Thoughts from a Simple Man

[daws101]

 

[Boss]

...if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire...

I guess you must be striving for peace of soul and pleasure, because you sure believe god doesn't exist.

 

[editec]

Morality is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Okay, Wake....

Seriously.

You obviously took a lot of time and effort in your OP.
You also took the time to multi-PM some of us to get our thoughts.

So, I guess, I owe you the same courtesy of time.
This is a really long-winded reply for me when I'm not c/p-ing.

But, WADR, your views of right and wrong worry me as they tend to fit the definition of a sociopath

And, schizzy as hell. Came on the board, attacking and nasty but now wants "intellectual" discourse.

Wonder what he'll morph into next week.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

To be fair, I also used to try to actually talk and discuss when I first came here. Now I don't bother. because I know it will be met with juvenile name calling.

 

[Wake]

Except for a few, I really appreciate hearing all of your thoughts on this.

I just wonder about these things because there's so much we don't know. Take "empathy" for example. What we call empathy I've felt routinely.... but who first named and defined that feeling, and how is it explained scientifically?

Not to sound like a broken record but it's like people made these concepts to help eachother survive. If they didn't create language people would have a lot of difficulty communicating. Is it possible to understand all of these notions as made up, but still treat them as necessary ideas?

 

[Foxfyre]

he read it all right .
like myself he was not impressed...

Job lived long before Christ. The story starts out, and one of God's fallen angels, notices God lavishes all his attention on a man named Job, his follower and challenged him to take away the man's possessions and health, he would then leave God's presence and wouldn't like God any more. the rest is history. Job didn't denounce his maker, and God won over the dervish fallen one. There were not any "Christians" at the time.

Therefore, Friedrich Nietzsche was just looking for an excuse to whack Christianity if he knew about Job and even back to Genesis and the story of the temptation. Nietzsche was fulla prunes.

maybe he realized that the bible is fiction..
After graduation in 1864, Nietzsche commenced studies in theology and classical philology at the University of Bonn. For a short time he and Deussen became members of the Burschenschaft Frankonia. After one semester (and to the anger of his mother) he stopped his theological studies and lost his faith.[53] As early as his 1862 essay "Fate and History", Nietzsche had argued that historical research had discredited the central teachings of Christianity,[54] but David Strauss's Life of Jesus also seems to have had a profound effect on the young man.[53] although Nietzsche had already argued that historical research had discredited the central teachings of Christianity in his 1862 essay "Fate and History". In 1865, at the age of 20, Nietzsche wrote to his sister Elisabeth, who was deeply religious, a letter regarding his loss of faith. This letter ended with a following sentence:
"Hence the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..."
Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

guess he did know the fable of job...

Would that be the same sister Nietzsche (allegedly) had the long term incestuous relationship with? The same sister who married an Aryan promoter that rivaled Hitler's passion, who embraced Hitler's Naziism and became a key figure in the party? And who promoted Frederic Nietzsche's works most prejudiciously and dishonestly once she had access to them after his mental collapse?

Devoutly religious? Given her sympathies with her husband and the Nazi regime, I rather doubt that.

Her distortions of Nietzsche’s ideas in this work and others were in large measure responsible for the subsequent misperception of Nietzsche as an early philosopher of fascism. Elisabeth was a supporter of the Nazi Party; her funeral in 1935 was attended by Adolf Hitler and other Nazi dignitaries. After her death scholars reedited Nietzsche’s writings and found some of Elisabeth’s versions distorted and spurious: she forged nearly 30 letters and often rewrote passages. The discovery of her forgeries and of the original texts profoundly influenced later interpretations of Nietzsche’s philosophy
Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche (German editor) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[theword]

Except for a few, I really appreciate hearing all of your thoughts on this.

I just wonder about these things because there's so much we don't know. Take "empathy" for example. What we call empathy I've felt routinely.... but who first named and defined that feeling, and how is it explained scientifically?

Not to sound like a broken record but it's like people made these concepts to help eachother survive. If they didn't create language people would have a lot of difficulty communicating. Is it possible to understand all of these notions as made up, but still treat them as necessary ideas?

God created entropy (Lucifer and the beast) to keep us focused on this changing world instead of the Truth that will never change. Man's emotions were created with a lot of entropy to confuse man's mind. I can make a kind happy selfish man angry with one sentence from "Christ", which has no entropy (Lucifer and the beast) in it.

 

[Pogo]

Wake, thanks for the PM invitation here; I'm just now getting to it. Might I suggest next time, start a thread on a Tuesday on a random date, rather than the beginning of a long holiday weekend...

There's a lot to digest in the OP and not a coherent whole, so I'll choose to chew on the god riff. Of course (after Voltaire), man makes "God" in his own image -- even to the point of giving "him" a gender, and if that's not enough, even to the point of giving him the wrong one. I just posted this in relation to the concept of "Satan" but it's the same thing here; if you're a deity (or antideity), you don't have a gender unless you've got an alternate gender with which you can reproduce. If there's not a Goddess with which they can make little godlets and godessettes, then "God" can have no gender, since "male" only exists in contrast to "female". And if "God" did have gender, clearly it couldn't be male, the purpose of which is only to fertilize Female, which is the gender that actually gives life. So why do we suppose we call God "Him" instead of "It" -- let alone "Her"? That's one of the reasons I have to answer No if the question "do you believe in God" comes up. Not that way, hell no.

As to the ethical quesiton, I simply believe in karma, and that covers me. So in that exercise I think it was Foxy mentioned of the two pieces of cake, if I were the one to decide who gets which piece I would take for myself the smaller, even though I'm a sucker for cake, because that would be the most karmically selfish act, and all acts are at base selfish. And if I wanted to be really selfish, I would then give my piece of cake away.

Would just like to applaud this line:

The notion that god created people that believe in him to have them believe in him because he exists seems circular to me.

Circular is exactly what it is, and so much of theism depends on such circular reasoning. I pointed out the same thing to a poster who claimed that Satan's greatest trick is getting people to not-believe in him.

 

[Votto]

My perspective of the world is a bit different.

Humans are incredibly interesting creatures. Homo sapiens the scientific call us. We make up ideas and concepts for us and everyone else to live by. Laws, beliefs, and morals don't exist without us. People argue to make them. The words we use were created by those who came before us, as well as the meanings these people attached to them. There's something about humans that is incredibly difficult to understand. Although we're born on some random rock in space, and our existences have no objective purposes, we seem to feel that our lives have some meaning. Then again, others feel (or understand?) that life has no real point. We're just, well, odd.

We have created everything unnatural in this world we currently live in. This includes language, morality, concepts, beliefs, religion, laws, everything. Words are created and given meaning by different peoples. The existence of multiple languages adds credence to this notion. Language morphs and evolves due in part to changing norms and the passage of time. The concepts of right and wrong, too, were created by us. Like what we call "gods," we create all of these things that we live by. Out of the convoluted depths of what we call our "hearts," "minds," or "souls," we make all of these things, and learn about them in our own time. What is particularly fascinating is etymology, because it, too, shows how words originated (were created) in the past and morphed and changed over time. Perhaps the creation of language by humans was necessary, because what came before language, grunting and other sounds, was likely not helpful. Then again, the very fact that animals do have ways to communicate may lend weight to the argument that all language, though created by humans, is naturally inevitable. What I do know is that all of these intangible notions and ideas require humans to "exist." If humans were wiped off of the face of the Earth, in that no humans exist in the untamed wilderness, none of these immaterial things can exist.

I argue that there is no right and wrong. Laws have no meaning, because laws are fabrications. Morals, too, are made, not existing by themselves. We raise our offspring to have certain morals and values. This is true for atheists to the religious... every single human out there (I suppose). Morals and values, which are created, are the building blocks of all beliefs. Feelings are the result of chemicals in the brain, as well as all of the things we think and do. I don't understand how feelings exist, or what the triggers are. I'm inclined to believe that there is a scientific explanation for the existence of feelings. It may very well be the inability of the brain to cope with certain situations. Or empathy? If so I wonder what the scientific underpinnings of empathy itself would be (pinning down the material atoms and chemicals involved). When I think of humans I think of them as individuals in a strange and cruel world where they're expected to behave under the expectations and designs of those humans who lived before them. Humans are naturally scared; all have a certain level of fear deep within the unconscious mind. They are likely fearful of disobeying the orders their parents tell them, or the peculiar and unnatural laws society dictates for them. I have no regard for the law, because laws aren't real. Any person in a state of power, where others fear him/her, can scribble down some words and call it a law. Think back to any of the bizarre laws you've ever heard of; you may know of at least one. You may wonder to yourself, "Why would a law like that exist?" I think that people find certain laws to be natural because they feel that it resonates with their feelings, perspectives, and morals/values.

Why do we do this? For example most of us believe murder is wrong. Why? Because we don't like the thought of it happening to us. Our parents taught us to despise it? It just seems that people think murder is wrong because they feel it is, or because they were told it was from a young age. I question every single notion of right and wrong, and first and foremost I hold in my mind that absolutely nothing is right and wrong, good or evil. That may sound very odd to you. My reasoning is because science has not ascertained the physical, objective existence of morals, laws, etc. All of these notions cannot be discerned by any of the five senses. You can't touch a moral, smell a law, taste a belief, see a god, or hear evil. There is no scientific basis towards the objective existence of these things. Humans make all of these things in the hopes of binding people together to create societies. Imagine what may happen if man lived wildly and freely like the wolves and deer in nature? There would likely be wanton killing, raping, fighting, etc. In nature male wolves fight each other for the females, and then mount their "prize." No mating or civility, there. Likewise, these wolves, both males and females, hunt down other animals and kill and eat them. Society may not work so well if all of us mildly hairy mammals did the same.

But then, there are other things to consider. Quite a few creatures have ways to communicate with themselves. Other animals create their own, unique societies. Ants, for example, have the ability to signal meanings to fellow ants. If ants can have their own societies and means to communicate, maybe there is some natural sense in what humans have done, too. It could be true that humans have a society far more unique and "better" than other species because humans are bigger, more adaptable, and have far more intelligence. Wouldn't it be a scary thought if ants were as big as us, could walk upright, and had double our average intellect? They may very well have had greater cities and constructs than we could ever hope to create. It would be quite interesting if we learned that we weren't the only highly intelligent, humanoid species in the universe.

On the notion of god there is much to question. Many believe that man was created in the image of god, but it's my contention that god was created in the image of man. At some point tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago, the concept of religion was born. I cannot explain what it is exactly that causes people to create and worship the idea of a god. In those times, you had incredibly good reason to be scared. Everything was out to kill you, and there was no Obamacare to rely on. People were incredibly fearful of everything, they likely had little or no education/reason, and they wanted to feel as if they could place trust in something in order to reassure themselves with the warm feelings of hope. Praying is a way to relieve stress. Though the deity doesn’t exist, the act of praying to it helps relieve the person. "Why" is a good question. Other reasons to question the idea of god is because, throughout time, hundreds of different deities have been created. Respectfully I find it amusing when certain mainstream groups like Christians or Muslims denounce the existence of other gods, as if they have some sort of scientific leverage to decide which fabricated deity exists. Let's consider the Christian god. It's been assigned a male gender. I wonder that. Why would a deity have a gender? If a god was a god and was everlasting it wouldn't need a gender. If these things have genders, well, these things may also have sex. The existence of gender implies the inevitability of sex. And why would a god have a gender and the ability to have sex? Gods can't die, right? If these deities have genders and sex then likely it is because these things worry about death and extinction so they need to propagate the herd. This is even more reason to believe that god was created in the image of man. That's because humans are living creatures with genders, the need for sex, the inevitability of death, and the risk of extinction. Imagine what these humans can do with these gods they create. They can make people fear. They can make people help and support others. They can make people dead.

It's as though the real world has been decorated with all of these created, unnatural things. We have laws that are indeed imaginary and subject to change/be distorted by the whims of ever-changing people. Or is it that we create our own reality? We make a law and presume that we have now changed the face of reality.

Perhaps it may be true that the only reality we have is that life is pointless and meaningless. And... I suppose we have to make do with what we've got. We're mammals living on a planet where morals, good, evil, equality, justice, laws, beliefs, religions, and every other man-made hypothetical structure don't exist. Yet in spite of these truths, those of us who understand this to an extent... follow these things anyways.

We are living creatures with a certain level of intelligence. We can know this for sure. Beyond that, we run the risk of walking past the border of subjectivity.

What are your thoughts, please? (I wanna know where I went wrong. )

Your Taxes, Your Beliefs​

Sorry, I lost interest after the bit about there not being any right or wrong and life not having any meaning. I just said, "Screw it". But I'm sure it was a very time consuming thoughtful post.

Cheers.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry, I lost interest after the bit about there not being any right or wrong and life not having any meaning. I just said, "Screw it". But I'm sure it was a very time consuming thoughtful post.

Cheers.

Official scorer: "E-3"

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Thanks for the invite to share my thoughts. One of the most important aspects of the Constitution, in my humble opinion, is the freedom of religion. I have mine and you have yours, or even the lack of it. We each may seek out those who share the same ideas on religion and congregate together, celebrating those ideas. We live our lives by the tenants of that religion. It is understandable and expected that given two people, there will be some differences in what they believe or don't believe. Some differences between certain people will be major while between other people there may be minor differences.

I have a niece that I love very much, and she lives in a very large city quite far away from me. She believes that she is a Wiccan and in her home the coffee table in front of the couch is actually a coffin. Her and her husbands major holiday is Halloween. Okay, we don't talk about religion because I am a conservative Evangelical Christian. But she has the RIGHT to worship (or whatever a Wiccan does) as she pleases. I do not denegrate what she believes although I have to admit, the coffin thing does make me uncomfortable when I have gone to see her. The freedom of religion is as sacred as is freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

I believe in God and that Jesus Christ is his son who came to earth in the form of a man to give the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. I believe in the father, the son and the holy ghost. I would be the first to say that there are those in the church who do not live up to the ideals that they espouse. But what in heaven's name do you expect? Men ARE fallible and they consistently fall short of what Christ taught us. Do not look at a man or a woman to show you how to act or what to believe. You look at Christ who is the example. Man will disappoint you every time. If you put your faith in man then you WILL be disappointed. Just because they go to church doesn't mean that they are somehow instantly placed upon the path of righteousness and will always be there. After being a cop for 20 years I couldn't count how many pastors, deacons, pastors wives, and fine upstanding church ladies I have found in the back seats of cars WITHOUT their spouses. Free will is a very powerful and dangerous thing.

For those of you who are athiests, then I say knock your self out. But to place all of your belief in man to me is like believing in Santa Claus. YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED. I also believe that currently, in this nation there is a "fad" of persecuting Christianity because it is apparently the "in" thing to do. Telling a student at Sonora University to hide the cross that she wears because it will "offend" someone is just one of the most recent examples. There is no such thing as FREEDOM FROM RELIGION in this nation and there should not be. Would it have happened if it was the Star of David or even the Wiccan symbol that my niece wears around her neck? I doubt it.

I believe that what a person worships is their business. And I hate to tell you this, but what they believe WILL guide their actions. They will vote based upon their beliefs. They will support laws that most closely reflect what they hold dear and true. To say to that person that their beliefs shouldn't guide the public policy that they support is ludicrous, and that's putting it mildly.

Your beliefs are your business and it should remain sacred in this nation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wake, thanks for the PM invitation here; I'm just now getting to it. Might I suggest next time, start a thread on a Tuesday on a random date, rather than the beginning of a long holiday weekend...

There's a lot to digest in the OP and not a coherent whole, so I'll choose to chew on the god riff. Of course (after Voltaire), man makes "God" in his own image -- even to the point of giving "him" a gender, and if that's not enough, even to the point of giving him the wrong one. I just posted this in relation to the concept of "Satan" but it's the same thing here; if you're a deity (or antideity), you don't have a gender unless you've got an alternate gender with which you can reproduce. If there's not a Goddess with which they can make little godlets and godessettes, then "God" can have no gender, since "male" only exists in contrast to "female". And if "God" did have gender, clearly it couldn't be male, the purpose of which is only to fertilize Female, which is the gender that actually gives life. So why do we suppose we call God "Him" instead of "It" -- let alone "Her"? That's one of the reasons I have to answer No if the question "do you believe in God" comes up. Not that way, hell no.

As to the ethical quesiton, I simply believe in karma, and that covers me. So in that exercise I think it was Foxy mentioned of the two pieces of cake, if I were the one to decide who gets which piece I would take for myself the smaller, even though I'm a sucker for cake, because that would be the most karmically selfish act, and all acts are at base selfish. And if I wanted to be really selfish, I would then give my piece of cake away.

Would just like to applaud this line:

The notion that god created people that believe in him to have them believe in him because he exists seems circular to me.

Circular is exactly what it is, and so much of theism depends on such circular reasoning. I pointed out the same thing to a poster who claimed that Satan's greatest trick is getting people to not-believe in him.

But how is karma based on choices all that different from a person of faith's belief in heaven and hell--reward or punishment based on choices? Yes, a person might choose the smallest piece because they wanted the smaller piece or because they wanted to bless the other or to receive some favor or reward for their choice. They might give away their own piece simply because they didn't want it or somebody else needed it more or again, to be noble or generous in return for some manner of reward if only admiration of others or only to avoid feeling selfish or from the pleasure of giving another joy or from a compulsion to show compassion.

But every step of the way, whatever the scenario, value judgments are made.

In my illustration, however, those focused on pure justice can see the wisdom of one cutting the cake and the other choosing first. If there is a motive of fairness or justice or to not be cheated or deprived in any way, the child doing the cutting will do it with the precision of a master carpenter. And even here, there is a sense of right and wrong, good and bad results.

 

[Foxfyre]

Second illustration:

A man had a vineyard that needed attention and he summoned some men to work at a wage of $50 for the day. They started to work at 8 a.m. Around 10 a.m. another showed up and was put to work. At noon another, and in the last hour still another. At the end of the day the owner of the vineyard paid each of them $50 for their day's work. Those who had worked the longest complained about why those who worked fewer hours received the same pay? How was that fair? The owner of the vineyard responded, "How does it harm you for me to pay the others what I choose? You received what you agreed to work for."

(Reference: Matthew 20:1-16)

 

[Pogo]

Wake, thanks for the PM invitation here; I'm just now getting to it. Might I suggest next time, start a thread on a Tuesday on a random date, rather than the beginning of a long holiday weekend...

There's a lot to digest in the OP and not a coherent whole, so I'll choose to chew on the god riff. Of course (after Voltaire), man makes "God" in his own image -- even to the point of giving "him" a gender, and if that's not enough, even to the point of giving him the wrong one. I just posted this in relation to the concept of "Satan" but it's the same thing here; if you're a deity (or antideity), you don't have a gender unless you've got an alternate gender with which you can reproduce. If there's not a Goddess with which they can make little godlets and godessettes, then "God" can have no gender, since "male" only exists in contrast to "female". And if "God" did have gender, clearly it couldn't be male, the purpose of which is only to fertilize Female, which is the gender that actually gives life. So why do we suppose we call God "Him" instead of "It" -- let alone "Her"? That's one of the reasons I have to answer No if the question "do you believe in God" comes up. Not that way, hell no.

As to the ethical quesiton, I simply believe in karma, and that covers me. So in that exercise I think it was Foxy mentioned of the two pieces of cake, if I were the one to decide who gets which piece I would take for myself the smaller, even though I'm a sucker for cake, because that would be the most karmically selfish act, and all acts are at base selfish. And if I wanted to be really selfish, I would then give my piece of cake away.

Would just like to applaud this line:

The notion that god created people that believe in him to have them believe in him because he exists seems circular to me.

Circular is exactly what it is, and so much of theism depends on such circular reasoning. I pointed out the same thing to a poster who claimed that Satan's greatest trick is getting people to not-believe in him.

But how is karma based on choices all that different from a person of faith's belief in heaven and hell--reward or punishment based on choices? Yes, a person might choose the smallest piece because they wanted the smaller piece or because they wanted to bless the other or to receive some favor or reward for their choice. They might give away their own piece simply because they didn't want it or somebody else needed it more or again, to be noble or generous in return for some manner of reward if only admiration of others or only to avoid feeling selfish or from the pleasure of giving another joy or from a compulsion to show compassion.

But every step of the way, whatever the scenario, value judgments are made.

In my illustration, however, those focused on pure justice can see the wisdom of one cutting the cake and the other choosing first. If there is a motive of fairness or justice or to not be cheated or deprived in any way, the child doing the cutting will do it with the precision of a master carpenter. And even here, there is a sense of right and wrong, good and bad results.

I'd say the main difference is that the individual is in control of it based on the circumstance at the time -- rather than parroting a rote book of rules that paints life into the black and white. It seems more meaningful when something is done because one figures out it's the right thing to do as opposed to because that's what this book here says, whether that book is of religion or of law.

I guess I'm just not a follower; in the ethical thought process I'd rather learn to fish than just be handed a fish. It covers more meals.

 

[Boss]

Except for a few, I really appreciate hearing all of your thoughts on this.

I just wonder about these things because there's so much we don't know. Take "empathy" for example. What we call empathy I've felt routinely.... but who first named and defined that feeling, and how is it explained scientifically?

Not to sound like a broken record but it's like people made these concepts to help each other survive. If they didn't create language people would have a lot of difficulty communicating. Is it possible to understand all of these notions as made up, but still treat them as necessary ideas?

It's pretty darn incredible, that's for sure.

This is why I don't laugh at Intelligent Design. There are just too many instances of "it just so happens" to logically explain. At some point, a gambler loses a hand, a chess player loses a match, it doesn't matter how good they are. But with humans and life in general, we find so many things that contradict evolution alone, as explanation for origin. Things that had to be in place before some other necessary thing could happen.

The rational mind of man, has to acknowledge that so many crucial things, couldn't have been a matter of chance, coincidence, luck, or randomness. To try and explain it all without some guiding force, takes more faith than believing in God. Nihilism simply defies logic.

Empathy is a part of a set of values we call humanity. These attributes are special, we don't observe them in other species, or at least, not to the degree we find them in humans. In nature, it's survival of the strongest, lions don't empathize with the gazelle they chase. Wolves don't have a sense of morality. A charging elephant isn't going to feel sorry for you. These are the things that make up who and what we are, and we did not obtain these through chance or coincidence.

We are connected to a guiding force, and someone pointed out in another thread, whenever we are being immoral, we have an awareness of it, even when we deny it. Sometimes we justify our immoralities, but even our justification, confirms that we know our actions must be justified. Why do humans who claim to not believe in God, spend so much time here, typing endless diatribes, denouncing something they don't believe is real? Well, it's because they have to try and justify their disbelief, because at base, they know it's wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wake, thanks for the PM invitation here; I'm just now getting to it. Might I suggest next time, start a thread on a Tuesday on a random date, rather than the beginning of a long holiday weekend...

There's a lot to digest in the OP and not a coherent whole, so I'll choose to chew on the god riff. Of course (after Voltaire), man makes "God" in his own image -- even to the point of giving "him" a gender, and if that's not enough, even to the point of giving him the wrong one. I just posted this in relation to the concept of "Satan" but it's the same thing here; if you're a deity (or antideity), you don't have a gender unless you've got an alternate gender with which you can reproduce. If there's not a Goddess with which they can make little godlets and godessettes, then "God" can have no gender, since "male" only exists in contrast to "female". And if "God" did have gender, clearly it couldn't be male, the purpose of which is only to fertilize Female, which is the gender that actually gives life. So why do we suppose we call God "Him" instead of "It" -- let alone "Her"? That's one of the reasons I have to answer No if the question "do you believe in God" comes up. Not that way, hell no.

As to the ethical quesiton, I simply believe in karma, and that covers me. So in that exercise I think it was Foxy mentioned of the two pieces of cake, if I were the one to decide who gets which piece I would take for myself the smaller, even though I'm a sucker for cake, because that would be the most karmically selfish act, and all acts are at base selfish. And if I wanted to be really selfish, I would then give my piece of cake away.

Would just like to applaud this line:


Circular is exactly what it is, and so much of theism depends on such circular reasoning. I pointed out the same thing to a poster who claimed that Satan's greatest trick is getting people to not-believe in him.

But how is karma based on choices all that different from a person of faith's belief in heaven and hell--reward or punishment based on choices? Yes, a person might choose the smallest piece because they wanted the smaller piece or because they wanted to bless the other or to receive some favor or reward for their choice. They might give away their own piece simply because they didn't want it or somebody else needed it more or again, to be noble or generous in return for some manner of reward if only admiration of others or only to avoid feeling selfish or from the pleasure of giving another joy or from a compulsion to show compassion.

But every step of the way, whatever the scenario, value judgments are made.

In my illustration, however, those focused on pure justice can see the wisdom of one cutting the cake and the other choosing first. If there is a motive of fairness or justice or to not be cheated or deprived in any way, the child doing the cutting will do it with the precision of a master carpenter. And even here, there is a sense of right and wrong, good and bad results.

I'd say the main difference is that the individual is in control of it based on the circumstance at the time -- rather than parroting a rote book of rules that paints life into the black and white. It seems more meaningful when something is done because one figures out it's the right thing to do as opposed to because that's what this book here says, whether that book is of religion or of law.

I guess I'm just not a follower; in the ethical thought process I'd rather learn to fish than just be handed a fish. It covers more meals.

I didn't refer to a any book, so regardless of any organized religion, let's leave that out of it and focus on the concept. Even though choosing to believe or not believe, to appreciate or condemn, to obey or dismiss a 'book' is also based on our sense of value regardless of the source of that sense.

So in a purely objective anaylsis, is reward or punishment via karma all that different than reward or punishment via heaven or hell? In both cases, something unknowable and intangible drives the belief, as well as the outcome, does it not?

What 'seems more meaningful' to you or what 'makes more sense to me' in such matters is also driven by value based concepts.

Where does a believe in karma come from?

 

[daws101]

Job lived long before Christ. The story starts out, and one of God's fallen angels, notices God lavishes all his attention on a man named Job, his follower and challenged him to take away the man's possessions and health, he would then leave God's presence and wouldn't like God any more. the rest is history. Job didn't denounce his maker, and God won over the dervish fallen one. There were not any "Christians" at the time.

Therefore, Friedrich Nietzsche was just looking for an excuse to whack Christianity if he knew about Job and even back to Genesis and the story of the temptation. Nietzsche was fulla prunes.

maybe he realized that the bible is fiction..
After graduation in 1864, Nietzsche commenced studies in theology and classical philology at the University of Bonn. For a short time he and Deussen became members of the Burschenschaft Frankonia. After one semester (and to the anger of his mother) he stopped his theological studies and lost his faith.[53] As early as his 1862 essay "Fate and History", Nietzsche had argued that historical research had discredited the central teachings of Christianity,[54] but David Strauss's Life of Jesus also seems to have had a profound effect on the young man.[53] although Nietzsche had already argued that historical research had discredited the central teachings of Christianity in his 1862 essay "Fate and History". In 1865, at the age of 20, Nietzsche wrote to his sister Elisabeth, who was deeply religious, a letter regarding his loss of faith. This letter ended with a following sentence:
"Hence the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..."
Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

guess he did know the fable of job...

Would that be the same sister Nietzsche (allegedly) had the long term incestuous relationship with? The same sister who married an Aryan promoter that rivaled Hitler's passion, who embraced Hitler's Naziism and became a key figure in the party? And who promoted Frederic Nietzsche's works most prejudiciously and dishonestly once she had access to them after his mental collapse?

Devoutly religious? Given her sympathies with her husband and the Nazi regime, I rather doubt that.

Her distortions of Nietzsche’s ideas in this work and others were in large measure responsible for the subsequent misperception of Nietzsche as an early philosopher of fascism. Elisabeth was a supporter of the Nazi Party; her funeral in 1935 was attended by Adolf Hitler and other Nazi dignitaries. After her death scholars reedited Nietzsche’s writings and found some of Elisabeth’s versions distorted and spurious: she forged nearly 30 letters and often rewrote passages. The discovery of her forgeries and of the original texts profoundly influenced later interpretations of Nietzsche’s philosophy
Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche (German editor) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

lol! you did know the nazis were christian?


Nazi attitudes towards Christianity[edit]
A number of Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Jesus as an active fighter and antisemite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day,[46] they denounced the Old testament, demanded the removal of Paul from the New Testament and changed Jesus into a German war hero.[28] As a result the Confessing Church movement was started in opposition to the nazification of the Protestant churches. In 1937 all Confessing Church seminaries and teaching was banned. Dissident Protestants were forbidden to attend universities. During Hitler's dictatorship, more than 6,000 clergymen, on the charge of treasonable activity, were imprisoned or executed.[47] The same measures were taken in the occupied territories, in French Lorraine, the Nazis forbid religious youth movements, parish meetings, scout meetings, and church assets were taken. Church schools were closed, and teachers in religious institutes were dismissed. The episcopal seminary was closed, and the SA and SS desecrated churches, religious statutes and pictures. 300 clergy were expelled from the Lorraine region, monks and nuns were deported or forced to renounce their vows.[48]
The Nazi leadership made use of both Christian symbolism, indigenous Germanic pagan imagery, and ancient Roman symbolism in their propaganda. However, the use of pagan symbolism worried some Protestants.[49] Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler,[47] subscribed either to a mixture of pseudoscientific theories, particularly Social Darwinism,[50] or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS.[51][52] Central to both groupings was the belief in Germanic (white Nordic) racial superiority. The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg or by other political decision-makers.[53] A relative moderate, Kerrl accused dissident churchmen of failing to appreciate the Nazi doctrine of "Race, blood and soil" and gave the following explanation of the Nazi conception of "Positive Christianity", telling a group of submissive clergy in 1937:[5

Religion in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

BTW all morality is relative...no matter the source.

 

[Boss]

lol! you did know the nazis were christian?

Nazi attitudes towards Christianity[edit]
A number of Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Jesus as an active fighter and antisemite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day,[46] they denounced the Old testament, demanded the removal of Paul from the New Testament and changed Jesus into a German war hero.[28] As a result the Confessing Church movement was started in opposition to the nazification of the Protestant churches. In 1937 all Confessing Church seminaries and teaching was banned. Dissident Protestants were forbidden to attend universities. During Hitler's dictatorship, more than 6,000 clergymen, on the charge of treasonable activity, were imprisoned or executed.[47] The same measures were taken in the occupied territories, in French Lorraine, the Nazis forbid religious youth movements, parish meetings, scout meetings, and church assets were taken. Church schools were closed, and teachers in religious institutes were dismissed. The episcopal seminary was closed, and the SA and SS desecrated churches, religious statutes and pictures. 300 clergy were expelled from the Lorraine region, monks and nuns were deported or forced to renounce their vows.[48]
The Nazi leadership made use of both Christian symbolism, indigenous Germanic pagan imagery, and ancient Roman symbolism in their propaganda. However, the use of pagan symbolism worried some Protestants.[49] Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler,[47] subscribed either to a mixture of pseudoscientific theories, particularly Social Darwinism,[50] or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS.[51][52] Central to both groupings was the belief in Germanic (white Nordic) racial superiority. The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg or by other political decision-makers.[53] A relative moderate, Kerrl accused dissident churchmen of failing to appreciate the Nazi doctrine of "Race, blood and soil" and gave the following explanation of the Nazi conception of "Positive Christianity", telling a group of submissive clergy in 1937:[5

Religion in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the Nazis pervert Christianity into a supporting theocracy of Naziism, and expell or execute all other religious worshipers... and this leads you to claim they were Christians?

Do you even pay attention to the idiocy you spew anymore?