Communism , Totalitarianism & Atheism

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It would be almost as bad as AOC’s Green New Deal.

She did pretty good for a first draft.  How many drafts has the Bible been through without getting rid of the mistakes?

Have you actually read the Green New Deal (There are two versions.  You can read both in 30 minutes.), or are you just spouting right-wing claptrap?

Doug

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

A few others did survive.

Doug

Nag Hammadi. I was forced to read it as a teen. Then sent to listen to Elaine Pagels. 

[Piney]

8 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

You have to think they didn't have the ability to mass publish something back then anyway.

But the aristocracy had bibles created all the time. Even the heretics. 

[Golden Duck]

19 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I think this is a very relevant video in regards to this discussion:

I know you probably won't see this video @RavenHawk but you really should. 

What?

There are atheist meetings where talk about the shortcomings of Abrahamic scripture, mostly The Bible, for 40 minutes?

I can't sit through that video and listen to ridicule for that long.

[Aquila King]

4 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Either gods morals are infallible and in that case slavery is moral, or god changed his mind and thus isn't infallible. You can't have it both ways.

All fundamentalist religious "logic" and apologetics operates by working backwards from their conclusions.

Conclusion: God's morals and the Bible are infallible, AND God changed his mind about all the immoral things he commanded in the Old Testament.

Therefore: both are true because of this and that and reasons, yadda yadda.

By working backwards from your conclusions, you're able to nullify any and all objections by simply filling the air with noise. 

[GoldenWolf]

44 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

All fundamentalist religious "logic" and apologetics operates by working backwards from their conclusions.

Conclusion: God's morals and the Bible are infallible, AND God changed his mind about all the immoral things he commanded in the Old Testament.

Therefore: both are true because of this and that and reasons, yadda yadda.

By working backwards from your conclusions, you're able to nullify any and all objections by simply filling the air with noise. 

You should turn that into a meme and share it with the rest of the world. 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

All fundamentalist religious "logic" and apologetics operates by working backwards from their conclusions.

Conclusion: God's morals and the Bible are infallible, AND God changed his mind about all the immoral things he commanded in the Old Testament.

Therefore: both are true because of this and that and reasons, yadda yadda.

By working backwards from your conclusions, you're able to nullify any and all objections by simply filling the air with noise. 

I think it is a perfect example of George Orwells double think from "1984": The ability to accept two mutually contradictive beliefs as correct.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

What?

There are atheist meetings where talk about the shortcomings of Abrahamic scripture, mostly The Bible, for 40 minutes?

I can't sit through that video and listen to ridicule for that long.

My point is that Aron Ra is saying that if the bible shall be seen as moral guide for this age it would need a major rewrite. Of course you are free to differ, but I agree with what he says in the video.

Anyway no one if forcing you to watch it.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I think RavenHawks point is that we are slow learners and that god never liked slavery, he was giving us with free will time to understand his lessons.  That would explain his view I think.

Maybe he should work on making his lessons clearer ? If there are literally thousands of ways to interpret the bible he is delibarately setting us up to fail. Just a single line saying slavery is wrong.... just one little line. Is that so much to ask for ?

[Tatetopa]

11 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Maybe he should work on making his lessons clearer ? If there are literally thousands of ways to interpret the bible he is delibarately setting us up to fail. Just a single line saying slavery is wrong.... just one little line. Is that so much to ask for ?

Not from me friend. Sadly, it wasn't my call, and its safer not to criticize the boss. I did write the instructions for reconstituting brine shrimp though.   I was only a junior design engineer in the arthropod department.  I did trilobites and mantis shrimp and helped a friend out with tardigrades .  We did it after work on our own time when we were supposed to be resting.  The boss got onto us for working through break . Still, rather proud of that tardigrade . It was a hoot.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

10 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Not from me friend. Sadly, it wasn't my call, and its safer not to criticize the boss. I did write the instructions for reconstituting brine shrimp though.   I was only a junior design engineer in the arthropod department.  I did trilobites and mantis shrimp and helped a friend out with tardigrades .  We did it after work on our own time when we were supposed to be resting.  The boss got onto us for working through break . Still, rather proud of that tardigrade . It was a hoot.

You are right to be proud of the tardigrade. Thats one tough critter ! 

[Golden Duck]

26 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

My point is that Aron Ra is saying that if the bible shall be seen as moral guide for this age it would need a major rewrite. Of course you are free to differ, but I agree with what he says in the video.

Anyway no one if forcing you to watch it.

Weird, I thought I said I chose not to sit through all of it.

I was just surprised that Atheist need to congregate; and, listen to a guy at a lectern while he anthropomorphises behaviour and acts out stereotypes for the purpose of ridicule.  In my hasty judgement, I didn't get to hear his views on morality.

Not that the argument has much relevance anyway.  Any morality that isn't codified in legislation or a code of ethics and conduct, will be exposed to the hazard of a free market economy.  The Bible itself confirms the law of the land always takes precedence.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Weird, I thought I said I chose not to sit through all of it.

I was just surprised that Atheist need to congregate;

Why should atheist not congregate ? I'm not part of any atheist organisations and I never felt the need to be, but I could see why people would do it if they live in areas where there atheism carries a social stigma. Plus people naturally tend to seek out like minded individuals. 

Quote

and, listen to a guy at a lectern while he anthropomorphises behaviour and acts out stereotypes for the purpose of ridicule.  In my hasty judgement, I didn't get to hear his views on morality.

They basically boils down to what I have been saying, why can't an omnipotent god give clear instructions of what we should and shouldn't do.

Quote

Not that the argument has much relevance anyway.  Any morality that isn't codified in legislation or a code of ethics and conduct, will be exposed to the hazard of a free market economy.  The Bible itself confirms the law of the land always takes precedence.

In the end thats what matters. Believe what you wan't as long as you follow the laws of the land.

Luckily most theist do excactly that. There are many theist on this site that I respect a lot, but there are some who says things that I find unacceptable. They can believe what they want, but so can I.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[Golden Duck]

22 hours ago, GoldenWolf said:

 the golden rule was around before God.

The Golden Rule is obsolete.  And I would argue that it has been that way at least since the Hicklin Test.

The Platinum Rule is the contemporary standard.  Look at how any industrial democracy policy is written.

[GoldenWolf]

13 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The Golden Rule is obsolete.  And I would argue that it has been that way at least since the Hicklin Test.

The Platinum Rule is the contemporary standard.  Look at how any industrial democracy policy is written.

Here is a meme I made over two years ago:

Edited March 17, 2019 by GoldenWolf

[Golden Duck]

27 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

Here is a meme I made over two years ago:

Only two years? That's very recent.

Has it been incorporated into any policies?

[GoldenWolf]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Only two years? That's very recent.

Has it been incorporated into any policies?

I would say follow the link but I know you won't.

The title of the meme is: Throw the platinum rule in the trash.

 

[Golden Duck]

5 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

I would say follow the link but I know you won't.

The title of the meme is: Throw the platinum rule in the trash.

 

 

To see a comment by you about (surprise) narcissism.  That's not a policy or code of conduct, ethics, or behaviour that requires people, other than yourself, to adhere to.

I know you didn't look for Hicklin Test there's plenty written, but not so much in pictures.  I doubt you read the Psychology Today article. 

The platinum rule is incorporated into governance policies.  It is about empathy, consideration and community standards. 

The Golden Rule only requires ego to determine a standard on to others.

[GoldenWolf]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

To see a comment by you about (surprise) narcissism.  That's not a policy or code of conduct, ethics, or behaviour that requires people, other than yourself, to adhere to.

I know you didn't look for Hicklin Test there's plenty written, but not so much in pictures.  I doubt you read the Psychology Today article. 

The platinum rule is incorporated into governance policies.  It is about empathy, consideration and community standards. 

The Golden Rule only requires ego to determine a standard on to others.

The platinum rule is narcissism, not the golden rule.  You're full of crap.

[Golden Duck]

11 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

The platinum rule is narcissism, not the golden rule.  You're full of crap.

And the rest of the world is full of crap too, right?

[GoldenWolf]

3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

And the rest of the world is full of crap too, right?

Where are the link(s) to prove your data?  It would be really insane if all the world is practicing the platinum rule, considering the fact the golden rule is in all the major religions of the world. 

Let's not forget about Buddhists:

[Habitat]

The Goldens fight it out !

[Piney]

38 minutes ago, Habitat said:

The Goldens fight it out !

20 quid on the duck! 

[Golden Duck]

52 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

Where are the link(s) to prove your data?  It would be really insane if all the world is practicing the platinum rule, considering the fact the golden rule is in all the major religions of the world. 

Let's not forget about Buddhists:

 

2

I referred you to the Hicklin Test.  But, in the workplace the test for whether, or not, an act is offensive is not determined by the attitude of the person who does the act.  The intention is irrelevant, it's the outcome that matters.

Here is a link to a Buddhist discussion, note the consensus is that Platinum Rule is more sophisticated.

http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/18454/the-platinum-rule

Edited March 17, 2019 by Golden Duck

[Habitat]

35 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I referred you to the Hicklin Test.  But, in the workplace the test for whether, or not, an act is offensive is not determined by the attitude of the person who does the act.  The intention is irrelevant, it's the outcome that matters.

Here is a link to a Buddhist discussion, note the consensus is that Platinum Rule is more sophisticated.

http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/18454/the-platinum-rule

That is just part of the PC push. If you like walking on eggshells. I think it is far better for people not to look for, and react emotionally, to the offence that might be implicit in words or questions, but cultivate clever deflections, better still witty and clever deflections. If I think someone is being nosey, I usually quip " I can't be telling you all my business ", or the like.