It is the implication of God's actions for allowing Free Will. — NuncAmissa

^Yes, that is Indeed the problem. But let me make an affirmation of your statement, if I'm wrong about it, feel free to correct it.

Your view is "God is Unloving Because, He give us Free Will, while also asking us to Pay for The Consequence of that Free Will, the Free Will that is Given by Him. God is Unjust for giving us this curse, and unjust for making us pay for His Gift."

while My view is, "God is Loving Because, He give us Free Will, Even though He asking us for the Consequence of that Free Will, the Free Will that is Given by Him, He Himself pay that Consequence. God is Just because He, while giving us this Curse called Freedom still give us Leeway, and take the payment Himself.

^Well, okay, that is fair, Give me an example. Without an example to proof your theory to analyze. I'm still not convince

^Yep

^Wait, what's this about zombie virus, and what are you trying to say with the zombie virus, I fail to grasph hahaha

Please elaborate. — NuncAmissa

^ I elaborate, in the rebuttal below.

"Corrupt Judge" is better than an idle God who allows pain and suffering to enter the world due to sin. — NuncAmissa

^No, it would contradict God Character (The Righteous Character, and He is no God if He contradicts His Character). You can argue that "Well being a corrupt Judge in this case is the Righteous thing to do". It is a good argument, but as modern people we still haven't solve the problem with Utilitarianism with Deontology right? When Utilitarianism become the peak of Right Value, then we can argue that God is Evil because of his Categorical value.

"Punishment or Payment" — NuncAmissa

^ I agree :D

I think not. Seeing that only the Son can withstand it, that mean God's legal system as a judge is inherently shaky. After all, a morally sound legal system would only give punishments that people are capable of taking. Look, in a modern legal system, there is hope for rehabilitation. It is a fundamental pillar of Criminal Justice. But in God's law, humans can not gain this "rehabilitation" and "betterment" because they can not escape this overbearing punishment that only the Son can persevere in.

Should God not just lower it to humane standards? — NuncAmissa

^Well, 1 thing is, there is a punishment that people cannot take with 0 hope of rehab, that is the Death Punishment (People still argue about it, Fair Enough). I don't think this system is "shaky" (For me that is) Because the system gave us a way out (Even though that way out seems really unloving). If the modern system of law is sound, a system that give Death Punishment, then I think it is also sound for God System. Should God lower His standard? You mean tolerate Sin? That would mean He will contradicts Himself right (The God is without Sin, and Hated Sin).

Where is his compassion? A moral judge would not send Steve to work in the salt mines for the rest of eternity for simply masturbating. — NuncAmissa

^His compassion is in putting His own Son to dammed, but people think that is Stupid and thus we have this talk. (The problem with steve, is also about "Freedom" below)

Even if your son wanted to kill himself, shouldn't you, as a loving parent, stop him? Please explain? — NuncAmissa

^Okay, let's think about it. Sh*t happen, and people are fuc*ed because they do wrong things. A Father and a Son looks on the Fuc*d people and want to save them. The Son says "I will save them" , "but you will suffer son! (now it's not kill and it's not Suicide like dude this is God)", "It's okay, I will be fine, even though I will suffer (Not Dead) because of it, But it will be Really really painful". Now, do you see that it is Good?

And I don't think Jesus got the whole punishment? — NuncAmissa

^ The Christian believe, He indeed takes all Sins, Because that was the plan dude. He is the one that is able. Why God doesn't go to hell? Hmmmm maybe because God's value is higher than Sin value, so that He was able to pay for them, without losing all his money (You get the gist of it).

Isn't that also a problem? — NuncAmissa

^Hmmm, it's not a problem dude, that's why we have to love Him too (According to christian) :D.

But don't you think Free Will in itself is the source of all evil? It allowed chaos to happen in the first place. — NuncAmissa

^This, this is so Good, Yes, Free Will can be said to be source of our sin (Free to choose what is Good and Evil, not based on God View, but on Ourselves)

You are FORCED to do what is good in fear — NuncAmissa

^ Now this is the main problem with "Freedom", is like this

We are given a playing field, to do A which is Good or B which is Evil. If you do B, suffering come, if you do A good things comes.

God gave us that info, and the freedom to choose A or B, He wouldn't force the player to do A. Because then we would be robot, or In a state of constant UnConsented totalitarianism situation.

But, It seem people tend to do B than A. And thus, God give a Loop-hole, I can Save you. Why, because taking "Free Will" is a no no, "Tolerate Sins" is also a no no.

Humans still suffer from the effects of God's punishment before Christ coming. — NuncAmissa

^ Well, not exactly (There is a debate on this), is a view that in specific time or place, where people don't know the concept of "Jesus", "Jesus" also paid for their sins. (Like if you are a chinese who never heard of judaism concept, you are saved because you are doing your best to do good without even knowing Yahweh)

PS. maybe we should talk, with other than rebuttal per point, it's really long to post a reply hahahaha, btw i'm afk for around 1 hourish

So what happened to those people in Hell? Why didn't their sins transfer to Jesus? — NuncAmissa

^That's why Philosopher, Politician, And Parent have trouble with a concept called "Freedom To Choose"

Why did God, who LOVES us with no known bounds, not simply remove it, but instead causes HIS OWN SON to be in pain? — NuncAmissa

^ To remove it, mean God will become a Corrupted God/Judge (To simple remove one fault) (Is so cool when you realized the concept modern of Court Law and Justice Theory, is really similar to The Bible who are written in ancient time. To be Right, He must ask for "Payment"

HIS OWN SON to be in pain? — NuncAmissa

^
^The Son knows he can withstand it (Again, The Bible is so weird because that Prediction of The Son will be killed already been prophecies since Genesis). It is the best decision right? Think....

1) God knows, that only Himself can withstand His own Punishment.

2) The Act of Sacrificing one son for something is Viewed as the most Unloving thing a Father can do, BUT Because of some Fuc**d Up Irony, The Christian was able to reversed that most heinous concept, into a concept that shows that God is the Most Loving Father in the Universe.

3) The Question of why is God so unloving become somewhat shallow compare to Why is God so Loving.

Why should Mark take the blame for the sin of Matthew? — NuncAmissa

^ Why shouldn't? If your friend steal something because he is poor, and he have to pay a lot of money to pay for his crime. A money that he couldn't pay. If you have a lot of money, wouldn't you asked the judge to pay for your friend crimes? (Btw, people do this all the time :D) . But if you're asking why? it is because Mark love Mathew, and Mark has CONSENTED to do this.

Why did God's laws apply to Humans? After all, they are unattainable. Yes, it is still righteous to follow this laws, but why should humans gain sin from not following — NuncAmissa

^Why shouldn't it, it really takes us back to that elusive concept of "Freedom". I think The Christian God has an ethical first problem as so.

A Being is free to choose what is right for him.

Does Forcing him to do the right thing just? No.... A Being can be free to choose what is Good and what is Evil

And it is wrong to force a being, except if that being has Consented...

But Bad things, need to be dealt with.

PS. I just Eating, so sorry for long response, there are many rabbit hole from that statement, but let's discuss that rabbit hole hahahaha

^Yes, it is sad, Like in court, If we sin, we need to "Pay" something so that those sin could be forgiven.

Like in real life case, if you murder someone, no matter how good you are as a person, a Righteous Judge cannot simply Forgive you (That would be Corrupt), no, You must "Pay" something. And like in real court, as long as those crime is PAID (either by prison or money) you can go free.

BUT, The problem are, God demand is too big, and God hated Sin like mad. Even if human was given the chance to do good for the payment of those sin it is still won't be enough (Because the fact that you once said). But... (This is what so weird, or stupid, or even epic with Judeo-Christian God) God loves us. and He knows, IF the only way to be Righteous is for the Price of Sin to be paid, HE is the only one who can pay that. And thus (The Judeo Christian God) is the one who are paying for human sin, He is the one who Suffer, He is the one that is in "Grave Error".

The Concept of Judeo-Christian is God Become Dammed!

So, the people who went to heaven, are not Perfect Person, they are the person in which Their crime is transferred to Jesus, and because their Punishment have been done (to Jesus) they are free. Free because of Jesus (That's why Christian people said that).

^Yep, I'm implying, according to the Judeo-Christian view, no Good Things you do, or even if you have your life marked by Good Things. That fact (the fact that you said about "Human cannot be Perfectly good") is still valid. That fact of course means that, whatever you do by yourself, you're going to be dammed

^ The H with that tradition, if a man SO DIRE IN NEED TO DRINK, suddenly found himself in a church at mass, and at that time you only have holy water, won't you giving him a drink?.

let's try to CI it

"It is wrong to drink holy water when at mass"

let's universalized it - > It is wrong to drink holy water at any time > Is it good? No

it is morally not good, that's why people don't drink holy water for the purpose of "I don't want to become weird here dude" > w <

then the man is in grave error regardless of his good intentions. — NuncAmissa

^YES, yes, that's the reason why Judeo-Christian said to you "No matter how good you're, it is not enough" Yes!

However, this provides us with an extremely troubling idea: If I were to have good intentions in loving my neighbor as I love myself though I have caused harm onto him, then I have still done a good deed. — NuncAmissa

^In that regard, there is a need to do some meta-analysis then, "What is Good to me and for my Neighbor?"

Will he allow Amanda to seek lawful justice though it may cause Kyle harm, or will Steve allow Amanda to take Kyle away for a lawful trial? — NuncAmissa

^Well, Kyle wrongs Amanda, and Kyle want to run away from the consequence, Kyle wanted to continue to "Sin" without "payment". You can argue that by protecting Kyle from Amanda you do the "Love" for your neighbor. But, like Kant, If you love your neighbor, you LET Amanda take Kyle, but caringly guide him to be a better person.

Christ's commandment be dynamic; it not obliging humans to execute the commandment in a perfect manner. And this is the idea that I gained from your concept of "Righteousness and Good Intent." — NuncAmissa

^The problem of Doing the right thing (Following commandment even thought you fail), and the problem of "Grave Error" is a different thing (For Judeo-Christian that is).

1) You do good things by following His command is not for "Salvation" because you can't be saved. (As you said, if God command is a Must, then human are fuc**d, in which the Judeo Christian said, yep we are Fuc**d indeed)

2) You do good thing because is an "ought" (almost like Kant said, Duty is an Ought)

Then how can human be saved and not in grave error then, you got to....... [input Judeo-Christian Most Mainstream Rally here]

^I think the simulation argument is sound, that's why it is still arguable today. It is possible that there are technology like The Matrix (Even Better) in which that machine restrict us from perceiving/imagining the "Outside World". The problem is not in "Is it possible to do that simulation" because it is possible.

The question are, "Why does the simulation is being done in the first place?" because if you don't find a reason for the simulation, then there are no simulation and our reality is real. That is the problem.

Some of the reason are, the concept of Post-Human or Alien. which Nick Bostrom's state. It is because the Post-Human want to "Experience" this life. Maybe to test a scenario, or for enjoyment, etc.

If you don't believe in the concept of Post-Human, or a more intelligence alien, then it is safe to say that we are not in a simulation. But if you believe that concept, then it is indeed possible.

But again, it is not yet proven, then either you work to prove it (Which is hard and almost impossible). Or you put your head into something that is real, like the existential crisis of Super AI for example : D

^To some degree, yes. In the most perfect sense no. Because we are human, as Judeo-Christian said We are sinful. But, Kant said you can say one action is morally right if the motivation is right. Jude-Christian people agree with Kant. Even though you can't fulfill it perfectly, there's a sense of Righteousness if you try and strive to do it.

^(For The Example) Kant won't support "Lying", but he would support "Misleading Truth". You can lied, of course, it's easy. But you choose to spin your brain and think of an "Misleading Truth" because there is a sense of Duty in your motivation that is "But I don't want to lie".

I think The concept of universalizing is hard to understand, if we take Kant's Idea at face value (May be that's why people said Kant is maybe the most hard to understand, like the Bible). (It's good when to learn Kant and also learning about Jesus Golden Rule). Your Example, for example

"You Can Drink Water if you are thirsty"

let's universalized it - > You can drink water any time > Is it good? Yes.

"You can lied to customer IF it result in profit for you"

let's universalized it - > You can lied to customer every time > Is it good? No.

"You can kill if it mean to save a person"

let's universalized it - > You can Kill every time > Is it good? No

Get the gist of it? :D

Shouldn't he judge that the liar who intents to save his friend as moral, and the truth teller who intents to kill his friend as immoral?
— Happiness

^Kant is REALLY Interesting, it is as if he judge the situation like this (Lying is not moral, Killing is also immoral, Letting friends died is the same as killing, and that is immoral), as he consider those 2 act (Lying and Killing) as equal, like SIN :D :D :D :D. That's why Kant is hard, so hard that only few people can actually do it. Because to be moral with Kant Idea mean.

Act so that, You wouldn't be in that situation, in which you have to choose between 2 evil

Because, when you already in a situation like this. You're fuc**d. (Maybe that's why Batman who are LIKE (but not) a kantian, focused on preparation)

^(For The Example) Kant won't support "Lying", but he would support "Misleading Truth". You can lied, of course, it's easy. But you choose to spin your brain and think of an "Misleading Truth" because there is a sense of Duty in your motivation that is "But I don't want to lie".

I think The concept of universalizing is hard to understand, if we take Kant's Idea at face value (May be that's why people said Kant is maybe the most hard to understand, like the Bible). (It's good when to learn Kant and also learning about Jesus Golden Rule). Your Example, for example

"You Can Drink Water if you are thirsty"

let's universalized it - > You can drink water any time > Is it good? Yes.

"You can lied to customer IF it result in profit for you"

let's universalized it - > You can lied to customer every time > Is it good? No.

"You can kill if it mean to save a person"

let's universalized it - > You can Kill every time > Is it good? No

Get the gist of it? :D

Shouldn't he judge that the liar who intents to save his friend as moral, and the truth teller who intents to kill his friend as immoral? — Happiness

^Kant is REALLY Interesting, it is as if he judge the situation like this (Lying is not moral, Killing is also immoral, Letting friends died is the same as killing, and that is immoral), as he consider those 2 act (Lying and Killing) as equal, like SIN :D :D :D :D. That's why Kant is hard, so hard that only few people can actually do it. Because to be moral with Kant Idea mean.

Act so that, You wouldn't be in that situation, in which you have to choose between 2 evil

Because, when you already in a situation like this. You're fuc**d. (Maybe that's why Batman who are LIKE (but not) a kantian, focused on preparation)

.

^Yes :D, I think when we said "Empty Names" just because there are no value in the mix of alphabet is not helpful. EXCEPT you believe the concept of "Oh we want our child to be a great ruler so we want to name him "Kaiser" and not "Bob"

all mental constructs then and webs of belief, yes? Meaning that is. — Posty McPostface

^Btw, if you are hateful toward the definition of meaning, be careful to not fall to nihilistic trap k :D

^ It will be good if you define your definition of "Intellectual" so that I can give you the mark of the concept you speak of. Because my concept is "Intellectual is a person who are knowable in academia" . That mean the mark of "Great Intellectual" are, their theory/Stories/Works is use through out the ages.

^ example "Santa Clause" refer to the story of an old man who give present to good children on Christmas. That concept is indeed real, and the name "Santa Clause" is indeed have meaning (Even though the person don't). When we said "I want to dress up like santa-clause on christmas" and ZERO people know what we are talking about like "Who is Santa clause?" you can say, that name have "Empty Meaning". But people now what Santa Clause is, the person it's not real, the concept are.

get the gist of it? It's the same with Harry

To me, "Empty Names" can also mean "A Vocabulary without a definition or target".

Santa Clause, your username, and Harry Potter are not "Empty Names" because is referring to something/Concept.

Now that I think about it, as long as you call it "Empty Names" it's almost impossible to be Empty, because a name is always referring to something/concept.

Somethings that you might call "A Vocabulary without a definition or target" are

1) "awuhawuhuiashduihasuiod"

2) "awkkasjdiasdhashfuiasdhfui"

3) "awkjkajksdasjdoasjdoijasd"

even, "wkwkwkwwkwkwkwkwkwkkw" As WEIRD as it is, does have value... it's how an indonesian people laugh it seems :D

There are cool context if you want to dig down deeper, especially with the concept of

neighbor — Artie

Things to mind when you want to analyze The Gospel (If you don't want to sound Unknowledgeable) are :

1) It was for a specific group of people, in a specific time, for a specific purpose, in a specific culture (Reflecting the meaning at face value by inclining it with today's culture is unhelpful most of the time)

2) Most of Jesus statement is a statement full of Controversy, even in ancient Israel time. Because when you know "What is the neighbor He was talking about" and what it means to "Love", things become more cool. That Controversy may seem "Huh.... he really mean that?" to some people without proper investigation.

Now, for the verse. It's so cool to me when we ask Children (A Kid, who hasn't been influenced by view or thought) grasp from the verse. Some of the answer is cool, one of them is like this "That's mean we have to love people around us".

We human, whether you believe it or not, is "Egoistic" (Supported by ) we want good for ourselves and want us to be happy. The problem are when we use people as "Mere mean" or put aside "People happiness" for our happiness. Thus, a simple basic meaning of The Verse is "Love the People that you met. Don't view them as enemies, that is someone that you want to make sad, or don't care about their happiness". It's not about can we do it perfectly, of course not, people are not perfect. But it is a good way to live right (Supported by ). (although it have risk and consequence, in which The Gospel provide another way to fight it).

Now,

Do we must do it or no? — Artie

^ Well, not doing it can mean (In a contextual view kind of way, that mean people want the best for themselves)

1) "Don't love people like you love yourself" > This lead in a view that I can use You for my happiness which is bad.

2) "Love your neighbor, but not like you love yourself" > A View that, it is morally correct to love a person with shallow love (example, love other people, like you love a cat), which is bad.

I hope you get the gist of it :D

Doing the right thing is painful in the short term and takes willpower. Thats the main reason people get it wrong; lack of willpower. — Devans99

^Yes, Yes, I do agree with that, yep, YES!.... when Willpower is weak, Impulse is strong! (The Impulse to do the wrong things) (The impulse that is planted since birth)

I think humans want to do the right thing but sometimes fail. They are attracted by the short term pleasure of wrong. — Devans99

^ It's not that simple, takes this example:

1) A person was given 2 choices, 1 choice would give him pleasure and happiness in the long term, but the other will bring displeasure to a group of random people. Knowing that, People will choose the first choice!

2) A Person was given a choice, to save 1 disabled person that he love, or to save 3 healthy, smart person that could bring good to the world and him in the long run. Knowing this fact, he would still choose number 1

3) A Child when without proper education, is an egocentric human.

Not all human, and not most human, want to do the right things, even after they know the consequence beforehand.

we would not be the dominant species if we got it wrong most of the time — Devans99

^ We are dominant, because through evolution, we are STRONG (Strong doesn't mean morally good). In the past we do many many bad thing (Slavery, Extreme Racism, War, Cannibalism, Human Sacrifice, Mass murder). We are able to stay exist because, we are weak and couldn't fully achieve our desire.

Human without proper education are Evil, a person that lives in the natural state are Evil.

By the way, Fundamentally means. "When you strip everything away (Education, Parent, Value, etc) you're left with X"

Example : When you strip Iron-man of all it's suit, money, power, genius, he become a normal man

that mean, when you strip a human of all of it education, value that's teach, contract and responsibility, you're left with Egoistic Human (Which is evil)

( / w \ ) Ahh I see what you're getting. You believe that human (Because of reason that you said) Tend to do Right things, you believe, or maybe you hope that in reality, human tend, or should to do the right things.

BUT, psychology, statistic, anthropology, social science said otherwise, "We Tend to do the wrong thing". we should (if listen to desire) do the wrong thing


You look into the Process, and Input (That is, because human are X, human are (Output) Good).

"X" is your argument btw (Optimiser, long -term creature, etc)


While I look first in the output (that is, This world is "Z", because human are bad, why human are bad, because [Input research journal here])

Z is my argument (Filled with suffering, filled with wrong decision, etc)

The reality are this world is bad. For your argument to works, the world must be good. The people who today (in TED, etc) is a kind of people who are acting againts their impulse and natural desire.

Saying human is fundamentally bad, doesn't mean we have a pessimistic, this world couldn't be a better place view.

Because by saying human is fundamentally bad, there's hope that human can rise more beyond natural instinct, beyond animalistic instinct, beyond our implanted program. Saying human is fundamentally bad, is a statement full of hope dude / w \

If you put God, in the equation you can say >

Dignity could come from the fact that we have imortal souls — musicpianoaccordion

(Which Is not per say, exact *Cough the correct way is, Human Dignity is God's Image *cough)

The Social Contract argument of Human Dignity, is valid.

But what if we also put aside the social contract argument. THEN The Nihilist argument come in.

Which is, "Human and animal are the same (Because we put aside social contract and there is no God), We can do anything to human as long we are able"

: D

^Exactly, everyone did the wrong thing most of the time. Most of them did the wrong thing. and most of them THINK and also FEEL that the way to have a long term happiness IS that wrong thing.

Have you ever heard the phrase "I Feel something so Right, doing the wrong thing" ?

That is the proof, and this world reality is the proof, that human are fundamentally Evil. We are bondage by it, we are not free.

that's why a morally good person, according to Kant, is a free person. That's why lock's (i think) said that a good person who lived by the social contract is Living Against His Nature.

: D

But we are long term creatures: — Devans99

^No dude, it's not about life or death (because most of our decision isn't exactly about life or death situation) . it's about the Net Happiness and Net Suffering. What your argument is true IF

People are a happy human, which most of us are happy people, and the period of that happiness is long.

Umm basically, your argument is true if you agree with the statement "The World is a happy place filled with little suffering, and most of the people live a happy live"

you get the gist of it?

So a good-willed politician is way more scary than a wicked, corrupt one. — DiegoT

^I don't too agree with that. A Corrupt politician, in the end does thing to make him happy. I assume you're thinking of Machiavelli version of "Bad Politician". But Machiavelli kind of politician, is the kind of politician which couldn't be per say possible. Because Machiavelli Prince do bad things that magically don't result in bad consequence what so ever, in long term.

Now, it's hard dude, it's cool, but it's hard. Bad input with bad process WILL always lead to bad output (in a some way). Even history talk about the story of bad but smart politician who use bad deed to maintain order. it's rarely, even never result in good things.

And I don't agree with "Saint-like Politician, doesn't care about consequence" not exactly dude. A Smart Saint-Like politician will thinks of a long run good outcome, he/she wouldn't sacrifice other, he/she would only sacrifice him/herself. The main problem with saint-like politician, is they are usually "Weak". when You don't cheat against a player who cheats, most probable is you will lose. Saint-like politician can only hope that "The People" help he/she to enforce those rule.

Sorry, not a native, but you get the gist of it? :D

I think we can't say "Atheist are more happy than religious people" and said "A child with Religious Doctrine implanted since birth will be Unhappy adult". Atheism is not inherently wrong, religion also not inherently wrong.

But, both of those concept have their own merit and bad side. You shouldn't say 1 concept has no value what so ever dude, that's called ignorance dude / _ \



btw, what are your view on my statement "People are not fundamentally good" : D i'm interest in your view hahaha

^Exactly, is an ancient concept, BUT the value is sound! the value is, most of the time, when we do wrong thing, we cannot fully fix or erased it. One of the problem of this world is we cannot fully make things right without making some things wrong. That concept is ancient, yes, and that makes it interesting, because that ancient concept is so real and like "Implanted" in human.

eople are fundamentally not evil; they are fundamental Good (=Right) — Devans99

Ahh, there are many debate in this issue. Because people tend to choose Short-term good then long-term/complex good. and with your view, short term good = bad

(In which you can argue again and said, that mean they are stupid, in which the argument come back again by saying "They have low Effective Inteligence")

Oh, right - so you're a Buddhist. I find it quite difficult to relate to Buddhists, — karl stone

^ Ummm my list, are Judeo - Christian concept / w \. ps. I also thought that Buddhist concept is arguable : D

Brain - lump of grey matter in the skull
Mind - contents of understanding — karl stone

^wait, so you're saying Blaise Pascal have little understanding of reality? and Dostoevsky too?
really? and you can also said "Bad brain can produce good understanding?" really?

^ I agree

^Ohh! Now I understand your concern. Your concern are "Religion can't evolve, and in this reality which everything evolve, there will come a time when those evolving idea will conflict with religious idea, so it's better to put away religion, than to stuck on a stagnant way of thinking" (and also conflict of idea makes murder as you say).

We are starting to get into specific here, because you're implying "Religious people will murder people to defend their view", in which, hmmm that's not exactly correct.

Also, conflict raise because there are disagreement. But there are some "Basic Concept" that will (or should) not, or will never change. I think believing those concept is okay, because it in par with reality and it is indeed happen.Some of those "Basic Concept" is in my previous post.

IQ is not an individual quality. It's a statistical measure of intelligence relative to that of others. So, i really don't know what you're saying here. — karl stone

^Yes, that's why my point is "You can know a person has high intelligence or not, based on their IQ, and for now, only IQ". We are not disgreeing i think.

Right, but that's a good brain - not a good mind. — karl stone

^Wait... fair enough, you haven't really made your point clear. So, you are saying that religious people has a "Good Brain" or "Good Mind"? and can you define those term for me to understand : D

why didn't you list any? — karl stone

Some of it are :

- The View that we as human, have problem, and most of those problem comes from "Desire", "Desire" that implanted since birth. (psychology supported this) (and modern or ancient philosophy support it)

- The view that human, on the deepest core, is evil (Psychology term is "tend to do evil")

- The view that there are chaos in this world, and without "Order" we won't be happy. (Philosophy support it, or law theory)

- The View that, under the sun (or in the universe) none are eternal. (Philosophy supported it)

- The view that we won't be happy even if we are able to satisfy all of our impulse. Happiness doesn't come from us satisfying our "Desire"/"Impluse" (Is an ancient idea, but epicurus make it popular I think).

- The view that to strive, we must suffer (or not avoiding pain). (Nietzsche support it)

- ETC

Can you summarize this thread? I want to join, but it already has 2 page, and it will be hard to read them all

^That's better..... that's mean you don't need to be smart to live good, the most important thing is you need to be a person with Good Moral Character : D, which I hope that is correct hahaha.

^Yes, I agree, not all Good, Altruistic people are smart, and not all Evil, Egoistic people are stupid. But I would argue we should put aside moral when we want to judge a person "Does he/she has High Intelligent or not?". Because I don't (too) agree with the concept of Moral Intelligence (I think the word should not be "Intelligence" it should be "Moral XXX" in which I don't know what XXX is because i'm not a native english speaker : D).

^I think (For now) the only factor that made up intelligence is IQ. Hmmm, you are free to teach me more though : D

The intelligence of religious people is impaired by belief in something they can't know; such that the contents of the mind effectively disable the brain. — karl stone

^Hmmm, not exactly, I think religious belief and intelligence has really weak correlation. Some of the people that we could deem smart, are religious people. Example : Blaise Pascal, Fyodor Dostoevsky

The brain works better dealing with truth — karl stone

^I agree with this, but you must understand that in religion, there are many concept that is real in it.

That is Human Dignity. Sadly, what you said is true, subjectively we are animal and object. And some people do think that there are some Human who could be treated as mere object for pleasure.

These kind of human thinks in the end "Might Makes Right" and "As long I have Might, I can do anything".

According to Judeo-Christian view, abriged

Heaven is a place where there is no sin, the Hell with adam & eve, the question is "have you NEVER Comitted sin?"

Dude, as a human, SIN IS OUR BEING, even psychology said that human at the basic is a being that is slaves by Impulse and egoism (Freud said Lust : D).

Now knowing we have sin, can we go to heaven?

Of course not, BUT I can make my good deed plentier than my bad deed right? That would make me a good person.

Sorry dude, the Heaven works like the "Court System" no matter how good you are, we will still count that bad deeds, That is Justice.

Now then what could we do to go to heaven then? Well, just like the "Court System" you got to pay "The Fee". In court usually by jail sentence, or even money

Sadly, God HATED Sin, He hated it so much that human would not be able to pay the fees without perish! Now what to do... God loves us, but He cannot simply forgive our sin, that is "Corrupted" and "Unjust".

So God, according to the Judeo Christian view do the most UnGodly thing a God should do. Paying the Fee itself. God way of saving the human while also become just is by paying the price Himself.

That is why, the sentence "Jesus Died for Our Sin" comes.

We cannot be saved by doing anything. We simply can't pay the fee that God demand. Only God Himself can pay the Fee, but if you don't give your consent to Him, he cannot do anything.

So what is your choice? : D

Fair enough, the problem lies in "Respect" ( feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.)


If you think that there are Human that doesn't earn Respect, that is fine, I also have people that I don't respect.

But that kind of respect, and "Human Dignity" way of respect is diffrent. The Diffrence is a bit abstract. Which is like this :

Think of the most unhuman evil person in the world. Is it Right, to degrade that human as a mere caddle, a mere object to punish and use? Is it right to unhumanly do immorall conduct on that person?

The answer should be no right? No Human, whatever they has done deserve to be treated as an object/animal

They may don't earn our respect, but we should treat them as human. That is the abstract concept of Human Dignity.

Get the gist of it?

The question now is "what is Human Dignity?", you can read


^

Or you can search "Basic Human Right" on google