"All religions should be equally disregarded or hated"

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
18,526
You've misquoted and misunderstood the context of that verse but is accidently relevant to the discussion.

It shows that people outside of the context of the Bible and of Religion can and did have moral standing without influence from Religion or the Bible.
They are a law unto themselves. (i.e. morally integral unto themselves)
Why did I misunderstood or misquote it if I agree with your interpretation and that is exactly what I intended to show?

You are reading stuff into what I said that isn't there.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,335
That's wrong. The whole reason why we have the scientific method is because we can't just trust what we see. Your senses could mislead you and you are bias.
We have no option to trust what we sense as real. Science measures reality into a subjective value so that we can make sense of it and work with it.
Yes, you are biased. That's why the scientific method is so rigorous and able to be performed by any disciplined scientist to eliminate bias.

That's how scientific theories come and go, but we have a whole other thread about that.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
You've misquoted and misunderstood the context of that verse but is accidently relevant to the discussion.

It shows that people outside of the context of the Bible and of Religion can and did have moral standing without influence from Religion or the Bible.
They are a law unto themselves. (i.e. morally integral unto themselves)
Are you advocating that each person must for themselves decide what "right" and "wrong" is?
That what you think "right" is is "right", and what you think "wrong" is is "wrong", and that everyone's "right" and "wrong" will correlate?
That we must each be a law unto ourselves?
Ha.
Why then do we need Judges and Law Courts?

<edit>
Also.
Just because something is legal/illegal, does not make it "right/wrong".
An example of this is Adultery.
Adultery is not illegal (and therefore legal), but it is "wrong", no matter how consensual the "steeking" is.
 
Last edited:

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,335
Not you, the scientific method or God can can dictate to me what I am witnessing. As an agent, only I can experience what I am witnessing from my perspective. Even if what I am witnessing is completely fake, I am still witnessing something aren't I? Makes sense I hope? Doesn't matter if I'm drunk or on drugs or have wool over my eyes or in a simulation or a brain in a vat. If I am seeing purple and describing purple you cannot deny it, you can only try to verify it from your perspective and try to determine which one of us is sane or not.

Sort of like "I think therefore I am" kind of thing :)
Yes and No.
If you and I both agree that the color we are pointing at is Red, then regardless of the "true" color we see, we both saw the "same" color and can agree that it is Red.
Future reference to the word Red will bring up the appropriate color in your mind.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,335
Why did I misunderstood or misquote it if I agree with your interpretation and that is exactly what I intended to show?

You are reading stuff into what I said that isn't there.
The Bible is not asking Why we need a book to determine our morality. Which is what my ask is and further onto that, is another underpinning of my point that humanity, despite having a penchant for wanting to belong to some kind of religion or to believe in a higher power, does not need Religion in order to have a moral compass.
The Bible in the verse you quote, acknowledges that people exist outside of Religion who are morally righteous of their own accord.

The first part is "Why need a Bible?" and the second part is "People like that exist"
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
25,642
Quite a different viewpoint than a few people on this forum who claim Muslim majority countries are universally terrible to those of other faiths....
It's not true. I reckon I'm treated far better in Saudi than a Muslim would be in Alabama. Or for that case, they are so ignorant, even a Sikh with a turban on.

Even though it's an intolerant regime against non-muslims, it's probably just as bad for the locals. I remember I had some old boy come up to me in a hotel at breakfast saying in bad English "Daesh, no good, no Islam, bad" and words to this effect.

People are people.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,041
Yes and No.
If you and I both agree that the color we are pointing at is Red, then regardless of the "true" color we see, we both saw the "same" color and can agree that it is Red.
Future reference to the word Red will bring up the appropriate color in your mind.
Sure I agree. But the nomination and agreement comes after the act of witnessing and forms part of the "by extension" part of my original post I think. That is where we test sanity. It is the act of witnessing that I'm focusing on though.

So that is why I say my personal god is called IBIWISI, because what I witness is undeniable. Not the "truth", simply the "what" or the "it" in as plainly presented fashion as it can be. What I witness isn't what is, simply what it is to me.

I'm just trying to give our religious counterparts a bit of perspective as to how my mind works and why I don't ascribe to their religion in the common sense of the term. Because as I've worked from the ground-up I have not to date realized any useful connection with their beliefs and in fact I would have to be insane, at this moment, to believe them. Perhaps they could say the same of my beliefs, unless they are indeed asserting without the same principle.

Though you could still perhaps say I am religious to my own experiences and instinctual nature. Jordan Peterson for example defines religion simply as how you act. Because how you act is predicated on what makes you "you" in the psychological sense. I don't have any issue with that view either.
 
Last edited:

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
It's not true. I reckon I'm treated far better in Saudi than a Muslim would be in Alabama. Or for that case, they are so ignorant, even a Sikh with a turban on.

Even though it's an intolerant regime against non-muslims, it's probably just as bad for the locals. I remember I had some old boy come up to me in a hotel at breakfast saying in bad English "Daesh, no good, no Islam, bad" and words to this effect.

People are people.
Yeah.
Spot on.
People are people, and many are poepols.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,335
It's not true. I reckon I'm treated far better in Saudi than a Muslim would be in Alabama. Or for that case, they are so ignorant, even a Sikh with a turban on.

Even though it's an intolerant regime against non-muslims, it's probably just as bad for the locals. I remember I had some old boy come up to me in a hotel at breakfast saying in bad English "Daesh, no good, no Islam, bad" and words to this effect.

People are people.
I think personally, based on the quality of life I see in majority muslim nations (documentaries/News/etc), that muslims are the biggest victims of Islam.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,335
Sure I agree. But the nomination and agreement comes after the act of witnessing and forms part of the "by extension" part of my original post I think. That is where we test sanity. It is the act of witnessing that I'm focusing on though.

So that is why I say my personal god is called IBIWISI, because what I witness is undeniable. Not the "truth", simply the "what" or the "it" in as plainly presented fashion as it can be. What I witness isn't what is, simply what it is to me.

I'm just trying to give our religious counterparts a bit of perspective as to how my mind works and why I don't ascribe to their "religion" in the common sense of the term. Because as I've worked from the ground-up I have not to date realized any useful connection with their beliefs and in fact I would have to be insane, at this moment, to believe them. Perhaps they could say the same, unless they are indeed asserting without the same principle.

Though you could still perhaps say I am religious to my own experiences and instinctual nature. Jordan Peterson for example defines religion simply as how you act. Because how you act is predicated on what makes you "you" in the psychological sense. I don't have any issue with that view either.
I think any reasonably critically minded person would find quite a lot of flaws in the reasoning of religion and its scriptures.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
I think any reasonably critically minded person would find quite a lot of flaws in the reasoning of religion and its scriptures.
Something I came across a while ago.
I can't remember the exact wording, but here goes.

"GOD gave Humans faith. Then Satan suggested that faith should be organised, and that it should be called religion".

Mmmm.
 
Last edited:

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
18,526
The Bible is not asking Why we need a book to determine our morality. Which is what my ask is and further onto that, is another underpinning of my point that humanity, despite having a penchant for wanting to belong to some kind of religion or to believe in a higher power, does not need Religion in order to have a moral compass.
The Bible in the verse you quote, acknowledges that people exist outside of Religion who are morally righteous of their own accord.

The first part is "Why need a Bible?" and the second part is "People like that exist"
You could just as well ask why do we need any book, forget the Bible because that's emotional for some people why do we need the Disney stories?

The archetypical stories we tell ourselves form the basis of our morality and culture. The deepest of those are the religious text.

And this is long before we get to what religion is the correct one for the afterlife and how many gods and which god.

Why do we need a book? Because it codifies what we believe to be the propper way of being.
Some people just get this automatically.
(that's the claim in the verse and yours) I think it is learned in society in the specific culture, culture need these stories to exist.
Some people will justify their own wrong behaviour to themselves, then having a book helps.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
You could just as well ask why do we need any book, forget the Bible because that's emotional for some people why do we need the Disney stories?

The archetypical stories we tell ourselves form the basis of our morality and culture. The deepest of those are the religious text.

And this is long before we get to what religion is the correct one for the afterlife and how many gods and which god.

Why do we need a book? Because it codifies what we believe to be the propper way of being.
Some people just get this automatically.
(that's the claim in the verse and yours) I think it is learned in society in the specific culture, culture need these stories to exist.
Some people will justify their own wrong behaviour to themselves, then having a book helps.
To add to your post.
Consider Traffic Laws.
How would everyone know how to conduct themselves on public roads if it is not written down?
Just because you might disagree with a Traffic Law does not mean that it does not apply to you.
Now apply that reasoning to the way we should conduct ourselves.
 

Hamish McPanji

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
39,844
It's not true. I reckon I'm treated far better in Saudi than a Muslim would be in Alabama. Or for that case, they are so ignorant, even a Sikh with a turban on.

Even though it's an intolerant regime against non-muslims, it's probably just as bad for the locals. I remember I had some old boy come up to me in a hotel at breakfast saying in bad English "Daesh, no good, no Islam, bad" and words to this effect.

People are people.
They actually dislike being called Daesh , and so most Arabs I've met (Sunni and Shia) actually call them Daesh.

ISIS or ISIL is what they prefer, and it's interesting to see how many people actually oblige them despite having a ready name nickname for them already
 

MEIOT

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
2,855
They actually dislike being called Daesh , and so most Arabs I've met (Sunni and Shia) actually call them Daesh.

ISIS or ISIL is what they prefer, and it's interesting to see how many people actually oblige them despite having a ready name nickname for them already
Strictly speaking Arabs/Saudis aren't exactly Sunni nor Shia.
They march to the beat of a different drum called Wahabism.
Confusing as all hell the different sects and how much each despises the other.

A Saudi Muslim is as far removed from a South African muslim as possible when it comes to agreeing on exactly how the same religion should be followed. Strangely enough, not enough South Africans know this. They think they will be welcomed with open arms in Saudi because they share a common faith, yet the Saudis feel superior to all others. It's evident how they treat others not of them....and I guess even of them :unsure:

Arabs are a scummy bunch. Ironic too that their first god of choice is money.
 
Last edited:

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
25,642
Strictly speaking Arabs/Saudis aren't exactly Sunni nor Shia.
They march to the beat of a different drum called Wahabism.
Confusing as all hell the different sects and how much each despises the other.

A Saudi Muslim is as far removed from a South African muslim as possible when it comes to agreeing on exactly how the same religion should be followed. Strangely enough, not enough South Africans know this. They think they will be welcomed with open arms in Saudi because they share a common faith, yet the Saudis feel superior to all others. It's evident how they treat others not of them....and I guess even of them :unsure:

Arabs are a scummy bunch. Ironic too that their first god of choice is money.
One of my colleagues was a Pakistani who thought all his prayers had been answered when they sent him to Saudi for a job. He could visit Mecca and Medina at will.

But as you say, they are generally not nice people and have such a superiority complex regarding other Muslims that he came to absolutely despise them.

Weird place all round. Told my company I’ll resign if they want to send me back there.
 

kolaval

Expert Member
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,357
Are you being obtuse?
7 mil years ago we did not have homo sapiens on the planet.

My point is that religion started at same time that we have become aware enough to question our existence.
 
Top