what is the beggining of philosophy?

@spendius,

My definition of evolution does not justify making it the fundamental moral and ethical base of society's socialisation process in place of the Christian tradition or any other religion because I think that science will have a different word for something that is able to give a greater vaule to our mores!

I would think that anyone who thinks evolution is some type of religion is not all there, I am not trying to put anyone down when I say that, I only see evolution to be a theory with many facts within it.

I see it to be a comparable problem to that which we had about the earth revolving around the sun. It seemed that many christians had a very hard time accepting it.

I do find it strange how religion can think that science will take away god, even though we all know that the earth evolves around the sun we still have religions and they still have their god! There will always be ok delusions.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

My definition of evolution does not justify making it the fundamental moral and ethical base of society's socialisation process in place of the Christian tradition or any other religion because I think that science will have a different word for something that is able to give a greater vaule to our mores!

I would think that anyone who thinks evolution is some type of religion is not all there, I am not trying to put anyone down when I say that, I only see evolution to be a theory with many facts within it.

I see it to be a comparable problem to that which we had about the earth revolving around the sun. It seemed that many christians had a very hard time accepting it.

I do find it strange how religion can think that science will take away god, even though we all know that the earth evolves around the sun we still have religions and they still have their god! There will always be ok delusions.

I agree RL, I just find that it is not so much science taking away religion's god but religion dumbing down science for the sake of their fairytale. So these christian lobbyists impose and overstep their religious precepts out of fear that atheists or the social conscience will outlaw their crazy holy books. They call it "taking America back" when it was never theirs to begin with. Religion is alien to a secular government.

Philosophy = human wisdom
Religion = God's wisdom (Though these holy books seem farther and farther from any sensical God's wisdom.)

It seems that much of religion is not even good philosophy.

...and where does science fit in with philosophy and religion?

1 Reply

@RexRed,

What's the point inresponding to someone who sees fit to lard his posts with emotionalisms such as "dumbing down", "fairytale", "impose", "overstep" and "crazy" and when each of those is merely an assertion and not one of them justified.

rl--would "conditioned reflex" do for the "something that is able to give a greater vaule to our mores!".

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

What's the point inresponding to someone who sees fit to lard his posts with emotionalisms such as "dumbing down", "fairytale", "impose", "overstep" and "crazy" and when each of those is merely an assertion and not one of them justified.

rl--would "conditioned reflex" do for the "something that is able to give a greater vaule to our mores!".

You would not consider that attributing to God almighty a flat earth theory is not a "dumbing down", "fairytale", "impose", "overstep" and simply "crazy"...?

I call it the height of human folly to use this book any longer as divinely inspired and more evident the book's science and history is simply made up by faulty humans. You can call them prophets or holy men if you like but the standard of prophecy is usually that it is true and stands the test of time. Most reasoning individuals see evolution showing up creation through DNA and the great flood and Noah's two by two preposterous corralling of the entire earth's animals as the books ultimate downfall.

The bible says God has foreknowledge... well God might have thought to ask Galileo and Darwin a few things when he was penning the bible.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

I suppose "reasoning individuals" are those who are brilliant enough, like you, to "see evolution showing up creation through DNA and the great flood and Noah's two by two preposterous corralling of the entire earth's animals as the books ultimate downfall." "See" it the way you do I mean.

Having on Ignore other ways of seeing it despite Biblical studies being so widespread in the academic world and the jobs and reputations involved being declared pointless by a sweet and easy phrase of your's. Excellent. They should make you Emperor Rex. Think of all the trouble it would save.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I suppose "reasoning individuals" are those who are brilliant enough, like you, to "see evolution showing up creation through DNA and the great flood and Noah's two by two preposterous corralling of the entire earth's animals as the books ultimate downfall." "See" it the way you do I mean.

Having on Ignore other ways of seeing it despite Biblical studies being so widespread in the academic world and the jobs and reputations involved being declared pointless by a sweet and easy phrase of your's. Excellent. They should make you Emperor Rex. Think of all the trouble it would save.

I will be the first one to claim myself as being no emperor but a mere fool. After all the bible fooled me for so many years. Perhaps it fooled me harder and with greater veracity than even yourself.

I am perfectly happy with a president of a secular government in charge with his eye on health care and protecting the common wealth of our nation.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

The Bible never fooled me at all. It's just a beautiful book. I find it very amusing mostly. I don't think all the horror stories are necessarily true or represent the true picture of the events they depict. The admiration of all the writers I rate for the book is sufficient evidence of its usefulness. It's important lessons are buried deep in it and are only available to those who read it properly and have an advanced literary education. What some people use it for or say about it is no concern of mine.

I don't think the Bible fooled you. It was taking notice of the wrong people about it that fooled you.

Quote:

I am perfectly happy with a president of a secular government in charge with his eye on health care and protecting the common wealth of our nation.

Well--I'm not and neither is the vast majority of the population. That statement is meaningless. You have assumed a "nice" secular government by which I assume you mean people with a Christian upbringing. You don't mean Enron execs or bankers do you?

You could argue that protecting this "commonwealth of our nation" ( a right phrase to conjure with I must say) requires all the elderly to be knocked off and that reproductive copulations be organised on a clinical basis. What a waste there is with lovely suburbs of monogamous breeding hutches for those in lurve when we could be in efficient barracks making applications in triplicate to the Secretary of State for Shagging. No pubs, no smoking, no tripping, no lingerie, no beauty salons and no anything else of any fun. Just work, sleep, state TV, and three bowls of rice a day and a plentiful supply of drinking water laced with bromide.

The idea that health care and the organisation of relatively free people in the hundreds of millions can be arrived at by some dramatic and simple words is the utterest fatuity it is possible for me to think of. And yet it is rife.

That our Christian culture allows dissident voices to undermine its tenets is a sign of its confidence and of how irrelevant it considers those voices to be. Let them be a serious threat and see what happens. As of now it's all an aspect of the entertainment industry which is a subdivision of the advertising industry.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I do think that it is going to require more than a conditioned reflex to give a greater vaule to our mores!

Many people will say that I am wrong but I think that the philosophers had most of it right with the words of jesus in the new testament. Now I do have to say that in my opinion some of the quotes of him were off very badly. When I say "off" I am refering to any quote that goes against casting stones on people if you have never sinned. or any quote that has hatefulness torwards anyone.

I am not sure if the people who wrote the bible added that hatefulness or if the philosopher had it wrong. In any case I do realize that we are not perfect people and the philosophers and the writers of the books should be forgiven for their ignorance and we all need to move forward into the future and build our mores better than what we were shown. Build upon what they showed us and not try to take the rights away from others.

Keep in mind that these ethics may have been the best that were known at the time 2000+ years ago and your available knowledge about ethics has advanced much more since then.

Anyone who wants to advance their morality and knowledge needs to study other cultures and their behavior and see the ignorance of their traditions and then ask themselves if they could also be ignorant in the way they see reality because of their own cultural up bringing. I think that the reason for what causes this way of thinking is because we all tend to think in absolute terms about our ideologies and religions.
If you do not think that this is correct about you, do you think that these absolute terms hinder other people because of the way others think in absolutes terms about their religions or any kind of ideology so to speak?

These absolutes are also included in many other aspects of our lifes. This is our major stumbling block!
Would it be like a miricle if we were all able to see this instead of being blind to it? Maybe we would be able to hear wisdom instead of being deaf to it. Could this possibly help us to walk threw life with less stumbling instead of the crippling effect that we have? Maybe it would seem as if we were woken up from being spiritually dead?

I have no answers but only questions and opinions but I am open to suggestions so please feel free to share them!

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It's important lessons are buried deep in it and are only available to those who read it properly and have an advanced literary education.

What kind of advanced literary education must one obtain to appreciate lies and hate? And what important lessons will one derive from such an untruthful book?

1 Reply

@RexRed,

I'm non-plussed how anybody can say things like that. It astonishes me. What a debilitating condition blind prejudice is. I can't imagine it derives from the book itself. It must come from the blind prejudice of others.

The book has no connection with what people say about it or use it for. The Bible punchers are just as much to blame as anybody else. They don't love the book either.

Whatever--it is no concern of mine and it is certainly no concern to a philosophy debate. You post is anti-philosophy. It belongs on Facebook or some other wittering and whining site. It's anti-intellectual, anti-intelligence, anti-education, anti-polite, anti-decency, anti-value and anti everything which is lined up against stupidity.

It's obvious you have never read it Rex. And by "read" I mean a process requiring some considerable effort.

"You never understood that it ain't no good, you should never let other people get your kicks for you."

You have had the book stolen from you and are intent on stealing it from others. Your post is completely out of order on a philosophy thread and you should take yourself hence.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Hi Spendius !

...I think you need an "Intellectual microphone translator" to make yourself eared...
The "machine" you are trying to address is "unplugged"...

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28cryptography%29

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Anybody who needs my post decoding is an interloper in even an elementary philosophy debate.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Agreed !...

0 Replies

@spendius,

You all may find this odd but I think that both of you are being logical and very emotional. You both seem to have good reason for what you say! Rex is very upset because he sees that most all churches want to take away his rights and think that he should not even exist.
How would you respond if most all churches wanted to take away your rights and tell everyone that Spendius should not exist? Rex is gay and that is who he is and he can not change that! If you think that he can, "then please show us the science to prove it.
Now for Spendius being right! he is correct in saying that the bible has alot to offer us. There is alot of good that can come from it. [do not get me wrong because I see alot of bad that can come from it as well] Keep in mind that when we trash something that is very dear[bible] to Spendius it will also make him emotional.

I think that you both have alot to offer philosophy when you reframe from emotional attacks but who am I to know what is correct because all I have is questions and opinions to offer.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Emotion is a movement outwards. As in e-gress. E-xit. E-mpty. E-nter. E-fullgence. E-nergy. E-motion. As soon as you touch the keyboard to communicate your thoughts rl you are expressing emotion. Are you using the word to E-xpress some idea that it is a weakness or a fault or some ******* thing you have buzzing around your silly head like I'm some big girl's blouse and you are Clint ******* Eastwood. **** off.

There is nothing any sensible man would do when somebody who hasn't read the Bible attempts to slag it off, on the basis of what some wankers have said about it due to their own difficulties with the world as it is, other than point out that the tone of those fatuous remarks Rex made about it will result in anybody daft enough to take any notice of them being put off reading that wonderful book, and maybe putting others off in their turn, and stealing it away from them.

An Orwellian trick. Rex's dispute is with people who use it improperly for their own reasons and not with the book itself. I can't answer for those people but I'll answer for the book. Anytime.

The science concerning homosexualty in men divides them into the innate and the conditioned. The former is not amenable to revision and nobody that I know wishes to take away the rights they have which are pretty comprehensive. The latter category is another matter and for an earlier time of day than it is here now.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Your quote[Are you using the word to E-xpress some idea that it is a weakness or a fault or some ******* thing] I am sorry that I hurt your feelings but yes you are close but that is not how I would have put it, because I try to respect your emotions!

1 Reply

the begining of philosophy is truth and understanding , of anything

0 Replies

@spendius,

...not the right way about it Spendius. Hit the brakes there !
People are entitled to ask and you in obligation of a decent answer ! (should I remind you...)

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Emotion is a movement outwards. As in e-gress. E-xit. E-mpty. E-nter. E-fullgence. E-nergy. E-motion. As soon as you touch the keyboard to communicate your thoughts rl you are expressing emotion. Are you using the word to E-xpress some idea that it is a weakness or a fault or some ******* thing you have buzzing around your silly head like I'm some big girl's blouse and you are Clint ******* Eastwood. **** off.

There is nothing any sensible man would do when somebody who hasn't read the Bible attempts to slag it off, on the basis of what some wankers have said about it due to their own difficulties with the world as it is, other than point out that the tone of those fatuous remarks Rex made about it will result in anybody daft enough to take any notice of them being put off reading that wonderful book, and maybe putting others off in their turn, and stealing it away from them.

An Orwellian trick. Rex's dispute is with people who use it improperly for their own reasons and not with the book itself. I can't answer for those people but I'll answer for the book. Anytime.

The science concerning homosexualty in men divides them into the innate and the conditioned. The former is not amenable to revision and nobody that I know wishes to take away the rights they have which are pretty comprehensive. The latter category is another matter and for an earlier time of day than it is here now.

hence another example why I will never , ever , believe in god(s)

1 Reply

@north,

Nobody is asking you to believe in anything. Who is even bothered what you believe in or otherwise. That might merely depend on a preference for CBS over Fox. Or vice versa.

There's a book. You needn't believe in anything to read it and benefit from doing so. It certainly can't hurt you. It's only a book. I hope you don't want to round up all the copies, a few of which will be in every university library, and burn them. North Korea has a version of that procedure.

0 Replies

what is the beggining of philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know