‹ First  < 2 3 4
 
   
 

If you think an ideology or religion is immoral and evil, should you actively oppose it?

 
dhave
 
Avatar
 
 
dhave
Total Posts:  284
Joined  25-09-2016
 
 
 
09 October 2017 19:05
 
Greatest I am - 09 October 2017 06:27 PM

I am doing my bit to fight immoral ideologies. Are you?

What is your description of a typical representative of Gnostic Christianity?

This I have to hear.

Though you are given the answers, you do not hear.

(Insert pithy comment about logs in eyes.)

If self-flagellation does not help, DL, I recommend the Manhatten tomato-based clam chowder.

Regards,
Dave.

 

 
 
Tahiti67
 
Avatar
 
 
Tahiti67
Total Posts:  66
Joined  13-09-2017
 
 
 
10 October 2017 01:48
 

I do not follow any particular ideology but probably draw from all.

You follow an ideology that, like mine, tells me to be an esoteric ecumenist and cherry pick the best rules and laws regardless of where they are.

You might want to get into semantics but what you follow is and ideology or way of believing what you should do.

I don’t believe in any path,

Yes you do as you expressed it above as drawing the good from all ideologies.

other than that human purpose is to evolve its consciousness awareness level.

A good path even as your statement is self contradictory.

Everyone finds this in their own unique way. So no I do not think our own values require fighting other ‘bad’ ideologies, unless their premises and actions are affecting others negatively.

Do you see the intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions like Christianity and Islam as effecting others by the billions in a negative way since they discriminate and denigrate women and gays without a just cause?

Still then, is it effective to fight the evils by indicating them or does it only make the mass population hold onto them more?

Wars are won by killing one soldier at a time. The same applies to wrong thinking people. I do not promote killing of course but discussing and debating them till their immoral religions die by people leaving them one at a time.

One ideology fighting another seems contradictory.

Again, you use a weird word out of place.

  Comparisons in good points of each (because there is always something good to be found in anything) seems more profitable to me.

There is indeed profit in choosing the best way of thinking and acting but to only look at the good and ignore the evil that might override the goodness or evilness of the overall ideology would be to allow evil to grow.

It all depends on who has the truth on morality and whether it is truly upheld or not.

I think I can agree with this.

You said there is always something good to be found in anything.

Tell us what is good about Yahweh’s genocide as well as Hitler’s attempted genocide of the Jews so that I might see the good in those.

Regards
DL

 

Ideologies have names and there is no consensual definition of human consciousness yet. What we know is that we all have it. An ecumenist does not fit into pantheism, atheism or agnostic vision, or do you separate these from religious ideologies? I’m happy to accept selective as it does not escape diversity.

Language limits us to the use of ‘path’ and ‘ideology’ and you can take ‘good’ to tie in with   ‘It all depends on who has the truth on morality and whether it is truly upheld or not.’ Good and evil are entirely subjective, depending on environment and variables. American gun laws is a simple example. Americans find it ‘good or moral’ millions of others consider it ‘bad.’ Who has the truth on morality here? Just as in a ME woman now in a western world would find wearing a head scarf suppression and another in another geographical region or even in the west finds it acceptable or respectful. Who has the truth of morality there and based on what grounds?

“wrong thinking people” is a massive statement if it addresses billions instead of say ‘killers’ who really are set on committing evil just to prove their perceived truths. As a poster wrote b/w y/n right/wrong are just too simplistic to address major issues.

“yahweh’s or Hitler’s genocide’ was of course dependent on the subjective reality experiencing the good or evil. Hitler and his supporters thought and probably truly believed he was doing good for his people. Only through experiencing their conceptual idea of what they thought was good, actually proved that it wasn’t. Rwanda, Armenians, Native American Indians. All the slaughter in history was evil in action and just as evil were those who stood by and watched and waited before intercepting through mass action to stop it.  One could say a level of morality was established through atrocities as both good and evil sides dealt with the consequences.

My point is, every evil has been committed by one who commits war on another’s ideas. Taking down soldiers one at a time is admirable and a worthy cause but how effective is it when mass immorality might lie dormant for now, yet ready to explode, at the press of a button by a handful of powerful people. What the alternative is to one soldier at a time I am still endeavouring to discover.

 
Greatest I am
 
Avatar
 
 
Greatest I am
Total Posts:  205
Joined  26-07-2013
 
 
 
10 October 2017 02:31
 
dhave - 09 October 2017 07:05 PM
Greatest I am - 09 October 2017 06:27 PM

I am doing my bit to fight immoral ideologies. Are you?

What is your description of a typical representative of Gnostic Christianity?

This I have to hear.

Though you are given the answers, you do not hear.

(Insert pithy comment about logs in eyes.)

If self-flagellation does not help, DL, I recommend the Manhatten tomato-based clam chowder.

Regards,
Dave.

As I expected from your dead mind.

Regards
DL

 
Greatest I am
 
Avatar
 
 
Greatest I am
Total Posts:  205
Joined  26-07-2013
 
 
 
10 October 2017 03:06
 
Tahiti67 - 10 October 2017 01:48 AM

I do not follow any particular ideology but probably draw from all.

You follow an ideology that, like mine, tells me to be an esoteric ecumenist and cherry pick the best rules and laws regardless of where they are.

You might want to get into semantics but what you follow is and ideology or way of believing what you should do.

I don’t believe in any path,

Yes you do as you expressed it above as drawing the good from all ideologies.

other than that human purpose is to evolve its consciousness awareness level.

A good path even as your statement is self contradictory.

Everyone finds this in their own unique way. So no I do not think our own values require fighting other ‘bad’ ideologies, unless their premises and actions are affecting others negatively.

Do you see the intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions like Christianity and Islam as effecting others by the billions in a negative way since they discriminate and denigrate women and gays without a just cause?

Still then, is it effective to fight the evils by indicating them or does it only make the mass population hold onto them more?

Wars are won by killing one soldier at a time. The same applies to wrong thinking people. I do not promote killing of course but discussing and debating them till their immoral religions die by people leaving them one at a time.

One ideology fighting another seems contradictory.

Again, you use a weird word out of place.

  Comparisons in good points of each (because there is always something good to be found in anything) seems more profitable to me.

There is indeed profit in choosing the best way of thinking and acting but to only look at the good and ignore the evil that might override the goodness or evilness of the overall ideology would be to allow evil to grow.

It all depends on who has the truth on morality and whether it is truly upheld or not.

I think I can agree with this.

You said there is always something good to be found in anything.

Tell us what is good about Yahweh’s genocide as well as Hitler’s attempted genocide of the Jews so that I might see the good in those.

Regards
DL

 

Ideologies have names and there is no consensual definition of human consciousness yet.

i·de·ol·o·gies
A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Not too get into semantics but you are a biological system are you not. Jesus considered himself an ideology that expressed itself whenever he opened his mouth, we are all in this together, alone.

What we know is that we all have it.

That is why I said you did.

An ecumenist does not fit into pantheism, atheism or agnostic vision, or do you separate these from religious ideologies? I’m happy to accept selective as it does not escape diversity.

The goal is not to have my ideology fit into theirs. It is to take the good out of theirs and then show the evil should it have any, and most do, and try to bring their inferior thinking to my better one.

Language limits us to the use of ‘path’ and ‘ideology’ and you can take ‘good’ to tie in with   ‘It all depends on who has the truth on morality and whether it is truly upheld or not.

I do not see language as a barrier. Having the other hear the word is the problem. Faith and idol worship close the ears.

’ Good and evil are entirely subjective, depending on environment and variables.

I agree.

American gun laws is a simple example. Americans find it ‘good or moral’ millions of others consider it ‘bad.’ Who has the truth on morality here?

Morality speaks to the appropriate use of weapons. Not the ownership. If we are to say that ownership of weapons is immoral, we would have to try to disarm the whole world. I do see the U.S. as insecure though thanks to it’s historic past.

Just as in a ME woman now in a western world would find wearing a head scarf suppression and another in another geographical region or even in the west finds it acceptable or respectful. Who has the truth of morality there and based on what grounds?

In short. It is a matter of coercion. If there is some, and in most cases there is, then it is immoral. I see Islam as a slave holding ideology and the veil as a sign of slavery.

“wrong thinking people” is a massive statement if it addresses billions instead of say ‘killers’ who really are set on committing evil just to prove their perceived truths. As a poster wrote b/w y/n right/wrong are just too simplistic to address major issues.

I do not agree.
Billions are idol worshipers of supernatural Gods and that is wrong thinking.
I see it as a major issue thanks to the 2,000 years of war that those foolish beliefs have gifted us.

“yahweh’s or Hitler’s genocide’ was of course dependent on the subjective reality experiencing the good or evil. Hitler and his supporters thought and probably truly believed he was doing good for his people. Only through experiencing their conceptual idea of what they thought was good, actually proved that it wasn’t. Rwanda, Armenians, Native American Indians. All the slaughter in history was evil in action and just as evil were those who stood by and watched and waited before intercepting through mass action to stop it.  One could say a level of morality was established through atrocities as both good and evil sides dealt with the consequences.

As evolving human animals, we must both cooperate and compete. Competing without war for resources is tough and we continue to do that today thanks to our insecurity and genetic drive to survive as the fittest. It is natural to some extent and I do not know what would happen to us if we could somehow take competition out of our own evolution. Hopefully our intelligence will find a better way.

My point is, every evil has been committed by one who commits war on another’s ideas. Taking down soldiers one at a time is admirable and a worthy cause but how effective is it when mass immorality might lie dormant for now, yet ready to explode, at the press of a button by a handful of powerful people. What the alternative is to one soldier at a time I am still endeavouring to discover.

Ideas can be fought with words as well as swords but swords are generally the faster way.

Some speculate that few will be persuaded by words and that that is why the sword is so often used instead of good arguments and showing a better way. Let me repeat,  Hopefully our intelligence will find a better way. In fact, we might be nearing that. I just put this new future O.P. together. Have a look and opine should you wish to. You are the first to read it.

============

A nuclear WWIII will never happen. Dishonor will prevent it.

Wars are fought for honor and a nuclear WWII would have nothing but shame for the initiator of such a war. 

Our leaders know that there would be no honor in a nuclear war that would destroy our environment and insure that there is no real winner. Any leader or military war machine under his command that would initiate such a war would know dishonor like the world has never seen. The hate for Hitler and his regime and ideology is still alive and well in the world and that hate would be dwarfed by the hate that the initiator of a third WWIII would feel from the world.

The main reason for that hate and denial of honor would stem from the fact that any nuclear war would be fought against cities and their citizen instead of having an honorable battlefield war. No leader or military force will dishonor itself the way the U.S. did in Japan. Honor in war comes from facing an enemy man to man and our technology has now made that impossible. There is no honor in killing innocent non-combatant citizens in their beds from thousands of miles away. Ordinary people know this and so do their leaders and military.

Mutual assured destruction says that any nuclear war will be self-genocide. Some who do not know why wars are fought, and honor sought, may think some leaders are foolish enough to initiate a nuclear war but forget that no high ranking military man, especially of Asian descent, would ever dishonor himself and his family by initiating such a war. Such a man of honor would never initiate such a dishonorable war. A man of honor would know though that he would not be doing his duty if he did not retaliate. Reciprocity is fair play and is honorable and duty and honor would force a reciprocal reply.

Do you understand the psychological principles at play shown above and do you agree?

Regards
DL


 

 

 
Tahiti67
 
Avatar
 
 
Tahiti67
Total Posts:  66
Joined  13-09-2017
 
 
 
21 November 2017 12:42
 

Sorry DL, totally missed this response. I sometimes click unsubcribe to topic in notification email instead of to the topic.

Greatest I am - 10 October 2017 03:06 AM
Tahiti67 - 10 October 2017 01:48 AM

I do not follow any particular ideology but probably draw from all.

You follow an ideology that, like mine, tells me to be an esoteric ecumenist and cherry pick the best rules and laws regardless of where they are.

You might want to get into semantics but what you follow is and ideology or way of believing what you should do.

I don’t believe in any path,

Yes you do as you expressed it above as drawing the good from all ideologies.

other than that human purpose is to evolve its consciousness awareness level.

A good path even as your statement is self contradictory.

Everyone finds this in their own unique way. So no I do not think our own values require fighting other ‘bad’ ideologies, unless their premises and actions are affecting others negatively.

If you believe “When Emotions Make Better Decisions - Antonio Damasio” as I do, I think emotions, that are innate, instinctively know ‘good’ or ‘right’ path for the specific individual, and this is what triggers mind to think of a path.  Environment is a huge variable and maybe gene brain wiring too.

Do you see the intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions like Christianity and Islam as effecting others by the billions in a negative way since they discriminate and denigrate women and gays without a just cause?

Word description too big, too general and not my cup of tea. So no I don’t. Some yes, but effecting billions negatively? No. I hate to say it as I am not religious, but many believers live more moral lives, even if in more mental ignorance of truth. They keep their families together, promote better values that hedonist ones which pursue materialism endlessly. If I weigh up both’s damage well neither is blameless, all have used blood in history to prove their beliefs.  That Christianity is ahead of Islam in terms of not needing to kill is due to history, politics, economics, geographical position and other factors such as colonisation.

There is indeed profit in choosing the best way of thinking and acting but to only look at the good and ignore the evil that might override the goodness or evilness of the overall ideology would be to allow evil to grow.

True. I believe very much in the how it is done not only the what

i·de·ol·o·gies
A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Not too get into semantics but you are a biological system are you not. Jesus considered himself an ideology that expressed itself whenever he opened his mouth, we are all in this together, alone.

Don’t quite get the last sentence. Who said Jesus considered that? That might not have been what he said at all but got distorted by the public. Like much is still distorted today. If I gauged SH on a few YT videos, I’d have the totally wrong impression.

The goal is not to have my ideology fit into theirs. It is to take the good out of theirs and then show the evil should it have any, and most do, and try to bring their inferior thinking to my better one.

Good luck with that. Starting off on that premise is going to encounter natural psychological resistance. There has to be a better neutral way. You said it yourself we are natural beings that compete.

Morality speaks to the appropriate use of weapons. Not the ownership. If we are to say that ownership of weapons is immoral, we would have to try to disarm the whole world. I do see the U.S. as insecure though thanks to it’s historic past.

IF we know from statistics of the amount of weapons leads to probability of more deaths then to not curb ownership amount is immoral in my view. SH gives his usual worse case scenarios (wicked imagination) of a women alone who knows 911 won’t arrive on time and therefore needs to arm herself. The odds of less against the greater evil of 1000’s of gun deaths vs. the unfortunate, crimes to me says choose the lesser evil and that is less ownership.

In short. It is a matter of coercion. If there is some, and in most cases there is, then it is immoral. I see Islam as a slave holding ideology and the veil as a sign of slavery.

And in the 60’s in the western world when women wore them, what do you call that? Or AFrican headdress where culturally women wear scarves all the times just in a different way and more colours?

I do not agree.
Billions are idol worshipers of supernatural Gods and that is wrong thinking.
I see it as a major issue thanks to the 2,000 years of war that those foolish beliefs have gifted us.

Without Christianity, Europe wouldn’t be the beautiful authentic, old, cathedral filled paradise that it is. I’m happy with the cultural benefits. Just as money builds skyscrapers. That’s another religion, money. Modern type.

As evolving human animals, we must both cooperate and compete. Competing without war for resources is tough and we continue to do that today thanks to our insecurity and genetic drive to survive as the fittest. It is natural to some extent and I do not know what would happen to us if we could somehow take competition out of our own evolution. Hopefully our intelligence will find a better way.

Nice thought.

Ideas can be fought with words as well as swords but swords are generally the faster way.

Maybe short term but the pen is mightier than the sword long term. Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal comes to mind.

Some speculate that few will be persuaded by words and that that is why the sword is so often used instead of good arguments and showing a better way. Let me repeat,  Hopefully our intelligence will find a better way. In fact, we might be nearing that. I just put this new future O.P. together. Have a look and opine should you wish to. You are the first to read it.

============

A nuclear WWIII will never happen. Dishonor will prevent it.

Wars are fought for honor and a nuclear WWII would have nothing but shame for the initiator of such a war. 

Our leaders know that there would be no honor in a nuclear war that would destroy our environment and insure that there is no real winner. Any leader or military war machine under his command that would initiate such a war would know dishonor like the world has never seen. The hate for Hitler and his regime and ideology is still alive and well in the world and that hate would be dwarfed by the hate that the initiator of a third WWIII would feel from the world.

The main reason for that hate and denial of honor would stem from the fact that any nuclear war would be fought against cities and their citizen instead of having an honorable battlefield war. No leader or military force will dishonor itself the way the U.S. did in Japan. Honor in war comes from facing an enemy man to man and our technology has now made that impossible. There is no honor in killing innocent non-combatant citizens in their beds from thousands of miles away. Ordinary people know this and so do their leaders and military.

Mutual assured destruction says that any nuclear war will be self-genocide. Some who do not know why wars are fought, and honor sought, may think some leaders are foolish enough to initiate a nuclear war but forget that no high ranking military man, especially of Asian descent, would ever dishonor himself and his family by initiating such a war. Such a man of honor would never initiate such a dishonorable war. A man of honor would know though that he would not be doing his duty if he did not retaliate. Reciprocity is fair play and is honorable and duty and honor would force a reciprocal reply.

Do you understand the psychological principles at play shown above and do you agree?

Regards
DL

Nice piece and thank-you. Sorry for my absence, been busy!!!
I absolutely agree with your sentiment although the unthinkable madness has happened before in history and it seems that humanity doesn’t learn. They often act of and in the moment.  What about though if AI gets hold of the nuclear, or malfunctions and commits the atrocity and starts it? Who’s to blame? The AI or its creator? AI can now teach itself stuff in very little time. It’s fascinating. I’m not scared yet smile

Thanks for the interaction

 

 

 
IrieCycle
 
Avatar
 
 
IrieCycle
Total Posts:  15
Joined  18-11-2017
 
 
 
29 November 2017 03:48
 

Humanist (not secular). and although I preemply became a member of AHA so far I am not in solidarity of the organization.
Easy answer:  Oppose religion by making all churches pay property tax.
Remember the adage;  “The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men todo nothing.”??  Or how about the Machiavelli script; “Does the ends justify the means.”?? 
Consider why this is so in regards to this thread topic.  Both concepts imply that yes we should actively oppose that which is immoral in society.  (That is if you take the stance that the ends does not justify the means as might be assumed because it is the premise of what Sam Harris advocates within his teachings in regards to The Moral Landscape.). This is so because as citizens it is our duty to be upright.  Uphold a sanction of justice as it pertains to our immediate divestments in life.  If we do not, there is ground by which we may stand on for our moral truths to actualize in life.  Our truths are only as good as we are.  So ‘Duty’ becomes our obligation to purport integrity as a citizen within society.  This is clearly the purport of the Bhagavad-Gita and the teachings of Confuscious.  It comes into play within contemporary society differently as one assumes a role or position in the polarized matrix as a law abiding citizen.  We must act within the confines of the structure given / lay out for us unless we know of a higher truth which exists.  In this case, law no longer pertains to the citizen as the truth of their knowing takes precedence.  (Ghandi). Ones own law is primary because the morals of the individual is superior to the morals of the group.  It is our duty as citizens to be proactive in regards to truth in order to enact justice within society.  Otherwise there could be no perpetuation or development of ‘maturity’ within Humankind.

[ Edited: 12 February 2018 09:20 by IrieCycle]
 
 
Greatest I am
 
Avatar
 
 
Greatest I am
Total Posts:  205
Joined  26-07-2013
 
 
 
01 December 2017 11:10
 
IrieCycle - 29 November 2017 03:48 AM

Humanist (not secular). and although I preemply became a member of AHA so far I am not in solidarity of the organization.
Easy answer:  Oppose (r)Religion by making all (C)churches pay property tax.

I agree with this last as I am tired of paying the shortfall we give to religions via exemptions.

Regards
DL

 

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4