It is reality. I have asked you to put forward something that either discusses, or displaces this. — AmadeusD

I am discussing it.

See the descriptive/prescriptive distinction. On a descriptive level we have a pro-same species bias. That says zero about whether it should be maintained rationally.

Typically we learn about cognitive biases in order to unlearn them & improve our thinking.

It's like if I were to say "well humans naturally have confirmation bias, what's the problem?" Well, we naturally try to unlearn that to get our thinking more in line with objective reality.

And the reality in this case is that there is no objective reason for preferring a human over a cockroach.

"But what about subjective reasons?"

I don't care. I seek to act in accordance with objective reality and if that gets you mad then anger is derived from an irrational source.

And in fairness, this is also where a Christian or religious worldviews can lead you. I remember talking to a couple of elderly former Nazi's back in the early 1990's. They were good Christians, of course. Lutherans, as it happened. They calmly described Jewish folk as cockroaches (as per the Nazi propaganda) - and were sure God would be good with that. — Tom Storm

Tom, these are not good Christians. "All Jews are cockroaches" necessitates that Jesus is a cockroach. :sweat:

One can believe themselves to be a good Christian. One can call themselves, outwardly (and even maybe inwardly) a good Christian. But none of that makes one a good Christian.

Religious nihilism along with a cavalier disregard for the 'sacredness of human life seems to be part of the practices of many religions. — Tom Storm

I'm not talking practice. I'm talking Scripture.

Yes, it's just another bias. There's a million of them that we have and we generally strive to overcome these cognitive biases in our thinking.

If our natural pro-human bias is not accordance with reality and is just another cognitive bias then I will seek to unlearn it like I do with other cognitive biases. I only seek to act in accordance with true reality. I don't see the problem. Save 100 cockroaches or 100 babies? Who cares -- flip a coin, I guess.

I generally prefer to believe and act in accordance with (my perceived) reality, but whatever your floats your boat.

Without invoking God, tell me why you'd think otherwise? Or is the case that you are encased in a religious framework to such a degree that you cannot fathom other thoughts? — AmadeusD

I'm quite capable of thinking atheistically.

If so we're on the same page then -- no objective reason for valuing human life over cockroach life. We just have that bias because we're humans but it's not grounded in anything objective.

I read you loud and clear. We can go down that road. See where it takes us.

I'm curious, what do you see as the main differences between the original sect headed by Jesus and Paul's take on things? I see Paul as making certain inferences and elaborating/expanding on Jesus's ideas in his own ways. There's the Jesus layer and then the Paul layer.

extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures. — Tzeentch

He could abdicate and go to the English countryside, and a few weeks later him and the undesirables of his countrymen will be rounded up and likely murdered. Someone must lead, even if there are no states this remains true. Tribes had leaders. Kingdoms had leaders. Poor or lack of leadership historically frequently results in one's people being decimated or conquered.

But by all means be "moral" and go frolic away in the countryside while stronger organized forces seek domination.

You got me, 180. I would have been a Nazi in the 40s. :up: :rofl:

And you would have been a klansman in the 20s. :rofl:

Interesting that you mention Galatians as opposed to Romans regarding Paul's complete thinking. Yes, I also don't see Paul as anti-semitic seeing as he was Jewish and Pharisaic. But his thinking as you mentioned likely inspired some measure of antisemitism.

Could it not have been both? That he was both an evangelist who was serious about spreading Xtianity and reasonably saw circumcision and dietary laws as a hindrance to that end and that he was sincere in his views that Jesus was God and that salvation occurred through faith in him? That the law shines a light on our wrongdoings and that we all fall short of it and that grace makes up the difference? That breaking even one makes one a lawbreaker?

gThomas lends further credence to Paul's disregard for circumcision. J's own words in the gospels regarding purity cast doubt on the applicability of Jewish/Pharisaic dietary laws. In any case, Paul is going to need a lot of grace and a lot of faith (at least according to a traditional Jewish view) -- I always found it very notable that it someone such as him would receive the revelation on the road to Damascus.

you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.

Yes.

The opponents to that movement were portrayed deliberately accordingly.

Yes, unfortunately for the members of that movement and those who inherited the traditions of that movement.

I think your comments about Luke and ff, if understood in the context above, reveals that the early church, far from being antisemitic, were carrying on a Jewish tradition, opposing, not Judaism nor the Jewish race, just their "political" opponents in the Sanhedrin.

I'll have to dig more into the history on this one. So Luke was written around 80-90 AD I don't know the extent to which the Sanhedrin was opposing or dealing with the Early Church in those days.

It is quite clear that this is a complete non sequitur. — AmadeusD

So you think life and death decisions re: human life should be made lightly (i.e. that it is an unserious matter)? It's not like it's sacred. Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? This is where your worldview leads you.

The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.

We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable.

Interesting tension here. You say there's no fact of the matter about what morality is, yet you hold immutable opinions towards it. :chin:

It's like you're saying "there's no fact of the matter as to what morality is, yet its character is immutable."

Ok, it's a matter of which moral bullet you bite. Use an ugly weapon or turn over your countrymen to death when you could have prevented it.

But probably more importantly, performing immoral acts would diminish my own humanity. — Benkei

Well, in this situation you've got Nazis storming an English beach head after already establishing air superiority.

So you can either try to kill them or let them take over.

Presumably you choose "resistance by other means" which sacrifices many more English lives but avoids breaking international war laws.

What if conventional means were sure to lead to failure against the upcoming Nazi onslaught? Would you continue with the futile resistance?

It's really just a matter of which bullet you bite.

I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. — RogueAI

Unfortunately I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s.

The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them. I don't have the luxury of "well, let's dispassionately analyze their reasons" given my identity.

Call it shallow thinking, but I don't really tend to devote much thought to ideologies which if followed necessitate my death and the deaths of those who share the same identity markers.

Once you are an adult, God is going to see your heart and see if you sinned mortally for sake of evil itself, or if you just made a mistake, and what's more, if you say "sorry" he will forgive you immediately even a "mortal" sin. — Fire Ologist

There's a lot to repentance both in Judaism and Catholicism. I'd like to believe it's that simple.

I believe the purpose of hell, Gehenna, is purification. There the full repentance takes place. Our sinful selves are very often not fit to be in God's presence immediately after death so we must undergo purification before reunion with God. I don't believe in eternal hell.

I don't know whether an internal apology truly covers everything. Murder a few hundred, apologize afterwards -- "we're in the clear!" The murderer won't see the true scope of what he did. That's what I like to think hell is -- the true realization/understanding of one's actions. God may be love, but he is also justice.

And absolutely repent here on Earth as well. Gehenna will be granted out of love. The truly irredeemable will be annihilated.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

:100:

Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable.

Shhh "do no harm" remember?

Atheists who spend considerable amounts of time or mental energy lording their atheism over theists are invariably idiots. The state of education in the US has backslide as race hustlers and DEI have made discrimination and hateful rhetoric against some ethnic groups acceptable while others have untouchable victim status.

Scripture teaches us that technological/social progress does not necessarily coincide with the elevation of humanity/spiritual progress (see the Tower of Babel). In other words, that these are two different things. Religion can be regressive, of course, since religion is much more than just Scripture -- religion is also extremely broad making it an easy target. But I think the fundamental scriptural lesson is sound -- a society can be very technologically advanced yet be essentially insane or operating from a very wicked morality. In modernity it is tempting to see progress purely in terms of technology.

"Unrepented mortal sin leads to hell" - Catholic tradition.

Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

@180 Proof

And how does "an important belief" deter ... suicide? — 180 Proof

Do I look like your Sunday school teacher? Do you want me to assign you reading? I'd wash your mouth out with soap before anything. No need to bring up martyrdom here.

through providing a sense of purpose and empowerment. fear can work too.

Faith is an important belief.

Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

If poison gas is necessary to win then use it - absolutely. Churchill's responsibility is to his countrymen and to the state of the world.

Poison gas was legal in WWI. So presumably it was fine then. The international community came together and banned it in the 1920s because it was a nasty weapon. I have no issue with that, but if the entire world is at stake of being absorbed by a genocidal regime that's a completely different issue.

.

I believe that faith is a deterrent against suicide.

But maybe it's all wrong and it should be ignored and that in reality the idea that human life has value is really just a fiction or to be decided purely by the individual. So if you feel depressed or in pain why not commit suicide to stop it? It would be super effective. Who's to say human life is worth more than pigs or insects? Is that the type of society you'd like to live in?

That right? All the time the majority of the people believed in God, none of them killed any other? — Vera Mont

In the Netherlands today they are allowing a healthy woman to euthanize herself because is depressed. Personal autonomy trumps all.

Don't you have some Jews to bar from campus? Don't forget your armband.

Its completely impossible to reconcile it with anything we know about suffering and death. — AmadeusD

What is it that we know about those two, especially death? Next to nothing -- only that it is inevitable. Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, could be neutral. Accordingly, we generally leave those decisions to a power beyond ourselves.

God tells us life is sacred. Remove God and life can lose its sanctity quickly.

I don't like either.

:up: This thread has long outlived its usefulness. You roll around in the mud enough dealing with Hamas-sympathizers, antisemites, etc. -- you're going to get dirty and it can drag you down. Thanks for the reminder.

EDIT: But the more I research the more I realize that Hamas is straight from hell. There was a jubilance to the 10/7 murderers. Unfortunately on 10/7 palestinian civilians and even unrwa partook. Comparisons to Nazis or Amalek are warranted. Not even the Nazis were jubilant. Societies can be sick.

I would need to review Paul's writings for antisemitism. The first time I really understood Xtian antisemitism was through the Gospels. I have a love hate relationship with the book. Brilliant, life changing teachings from Jesus but also the way the writers contrast Jesus's teachings to those of the Pharisees -- while theologically purposeful and reasonable, unfortunately really requires broader context.

It does bother me that some number of Christians seemingly only read the Gospels and just kind of keep it at that. I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews, but imho the radicalness of Jesus is bolstered in understanding the Pharisees in their broader context. In other words, if Jesus's enemies are just bad, stupid people and Jesus is criticizing them then Jesus is just sort of normal and good, but not radical. Just a reformer.

Luke, I remember, as being especially bad -- from memory, the writers say "the Pharisees, who love money, sneered at Jesus" -- yes, they "like" money because money allows one to contribute to charity and perform acts of good. Pharisaic ideology isn't bad Jesus just emphasizes the other side ("blessed be the poor") but there's reason behind the Pharisees - they're not just wicked. Jesus has a complex relationship with them as in the end of Matthew he tells his followers to do as they say but not as they do.

No, we say that about a world full of blindness, leukemia and leeches. — Vera Mont

Maybe it's our job to elevate it.

It's not about quantity. It's about punishing them for the perceived iniquity of one tribe of humans. — Vera Mont

We're talking about the flood regarding animal deaths, right? I can't say that God bringing about animal death is bad. Would it be better for them to die slowly of old age?

Faith may be able to find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot. — Vera Mont

Pain is not necessarily cruelty. Some pain can be cleansing. Some pain can be justice. Some can be necessary. Some can be for growth.

What other standards are there? If somebody wants my admiration, they have to earn it. — Vera Mont

Does God "murder" a 100 year old who dies of natural causes? It is him taking life - murder, right? Or is it ok if he's 100? How do we judge the giver and taker of life according to human standards who operates outside of nature?





Theodicies like Job are just a reminder that as humans our scope of knowledge is very limited so consider that before understanding misfortune as cosmic injustice. Just facts.

When your car stalls and you have to pull off to the shoulder, you can't help knowing that's not supposed to happen — Vera Mont

Yes, that's a car -- not a human. We don't say that about someone who is deaf or blind.

The people, probably. The animals, definitely. — Vera Mont

How much life do they deserve? Should such a life also be pain free?

Can they, in good conscience? — Vera Mont

That is faith for you. Death could be the most wonderful thing to happen to us, yet we all fear it. In my faith, God is viewed as essentially good -- we may not understand his ways, but in the end it's all for the best. Nor can God be judged by human standards. Otherwise he'd be guilty of murder when a 90 year old dies of natural causes. All death would be God "murdering."

if the god is omnipotent, he has the power to reduce the horror in each pixel. — Vera Mont

He could, but maybe the suffering is for a purpose. In any case it is temporary.

No, the difference is that I accept that the mass murder by drowning of men, women and children is wrong. — Tom Storm

Murder is unlawful killing. In any case, if no flood how long of a life do these people get? The flood story is derived from an ancient mesopotamian account btw. How much life does everyone deserve?

just like the Muslims do. — Tom Storm

Jews and Muslims are on the same page then.

And we weren't talking about 'natural' disasters we were talking about god created ones. — Tom Storm

God is the ultimate cause of natural disasters. Nature is under his purview according to classic theology/the bible.

But I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god — Tom Storm

Let's just start with the flood. God presumably kills a large portion of humanity. Was he wrong to do that? You presume that you know better. I admit that I don't know. That's the difference here.

Religious people say God will give and take life as he does. You say that you know better. That's really the fundamental difference. So how much life should everyone have? I understand that to us floods/natural disasters look bad but we also just don't know anything about the bigger picture.

The botched and imperfect world we live in, full of design flaws and disease also seems to indicate sloppy work. — Tom Storm

With this simple sentence, you've put yourself in the "God" position. You've now judged God and thus assumed the role that you know better about how run the universe.

Look, you're free to place yourself in the "God" role but I wouldn't given our incredibly limited scope of knowledge as humans. We live for ~70-80 years maybe and process reality throughout our own irrational and biased brains and then who knows what after it all ends.

We can do it but it's sort of a ridiculous exercise. If I'm God everybody gets free ice cream btw.

You haven't answered what you want from Israel to end the oppression.

Let's face it, this God is a sloppy worker and doesn't pay attention.

I get that you're an atheist, Tom, but this a concept expressed in paganism/polytheism. So you're kind of a pagan atheist. I've never loved this view though as someone with a disability I don't want to be told "oh God was just not paying attention or drunk or didn't care when he made you" because it leads to a certain portion of the population just being seen as cosmically rejected. I don't believe Gods who are utterly indifferent to humanity are worth being called Gods/God. I am a monotheist, by the way. The Hebrew Bible often retells earlier polytheistic tales, but imho, in a wiser way.