One God

[CJSchmidtz]

There can only be one correct answer.

Either one God exists, doesn’t exist, multiple Gods exist; answers like these are incompatible in the sense that only one can be correct. Therefore it is impossible that Hinduism, Christianity, and Atheism are all simultaneously correct. They may all be wrong but they can’t all be right.
On many points - many could be right. Many will say that we should help the poor, they can all be correct in that regard. Some would say we should not help the poor this is of course incompatible with the belief that we should…
Some groups could both agree that there is only one God but one believes he has communicated a need for particular prayers, in a particular language while the other group(s) believe this is a false requirement. They cannot both be correct in this regard.
A “theist” and an “atheist” may both believe in allowing each person to make up their own mind regarding what they believe. While another “theist” and another “atheist” may believe in crushing all dissent by force; such as in some historical Catholic groups, Islamic groups, or various atheistic communists.

Ps thinktank should get some kind of an award for most entertaining post.

[CJSchmidtz]

“There is no person, no people, no religious or political ideology, no nation, more worthy, more deserving, more important or more righteous than any other. We are all children of the Creator. All life is, all paths are sacred"

@ cliffy Just to clarify, so you would say that Jeffrey Dahlmer’s was just as worthy and righteous as Mother Theresa?
Just to clarify so you would say that Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Communism was just as worthy righteous and deserving as… well anyone lets even just say current Canada.

[Omnitheo]

Only difference between atheism and christianity/islam is that atheists believe in one god fewer. Monotheists already reject 99% of all gods which have "existed" in favour of one sole god. Atheists take it one god further and reject all of them.

I'm omnitheist. I believe in all gods for what they are: superstitious figures to give a sense of spirituality and comfort people in the face of the unknown or incomprehensible. Whether for you that means Jesus dying on a cross to wipe the sins of humanity, or Prometheus being tortured on a mountain for eternity for blessing us with fire and technology, as long as it brings you some sense of comfort or appeases your need for spirituality, then that myth (read Religion) is serving it's purpose.

[cliffy1]

“There is no person, no people, no religious or political ideology, no nation, more worthy, more deserving, more important or more righteous than any other. We are all children of the Creator. All life is, all paths are sacred"

@ cliffy Just to clarify, so you would say that Jeffrey Dahlmer’s was just as worthy and righteous as Mother Theresa?
Just to clarify so you would say that Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Communism was just as worthy righteous and deserving as… well anyone lets even just say current Canada.

Ummm... that is a straw man argument if I ever heard one. We are discussing spiritual or religious paths here. Naziism and Communism are not religionous or spiritual paths. Neither is Canada.

Besides, what if Jeffery Dahlmer's spiritual path was cannibalism? Who are you to judge? I thought judging was Gawd's job.

[CJSchmidtz]

Are you admitting that the path of some nations and their respective political ideologies are more worthy and more righteous then that of some others? It seems like you just did but I want to be more sure I understand you.

Are you definitely saying that we can judge the genocide of the Nazi’s but we should not judge the cannibalism of Jeffrey Dahlmers?

Are you trying to say that if something is a part of a spiritual path it should not in your opinion be judged but a political ideology that does not claim to be spiritual can be judged by ethical standards. In other words in your mind does making a spiritual claim somehow provide an unlimited justification for any type of behavior?

You have said that I should not judge (you have made a judgment against my judging) but you don’t think I should judge Jeffrey Dahlmers cannibalism? In other words are you saying the one who condemns cannibalism is in the wrong but the one who commits cannibalism is just as worthy and righteous as anyone else (if it is a part of their spiritual path)????

Are you saying that the spiritual path of a murderer/cannibal is worthy and righteous but the path of a judgmental person such as my self is wrong? In other words are you saying that it is possible to go against God’s stated will, that not everyone’s path is righteous, sacred and in accordance with his?

Ps
A straw man argument occurs when someone misrepresents the beliefs or actions of another and then criticizes that misrepresented argument, thus knocking down the straw man. Since I have not yet publicly attempted to express or criticize your views I cannot be said to have created a straw man. It could be said that I am making an argument ad-absurdum by way of exposing implications… someone reading this has the freedom to think through those kinds of implications but I am actually headed in another direction. I have asked you for clarifications, I have used examples in order to provide a frame of reference for those clarifications “would you say”. So far I am merely trying to make sure I understand you so I am less likely to create a straw man….. Before I criticize and judge you.

[cliffy1]

Are you admitting that the path of some nations and their respective political ideologies are more worthy and more righteous then that of some others? It seems like you just did but I want to be more sure I understand you.

Are you definitely saying that we can judge the genocide of the Nazi’s but we should not judge the cannibalism of Jeffrey Dahlmers?

Quote shortened...

I fail to see what any of your "argument" has to do with god or topic at hand. I have great difficulty trying to figure out how your mind works by the style of your writing. I threw in Dahlmer and judgments because I found your statements absurd. And if you feel a need to judge me, go ahead. I really don't care. It says more about you than me.

[CJSchmidtz]

I fail to see what any of your "argument" has to do with god or topic at hand. I have great difficulty trying to figure out how your mind works by the style of your writing.

You fail to understand my “argument” because I have not yet made an argument. You are trying to construe my “writing” into the form of an argument but I have not yet made one. I am asking you for clarifications as a means of setting you up for future moves in some sense just as a chess player might. This is not a game, and you now do not have many possible moves; but I am currently hoping that you will clarify the beliefs that you are trying to promote.

[cliffy1]

You fail to understand my “argument” because I have not yet made an argument. You are trying to construe my “writing” into the form of an argument but I have not yet made one. I am asking you for clarifications as a means of setting you up for future moves in some sense just as a chess player might. This is not a game, and you now do not have many possible moves; but I am currently hoping that you will clarify the beliefs that you are trying to promote.

I'm not trying to prove anything and I don't believe in much. I try to avoid that pitfall. I know what I know from experience. There is something amiss in our ability to communicate clearly, as we don't seem to be able to understand what the other is saying. Sorry I engaged you.

[CJSchmidtz]

@cliffy
I am basically using a Socratic approach; I think you are probably trying to understand where I am going with this but I don’t think you can until after two stages of questions. Therefore you should not be surprised that you are yet still unable to understand me in the context of my response to your initial statements.
Try to think of the questions this way in the context of only one question.
I asked
“Are you definitely saying that we can judge the genocide of the Nazi’s but we should not judge the cannibalism of Jeffrey Dahlmers? “
You could answer
A. No I was just being facetious I would make a moral judgment against both the Nazi’s and Jeffrey Dahlmer’s
B. No I was being facetious I don’t have an opinion on the matter.
C. No we should not judge the Nazi’s or Jeffrey Dahlmer’s
D. Yes that is what I am saying
E. Some other answer.

[cliffy1]

@cliffy
I am basically using a Socratic approach; I think you are probably trying to understand where I am going with this but I don’t think you can until after two stages of questions. Therefore you should not be surprised that you are yet still unable to understand me in the context of my response to your initial statements.
Try to think of the questions this way in the context of only one question.
I asked
“Are you definitely saying that we can judge the genocide of the Nazi’s but we should not judge the cannibalism of Jeffrey Dahlmers? “
You could answer
A. No I was just being facetious I would make a moral judgment against both the Nazi’s and Jeffrey Dahlmer’s
B. No I was being facetious I don’t have an opinion on the matter.
C. No we should not judge the Nazi’s or Jeffrey Dahlmer’s
D. Yes that is what I am saying
E. Some other answer.

I read a book once about cannibal tribes somewhere in south east Asia that used ritual cannibalism to maintain balance between the human population and the rest of the environment. It was a spiritual practice. The Haida had ritualistic cannibal ceremonies. It had a purpose and was acceptable to their societies. To some degree, it made sense.

As for the Nazis, there has been so much contradictory information flying around that I decided I don't have an opinion about what they did or didn't do.

If there ever was a breakdown in the social, economic and political structures, I believe humans would revert back to the lowest common denominator: rape, pillage, infanticide and cannibalism. Morals are the product of affluent societies. Take away the barriers that create "civilized" behavior (read fear of reproach) and you would have total chaos... for a while, until order was restored.

[Sneaksuit]

If there ever was a breakdown in the social, economic and political structures, I believe humans would revert back to the lowest common denominator: rape, pillage, infanticide and cannibalism. Morals are the product of affluent societies. Take away the barriers that create "civilized" behavior (read fear of reproach) and you would have total chaos... for a while, until order was restored.

...and they continued to incrementally remove barriers as they evolved.

[CJSchmidtz]

I read a book once about cannibal tribes somewhere in south east Asia that used ritual cannibalism to maintain balance between the human population and the rest of the environment. It was a spiritual practice. The Haida had ritualistic cannibal ceremonies. It had a purpose and was acceptable to their societies. To some degree, it made sense.

As for the Nazis, there has been so much contradictory information flying around that I decided I don't have an opinion about what they did or didn't do.

Since you are skeptical about the holocaust despite the videos pictures, eye witnesses and confessions I will try to focus on some even more basic principles. Your statements here and elsewhere relate to both what we can know about the world and how we should evaluate human behavior.
For the sake of being precise, focusing on the principles involved and being able to make my points more quickly and easily I asked about Jeffrey Dahlmer’s rather than about “The Haida” Dahlmer’s who abducted, murdered and killed his victims. I can only assume that your reluctance to answer my questions directly implies that you are aware your position is very weak. You have already made statement which to the effect that no one should claim that the beliefs and actions of any one person or nation are any better than the beliefs and actions of any other person. I am asking you to clarify in the context of examples.

I consider that it is self-evident that my own happiness has value and that the happiness of those around me is equally valuable. One obvious implication is in the conclusion that one individual does not have the right to trample on another’s happiness. I do not view this as merely the creation of an affluent society, I view it as something everyone knows whether they choose to acknowledge or deny. When I evaluate actions I see broad categories ranging from horribly evil to wonderfully good.
Abducting murdering and eating many random people
Someone who would rape and eat you for fun, or perhaps kill because you refuse to follow the prophet Mohammed
Someone who would rape, pillage and cannibalize you because society had broken down and they were hungry.
The Haida environmental protection cannibal party
Someone who would decide to be a vegetarian in order to help the environment; I am not a vegan but I would place it above cannibalism (-:
Someone who would donate to the food bank
Someone like Mother Theresa who would devote her life to helping the poor, sick and dying…..

I believe that some beliefs and some actions are better than other do you deny that in the sense that you would not claim any of these actions or related beliefs are better than any others.
Please note that when I made the comment about your murder I did so for a very specific reason. Some of your statements seem to imply that actions in a religious context are all equally valid without explaining how that compares to actions that are made without a religious context and please don’t get hung up on my using a Muslim the question is the same if you insert Jim Jones or whoever in there. In other words if a Muslim was offended by you decided to kill you and someone else saw, thought it would be fun to join in and help out would that also be sacred and righteous or would it only be ok for the Muslim?

[cliffy1]

I really try not to judge anybody or their actions. I have my own set of rules that I live my life by. I cannot say what I would do if I came upon someone harming another. I would expect that I would intervene but I cannot say what would happen until it happens. I have a sneaky suspicion that I would try to kill someone who was raping a child, but I don't know. I would never do what Jeffery did or do any harm (knowingly) to another. I have my own moral code but more importantly, I have my integrity to uphold. Integrity is something that is most important to my spiritual practice.

As far as WW11, everyone was guilty of the holocaust. After WW1, the rest of the world devastated Germany: destroyed their economy, took aware their self respect and esteem and literally created Hitler. In the thirties they knew what was going on but did nothing. They needed a way out of the Great Depression and war was necessary, so to me, they let Hitler do what would eventually lead to war consciously. Nobody comes out of this untarnished. But history is "his story". The victors had to demonize the enemy in order to justify their own atrocities (Dresden comes to mind). So, to me, history is mostly BS.

I cannot judge the past by my own code of ethics.

[CJSchmidtz]

Ok, thank you for sticking with the discussion; I think I understand you more now. You do personally embrace some morals you are simply reluctant to use your views in order to evaluate someone else’s. I say reluctant in that you said in some situations you and I would both even consider forcing our views on someone else, i.e. the rapist.
In some areas I do not have any reluctance evaluating the ethics and actions of others because I consider we have access to objective principles just as we do in other areas. I consider there are some things which are objectively real even though they are intangible; I have embraced the terms self-evident and properly basic to describe them. I consider self-awareness, the principles of math and logic perhaps our concept of time to be among them. For example you are aware that you exist and knowing that directly imply the impossibility of your not existing, you do this because of a direct awareness of the logical law of non-contradiction. You know that if a is true the contrary to a cannot also be true.
Now my point…. Some people do deny the law of non-contradiction, principles of math, logic…. When someone denies something which is properly basic I consider that they are merely being hyper skeptical and have chosen to embrace “the absurd” instead of embracing “the obvious” I consider this to be exactly the same with regards to ethics, except perhaps that they may have extra motives for denying ethical truths.
I consider that the value of my own happiness is self-evident. When I observe other people I notice that they take care of themselves, eat, and pursue happiness. A possible exception would seem to be in the case of someone who would commit suicide. However, even in those cases a consideration seems to support my view. Usually the suicide was somehow tied in with the belief that happiness was no longer possible for them, therefore it does seem that they had recognized the value of their own happiness. Without elaborating I feel free to judge beliefs and actions which are inconsistent with these principles. I find it to be interesting that while there exists a very wide range of explanations for the existence of morality, virtually everyone has some conception of it. Even those who act in ways that are inconsistent with it usually do so with awareness that is precisely what they are doing…. And guilt.
If someone denies something like the law of non-contradiction I have a hard time evaluating if I think they really somehow have no conception of it. However, with regards to the concept of value I think it is a little easier. I think that someone who had no conception of personal value would on observation seem to be unaware of any distinction between pursuing happiness or pursuing pain. I would wonder why such a person would make any distinction between getting on a bus and stepping in front of one. That analogy could be considered week in some ways, eating something tasteful vs distasteful is actually more helpful.

[cliffy1]

How do all your logic and principles hold up under the theories of the holographic universe and that of the multiverse? When I look at quantum physics and quantum mechanics I begin to wonder "is reality fact or fiction?" What if what we live in is the Matrix - a computer generated virtual reality program? Humans are programmed from birth as to what reality is. But is it really real or are we just programmed to believe it is? What if reality is just a projection of our programmed minds and we can change the program? There are many who do. Who is to say the schizophrenic is wrong? Where all the shamans able to see through the program and change their reality or manipulate it at will? If there is any substance to these ideas, then most of your views about logic and principles are left dangling in the breeze.