-- there's no fooling you, is there.




"So, if the gods are good" -- where did that bit come from...?

I never said that -- did i...????
I have a feeling that this is what's known as a "straw man" Tips for Effective Debating


.... but yes, i did say that we are "aspects" of God -- and i meant precisely that.


Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

AH

It is only depressing for our egotism that thinks it's God. Our higher parts need this common sense and helps in awakening. Simone's optimism is the optimism of a Christian. It believes in hope for the human condition. It suggest that there is hope for getting out of the cave and becoming our evolutionary potential.

What you call depressing is the profound realism of those like Shakespeare in the passage "All the world's a stage." and Yeats' "I am trapped in the body of a dying animal." It may not be pleasant but men like this believe it essential to see it as it is.

Just because a gem happens to fall into a bucket of mud doesn't make the bucket a gem. Just because we have the seed of something divine doesn't make us divine.


It may be, but IMO it is still true. I know that there are writers on Christianity that haven't a clue. Why should I believe that just because Shahriar Shahriari writes a book and has a web site that he is transmitting the original teaching? While I believe it to be true that Man has an important function to play in the universal scheme, Man in Plato's cave cannot do it and no amount of wishful thinking or platitudes can change it. First a person needs to think on how to get out of the cave.

I looked up Shahriar Shahriari. I learned that:

To be blunt, he may be a very nice man but I know many like this. He may express wonderful thoughts but from this I have no reason to believe he understands anything.

Just clarifying...some would find that an outrageous claim and I wanted to make sure I understood you.



"So, if the gods are good" -- where did that bit come from...?

I never said that -- did i...????

It's a reasonable inference, (not a straw man) although it may not be true.

You did say that (elipsing a bit of your arguments) that we are gods and that what we choose to do is good or evil. Are you, then, saying that gods are good or evil, as they choose?

Then, what is the meaning of good or evil?

If they have no meaning, then why are some actions good, and considered good, and some not? And why are some thingws (the Holocaust, for example) considered unredeemably evil?

That seems a bit strange.


If we are the only standard, both of divinty and good/evil, then we are simply using undefined terms (since no term can be defined in terms of itself; that's like saying that a circle is a figure that demonstrates "circleness"). If our terms are undefined, then anything is anything, and that is not insight, merely confusion.

"Be seeing you..."

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

NA,
you said:
"It is only depressing for our egotism that thinks it's God."
- i agree that it would probably be depressing for someone who thinks themselves to be God, and would suggest they have a serious problem indeed.
I don't think it's actually possible for anyone to think such a thing, as they would have problems explaining to themselves how they're omnipotent -- and yet too impotent to perform even the most simple miracle.

The opening quote says: "Since we are all endowed with the divine essence, we are all good and divine. .... " - it does'nt say that we are God, it says that Divine essence is intrinsic to our nature, and that by virtue of this, we ourselves are essentially -- that is: in our essence -- divine beings.



Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

- i agree that it's an "inference -- but not a "reasonable" one, and if it "may not be true", what is the point of inferring it in the first place?

It seems to me that it fits precisely with the Wiki definition of "straw man".

Why ellipse (distort..??) what has been said, ......?
The original post (No.1) contains the words: - which is a very different thing altogether.


Maybe i should add that i smoke heavily.... and i'm very careless with matches.


Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

I think that "good and evil" are entirely subjective -- by which I mean that a thing is good if it does good to some person, without causing harm to another person, and a thing is evil if it does evil to another person.

(Now, whether it is still evil if it does good to many other people is one of those utilitarian philosophical concepts that I'm decidedly unsure about. I rather think that is probably situational, and perhaps still evil, although "justifiably evil," if such a concept is allowable. Like I said, I'm philosophically not up-to-speed on that.)

I rather think (along the lines of Edward O. Wilson), that evolution has developed us in ways a little differently from Dawkins' "selfish gene." Dawkins would have the gene operating pretty much on its own, which would lead the human organism, one would imagine, to succeed best by doing whatever it can to procreate more than the next guy -- ergo, selfish behaviour would seem to be the natural outcome, as opposed to altruism.

And yet, as Wilson points out, we are also social animals, and when groups of social animals come into conflict, those groups who cooperate with each other during the conflict will tend to fare better than those who do not. Thus, there is ample room for the survival of an "altruistic" phenotype (however the genotype managed it), if there were, say, 5 altruistics members in one group and only 2 in the other.

And it's interesting to note that our notions of good and evil -- and in particular killing and destruction of property -- take on a decidedly different complection in time of war. We seem hugely less worried about the "sanctity of life," when the life in question is not "one of us."

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Thank you for the response and comments, evangelicalhumanist.

- that is a very deep pond, and the mud at the bottom is deeper still....

Unfortunately, many people die during wars -- but as a preparatory factor to war the truth is always the first to die.... long before the actual conflict starts.

Concerning E. O. Wilson's ideas, quite some bit of research seems to show that altruism is shown by (among other creatures) both chimpanzees and bonobos, and as they're very close relatives of ours i would be surprised if it wasn't present in ourselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/sc...gewanted=print
http://www.college.ucla.edu/news/05/joansilkchimps.html



Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17