06:59 pm |
|
"Every failed attempt to organize spirituality results in a religion."
Yeah, everything you learn in Kabbalah teaches you that there's a Creator and to please him you have to follow-- who would guess-- the Jewish Law!!!
The only place the B'nai Barucj breaks with tradition is that they believe (or say, anyway) that everybody who wants to study Kabblah has been drawn by the Creator and thus are part of Israel. I noticed that not a single woman attends the teaching sessions in Israel and the few non-Jews are looked at like turds in a punchbowl at a church wedding. Local groups are exclusively run by Jews.
So they can keep their Kabbalah, I'm not interested.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1833 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 08:24 pm |
|
Merlin wrote: "Every failed attempt to organize spirituality results in a religion."
Yeah, everything you learn in Kabbalah teaches you that there's a Creator and to please him you have to follow-- who would guess-- the Jewish Law!!!
The only place the B'nai Barucj breaks with tradition is that they believe (or say, anyway) that everybody who wants to study Kabblah has been drawn by the Creator and thus are part of Israel. I noticed that not a single woman attends the teaching sessions in Israel and the few non-Jews are looked at like turds in a punchbowl at a church wedding. Local groups are exclusively run by Jews.
So they can keep their Kabbalah, I'm not interested.
It takes 40 years to gain any level of mastery anyway, so I hear, providing one starts as a Jewish male who is at least 40 years old. Apparently the teachings are so powerful, that it is arranged so that when you know it, you are near ready for the grave.
|
Torquemada
Yoda
| Joined: | Mon Aug 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 06:55 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: I think you'll get past the Objectivism crap. It's a philosophy that couldn't possibly be less objective.
In essence, Ayn Rand and Objectivism are attempts to turn dogs into cats. Mankind isn't a solitary animal. We instinctively have social hierarchies. Rand thinks everyone should eschew friends, reject their support system, ignore their peers, and go off and do nothing but a single task all their lives.
What a horrifying philosophy. The purpose of life is for me to design really good, say, software, tell everyone to fuck off and leave me alone, and eventually die alone? Really, Rand?
I guess it's sort of how Rand lived her own life - she alienated just about everyone she came into contact with, flagrantly cheated on her husband and burned all her bridges, and died alone, miserable, and addicted to painkillers. Did write a few good books, though. YO: I'm not sure that Rand would say you can only accomplish one particular task or goal in life; I suspect her view would be more along the lines of "accomplish whatever you want to accomplish." Keep in mind that I'm new to her philosophy, though, and have not read all (or even most) of her writings. It's interesting that you call her philosophy "horrifying." Who gets to define "horrifying?" For the objectivist, a life of social *slavery* in which one is sacrificed to the interests of others would be equally "horrifying." "Horrifying" is simply an emotional term; it doesn't tell us anything about the philosophy in question, it just tells us how you feel about it. To me, objectivism is simply about reality. Most people want to hide from reality, and so they make up nice fairy tales that they can hide in throughout their lives. IF (and note that I am saying "if") your "purpose" or "fate" were to design software, tell the world to eff off, and then die alone and miserable, you should accept that as an objective reality and learn to cope with it - or better yet, find a way to change it if it doesn't make you happy. That's why I like objectivism - it basically teaches me how to deal with and accept things as they are, without hiding behind meaningless emotionalism.
____________________
Let's Take a Vote.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 08:49 pm |
|
Torquemada wrote:
YO: I'm not sure that Rand would say you can only accomplish one particular task or goal in life; I suspect her view would be more along the lines of "accomplish whatever you want to accomplish." Keep in mind that I'm new to her philosophy, though, and have not read all (or even most) of her writings.
I think it's very clear from Rand's writings that she believes every person should be a master of one thing. Whether you're an architect, or a railroad tycoon, or a musician, that's what you do. Then you charge people the most exorbitant sum you can get away with for doing it, as free market principles would suggest. And, if anyone tries to regulate or modify your work, it is perfectly morally acceptable to commit terrorist acts in response such as arson, high-seas piracy, or murder.
It's interesting that you call her philosophy "horrifying." Who gets to define "horrifying?"
Me.
For the objectivist, a life of social *slavery* in which one is sacrificed to the interests of others would be equally "horrifying." "Horrifying" is simply an emotional term; it doesn't tell us anything about the philosophy in question, it just tells us how you feel about it.
What you're saying is that there's no objective basis for determining what's "horrifying" and what isn't.
But that argument denies human psychology - which is based on biology, which is based on chemistry, which is based on physics. We've evolved certain responses to certain scenarios. For example, every single human being in a natural state, unless their brain was formed wrong or has somehow become abnormal, would agree that throwing a baby off a cliff is horrifying. It flies in the face of our instincts.
To me, objectivism is simply about reality.
And I strongly disagree, because objectivism denies reality - it denies that human beings are creatures with social instincts. It denies that emotions like compassion and fellowship are natural to the human condition, and makes the absurd claim that they were introduced by priests and Communists.
And then (I guess you have to give Rand credit for this, at least), it follows that philosophy to its logical endpoint and boldly asserts that there is nothing wrong with rape, murder, or terrorism, and that people who feel compassion and fellowship deserve to die.
Most people want to hide from reality, and so they make up nice fairy tales that they can hide in throughout their lives. IF (and note that I am saying "if") your "purpose" or "fate" were to design software, tell the world to eff off, and then die alone and miserable, you should accept that as an objective reality and learn to cope with it - or better yet, find a way to change it if it doesn't make you happy. That's why I like objectivism - it basically teaches me how to deal with and accept things as they are, without hiding behind meaningless emotionalism.
But emotionalism isn't meaningless. You're a member of a species that has evolved emotions for a very specific reason: it allows us to work together and prevents us from becoming a mob of bloodthirsty savages who tear each other apart at the slightest (or no) provocation.
If you don't believe morality is handed down by a god, our emotions are the sole basis for morality. In a atheistic universe where you also deny our emotions, there truly is no basis for the concepts of "right" and "wrong". If your "objective reality" is to design software and tell the world to fuck off, and my "objective reality" is to break into your house, kill you, and eat all your food - what's left to suggest that either of us is more "objectively" correct than the other one? We've both simply followed means to ends.
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 09:16 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: For example, every single human being in a natural state, unless their brain was formed wrong or has somehow become abnormal, would agree that throwing a baby off a cliff is horrifying. It flies in the face of our instincts.
Yet the practice of rejecting (killing) "deformed" infants was common practice in many cultures at times throughout history.
You're a member of a species that has evolved emotions for a very specific reason: it allows us to work together and prevents us from becoming a mob of bloodthirsty savages who tear each other apart at the slightest (or no) provocation.
Yet we still do this today, war, riots and just plain murder.
If you don't believe morality is handed down by a god, our emotions are the sole basis for morality. In a atheistic universe where you also deny our emotions, there truly is no basis for the concepts of "right" and "wrong". If your "objective reality" is to design software and tell the world to fuck off, and my "objective reality" is to break into your house, kill you, and eat all your food - what's left to suggest that either of us is more "objectively" correct than the other one? We've both simply followed means to ends.
This argument falls apart in the face of "reality." Every atheist I've ever known has a much better sense of morality than most christians. China is an entire country of atheists and their society is much, much more non-violent than that of the U.S., a christian nation.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 09:20 pm |
|
JackFlash wrote: If you don't believe morality is handed down by a god, our emotions are the sole basis for morality. In a atheistic universe where you also deny our emotions, there truly is no basis for the concepts of "right" and "wrong". If your "objective reality" is to design software and tell the world to fuck off, and my "objective reality" is to break into your house, kill you, and eat all your food - what's left to suggest that either of us is more "objectively" correct than the other one? We've both simply followed means to ends.
This argument falls apart in the face of "reality." Every atheist I've ever known has a much better sense of morality than most christians. China is an entire country of atheists and their society is much, much more non-violent than that of the U.S., a christian nation.
Read my argument again: if a person denies both 1) God and 2) human emotion, he or she will have no basis for morality.
And, in fact, since I believe humans created the major God concepts, I believe "God's will" generally boils down to "our own emotional desires" - why else would all the gods have roughly the same will?
The Chinese don't deny human emotion. They don't make any claims like "You should stop loving your mother because that would impede your ability to be fully independent while you design buildings."
But Ayn Rand does.
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 09:39 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: The Chinese don't deny human emotion. They don't make any claims like "You should stop loving your mother because that would impede your ability to be fully independent while you design buildings."
And neither do atheists. Are you actually implying that atheists don't have emotions in your statement below?
In a atheistic universe where you also deny our emotions
"Human emotions" is sort of my specialty, I don't think a human can survive for long without them. Social order would certainly be impossible, as would most human interaction. Without emotions, our species would have been an evolutionary failure.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 09:45 pm |
|
JackFlash wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: The Chinese don't deny human emotion. They don't make any claims like "You should stop loving your mother because that would impede your ability to be fully independent while you design buildings."
And neither do atheists. Are you actually implying that atheists don't have emotions in your statement below?
In a atheistic universe where you also deny our emotions
"Human emotions" is sort of my specialty, I don't think a human can survive for long without them. Social order would certainly be impossible, as would most human interaction. Without emotions, our species would have been an evolutionary failure.
Yeah, you're making the exact point that I am - you just don't seem to realize it.
Objectivism isn't just atheism. Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy that also specifically advocates that we deny our emotions. It has no use for social order; as far as it's concerned, life is an "every man for himself" free-for-all where the only necessary human interaction is the marketplace.
Well, and sex, I guess, but Rand very explicitly spells out how she finds rape preferable to dating.
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 09:53 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote:
Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy that also specifically advocates that we deny our emotions. It has no use for social order; as far as it's concerned, life is an "every man for himself" free-for-all where the only necessary human interaction is the marketplace.
That's just silly.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 09:58 pm |
|
JackFlash wrote: AyHyperbole wrote:
Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy that also specifically advocates that we deny our emotions. It has no use for social order; as far as it's concerned, life is an "every man for himself" free-for-all where the only necessary human interaction is the marketplace.
That's just silly.
Just to be clear, are you saying that the philosophy I'm describing is silly, or are you saying that you're familiar with Objectivism and you think the way I'm describing it is silly?
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: JackFlash wrote: AyHyperbole wrote:
Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy that also specifically advocates that we deny our emotions. It has no use for social order; as far as it's concerned, life is an "every man for himself" free-for-all where the only necessary human interaction is the marketplace.
That's just silly.
Just to be clear, are you saying that , or are you saying that you're familiar with Objectivism and you think the way I'm describing it is silly?
The philosophy you're describing is silly. I remember starting to read something by Ann Rand way back when and thinking it was crap, then forgot about it. Never wasted my time with it again.
|
Current time is 07:22 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
