Your thoughts on Islam?

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It has nothing to do with relativity, it has to do with reality being objective by definition. 

But not in this context, for instance, "Brave new world" objectively, is a bloody good idea bc everyone is happy.

[Moontanman]

Just now, dimreepr said:

But not in this context, for instance, "Brave new world" objectively, is a bloody good idea bc everyone is happy.

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing reality. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Moontanman said:

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing reality. 

Who's?

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who's?

There is, by definition, only one reality, our interpretation of the perception of reality exists nowhere but inside our heads. 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

There is, by definition, only one reality, our interpretation of the perception of reality exists nowhere but inside our heads. 

Well my reality is probably a bit sadder than yours ATM, but how do we define by how much?

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well my reality is probably a bit sadder than yours ATM, but how do we define by how much?

I would say there is no way to measure emotional pain but objectively your sadness is not part of our shared reality. 

Edited May 20 by Moontanman

[MigL]

What is real Moon ?

If I'm moving relative to you, I measure a different reality than you do.
Which one of us is at rest ? Which one moving ? Who measures the real 'reality' ?

I do an experiment and measure a 'particle'.
You do one and measure a 'wave'.
What is the 'reality' ? For that matter, what is reality before wave function collapse ?

[dimreepr]

Just now, Moontanman said:

I would say there is no way to measure emotional pain but objectively your sadness is not part of objective reality. 

OF course it is, bc we're not discussing relativity and the reality of light; we're discussing a very different kind of light.

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

What is real Moon ?

If I'm moving relative to you, I measure a different reality than you do.
Which one of us is at rest ? Which one moving ? Who measures the real 'reality' ?

I do an experiment and measure a 'particle'.
You do one and measure a 'wave'.
What is the 'reality' ? For that matter, what is reality before wave function collapse ?

Being a bit pedantic there aren't we? In our everyday lives do any of those things really apply? Is our perception accurate enough to need to include those things? If we want to go that far then nothing is real and my vat is just as real as yours. 

This thread is about religion and our thoughts on it, religion is not part of objective reality, my opinion on Islam is the same as my opinion on mother goose. 

[TheVat]

Reality seems to correspond to properties of observables that are the same to any observer. (properties, rather than intrinsic qualities or substance or whatever)  So statements that are "inter-subjectively" true are the ones that correspond to reality.  All else is opinion and subjective.  That's my best guess.

So glad I could share these thoughts on Islam!  😁

 

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OF course it is, bc we're not discussing relativity and the reality of light; we're discussing a very different kind of light.

What kind of "light" are we discussing exactly?  

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Being a bit pedantic there aren't we? In our everyday lives do any of those things really apply?

Exactly...

17 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

What kind of "light" are we discussing exactly?  

The kind that some people see, some don't want too look for and the rest are blind anyway.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with any of the Bible's if you read them with a good moral compass.

Look what happened when Hitler read Nietzche.

17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Reality seems to correspond to properties of observables that are the same to any observer. (properties, rather than intrinsic qualities or substance or whatever)  So statements that are "inter-subjectively" true are the ones that correspond to reality.  All else is opinion and subjective.  That's my best guess.

So glad I could share these thoughts on Islam!  😁

 

It is tangentially relevant... 😉

Edited May 20 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Exactly...

The kind that some people see, some don't want too look for and the rest are blind anyway.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with any of the Bible's if you read them with a good moral compass.

Look what happened when Hitler read Nietzche.

So stoning unruly teen age boys to death because they won't behave is morally good? Slavery is morally good? Genocide is morally good? Rape of little girls is morally good? You have a seriously flawed sense of morality. 

 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So stoning unruly teen age boys to death because they won't behave is morally good? Slavery is morally good? Genocide is morally good? Rape of little girls is morally good?. 

 

You're conflating what was politically expedient then with what is morally acceptable now, that's essentially cancel culture.

You also seem to forget a number of thing's, for instance, Jesus had a particularly strong stance on the morality of stoning people, and your own countries founder's thought it was ok to have slaves, and Hitler didn't get his idea of genocide from a bible (as I've explained), and raping little girls has never been a religion specific pursuit.

18 hours ago, Moontanman said:

You have a seriously flawed sense of morality. 

And you have a seriously flawed sense of reality.

I challenge you to read the sermon on the mount and present a reasoned argument as to why it's morally unacceptable.

You're making the mistake of conflating the morally abhorrent action's of apparently pious people, with what's written in the book they're holding up; there's good moral philosophy in the page's of the various bible's.

So don't dismiss them out of hand, just dismiss the bit's you find morally unacceptable, but you must read them first.

 

[Moontanman]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're conflating what was politically expedient then with what is morally acceptable now, that's essentially cancel culture.

You also seem to forget a number of thing's, for instance, Jesus had a particularly strong stance on the morality of stoning people, and your own countries founder's thought it was ok to have slaves, and Hitler didn't get his idea of genocide from a bible (as I've explained), and raping little girls has never been a religion specific pursuit.

And you have a seriously flawed sense of reality.

I challenge you to read the sermon on the mount and present a reasoned argument as to why it's morally unacceptable.

You're making the mistake of conflating the morally abhorrent action's of apparently pious people, with what's written in the book they're holding up; there's good moral philosophy in the page's of the various bible's.

So don't dismiss them out of hand, just dismiss the bit's you find morally unacceptable, but you must read them first.

 

WOW! I thought we were discussing reality. 

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're making the mistake of conflating the morally abhorrent action's of apparently pious people, with what's written in the book they're holding up; there's good moral philosophy in the page's of the various bible's.

So don't dismiss them out of hand, just dismiss the bit's you find morally unacceptable, but you must read them first.

If they were beating people over the head with a hammer, am I supposed to consider the hammer harmless? Or should I treat the hammer and those who wield it carefully like the deadly weapons they are?

What if you consider just about everything in that book has caused abuse for generations of humans, told believers what pieces of shit they were born as, and has allowed the Church to rape and pillage its way throughout history, until today where they serve as a real estate holding scheme for pedophiles and murderers? 

I think you're making the mistake of conflating an enormous, multigenerational scam perpetrated by various Abrahamic Churches with anything remotely ethical or moral. And when it comes to unacceptable morality, I don't need to read what it should be about, I have their unacceptable behavior as my guideline.

So shame on you for the "out of hand" part, like you're the only person who'd thought hard about this.

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If they were beating people over the head with a hammer, am I supposed to consider the hammer harmless? Or should I treat the hammer and those who wield it carefully like the deadly weapons they are?

What if you consider just about everything in that book has caused abuse for generations of humans, told believers what pieces of shit they were born as, and has allowed the Church to rape and pillage its way throughout history, until today where they serve as a real estate holding scheme for pedophiles and murderers? 

I think you're making the mistake of conflating an enormous, multigenerational scam perpetrated by various Abrahamic Churches with anything remotely ethical or moral. And when it comes to unacceptable morality, I don't need to read what it should be about, I have their unacceptable behavior as my guideline.

So shame on you for the "out of hand" part, like you're the only person who'd thought hard about this.

We all pick something to believe in, that doesn't mean any of them are more real, it just means that we trust one above the other.

what evidence do we have? That I'm happier than you???

Science can't answer that question, all it can do is present a number that might be relative...

 

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We all pick something to believe in, that doesn't mean any of them are more real, it just means that we trust one above the other.

what evidence do we have? That I'm happier than you???

Science can't answer that question, all it can do is present a number that might be relative...

 

Believe has nothing to do with reality, you can believe you can fly, no matter how convinced you are that you can fly, when you jump off a building the ground is still waiting to show you your belief is meaningless. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

WOW! I thought we were discussing reality. 

Indeed, but it's notable that you haven't accepted my challenge.

 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I challenge you to read the sermon on the mount and present a reasoned argument as to why it's morally unacceptable.

Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

[dimreepr]

Just now, TheVat said:

Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Wel obviously Reg, but what did the Romans ever do for us???

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You're conflating what was politically expedient then with what is morally acceptable now, that's essentially cancel culture.

The Bible specifically says that you have to follow all 613 commands from God, it says gods laws must always be followed, Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law can be changed. You do not get to choose which parts you like under penalty of burning in hell for all eternity.  

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You also seem to forget a number of thing's, for instance, Jesus had a particularly strong stance on the morality of stoning people, and your own countries founder's thought it was ok to have slaves, and Hitler didn't get his idea of genocide from a bible (as I've explained), and raping little girls has never been a religion specific pursuit.

Numbers 31:18

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And you have a seriously flawed sense of reality.

I challenge you to read the sermon on the mount and present a reasoned argument as to why it's morally unacceptable.

Matt Dillahunty has done this quite well in his critique of the sermon on the mount, I see no reason to try do it any better, If you want to see it I can provide a link.   

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You're making the mistake of conflating the morally abhorrent action's of apparently pious people, with what's written in the book they're holding up; there's good moral philosophy in the page's of the various bible's.

There are also horrific commands that would get you jailed in any first world nation on earth.  

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So don't dismiss them out of hand, just dismiss the bit's you find morally unacceptable, but you must read them first.

 

I've studied the bible extensively read it like a novel several times and one thing I find is that its followers are not allowed to cherry pick, you have to follow it all to the letter or go to hell. 

Edited May 21 by Moontanman

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

I've studied the bible extensively read it like a novel several times and one thing I find is that its followers are not allowed to cherry pick.

But you are??? 

What makes you so special??? 

[Phi for All]

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We all pick something to believe in, that doesn't mean any of them are more real, it just means that we trust one above the other.

I'm a Humanist, and I believe in humans. Are you saying your gods are just as real? Are you saying humans aren't more real than any god people believe in? I don't have to dip into my trust fund to believe in humans, they're very observable.

[dimreepr]

The thing about a novel is, that only makes sense when it's contemporary.