Religious people only care about nature because they are told to

[Simon Anders]

Religious people have rules for living. If their religion tells them to treat nature well, they do. If it doesn't, they don't. The only possible motivation for caring about something is because one follows rules. No one knows what the future will bring. It would be foolish to worry about the future of nature, except if your God has told you to do this. One cannot recognize the value in anything without being told what to value.

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, we're brainwashed from birth. No independent thought processes.

[Enmos]

Yea, it's quite sad..

[S.A.M.]

No, its quite good actually, we don't worry about anything.

Its all karma or qadr or destiny. Like biology.

[Enmos]

You are serious aren't you ?

[S.A.M.]

Of course. Why worry about biology?

[Enmos]

Of course. Why worry about biology?

Quit trolling.

[S.A.M.]

Look at dolphins. Do they worry about the environment? No, its all karma.

[Simon Anders]

Yeah, we're brainwashed from birth. No independent thought processes.
Tell me what is wrong with the OP. I don't agree with it. See, I see you as being evasive. You have come back with sarcasm. Wonderful. Tell me what is wrong with the thesis above. What are your motivations or independent thought processes that lead you to care about nature that atheists cannot also have?

[Enmos]

Look at dolphins. Do they worry about the environment? No, its all karma.

Let me get this straight, are you saying you don't have the brainpower to worry about nature ? Or what ?

[S.A.M.]

Let me get this straight, are you saying you don't have the brainpower to worry about nature ? Or what ?

I just follow the rules. :shrug:

[John99]

It would be foolish to worry about the future of nature, except if your God has told you to do this. One cannot recognize the value in anything without being told what to value.

Worrying about somehting does not mean helping, some people like to hear themselves talk and point fingers.

[Enmos]

I just follow the rules. :shrug:

Do you feel attacked or something ? Why are you so evasive ?

[Enmos]

I don't think I have to repeat my stance here, do I ?

[S.A.M.]

Do you feel attacked or something ? Why are you so evasive ?

Whats evasive about following rules? I brake on empty streets when the red light comes on, even if no one is there. Is that evasive?:confused:

[Enmos]

Whats evasive about following rules? I brake on empty streets when the red light comes on, even if no one is there. Is that evasive?:confused:

Since you deny not being serious, I can only ASSUME that you are being serious..

In which case I have nothing more to say to you, except maybe to visit a good psychiatrist.

[Simon Anders]

Yeah, we're brainwashed from birth. No independent thought processes. Again. I do not agree with this. I think religious people have other reasons/motivations for caring about nature. However I see these as, in some cases, shared by atheists.

[S.A.M.]

Since you deny not being serious, I can only ASSUME that you are being serious..

In which case I have nothing more to say to you, except maybe to visit a good psychiatrist.

You mean I should not follow the rules? Red light be damned eh? Boy you atheists sure live dangerously:p

[Simon Anders]

Yeah, we're brainwashed from birth. No independent thought processes.Again. I do not agree with this. I think religious people have other reasons/motivations for caring about nature. However I see these as, in some cases, shared by atheists.

It seems implicit in your sarcasm that you believe there are other motivations than simply following rules. We can move on and talk about this missing piece. I would be interested in hearing about your sense of why religious people, those that do, care about nature, that is not simply following rules, and how atheists cannot care about nature for similar reasons. I am not sure where this will lead, but it seems central.

[tim840]

"God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars." - Martin Luther, German theologian

That pretty much sums it up. :)

[Simon Anders]

"God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars." - Martin Luther, German theologian

That pretty much sums it up. :)Can anyone come up with stuff like that?

[tim840]

What do you mean?

[scorpius]

Yeah, we're brainwashed from birth. No independent thought processes.
we know!

[Simon Anders]

What do you mean? Well, that was Martin Luther's opinion. He is just a guy, however famous.

[scorpius]

"God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars." - Martin Luther, German theologian

That pretty much sums it up. :)
does that include natural disasters such as hurricanes,tornadoes,volcanic eruptions,earthquakes,tsunami waves and deadly diseases in which millions of people and children and little babies die every day...

loving god like that who needs the devil, huh?

[S.A.M.]

does that include natural disasters such as hurricanes,tornadoes,volcanic eruptions,earthquakes,tsunami waves and deadly diseases in which millions of people and children and little babies die every day...

loving god like that who needs the devil, huh?

Are you saying natural disasters are evil? Only good things should happen in the world? karma is redundant? Geez which fantasy world do you live in? :D

[GeoffP]

Religious people have rules for living. If their religion tells them to treat nature well, they do. If it doesn't, they don't.

No. That is absurd.

[Simon Anders]

No. That is absurd. I was trying to box SAM in in the same way she was on her thread in relation to atheists. I think she has a valid line of reasoning, but it is easier for to maintain via implication and some of its weaknesses will be more visible if she states it rather than circling it a la Socractes. I wanted her to disagree with me and present how religious people decide to be conservationists. (she had earlier sarcastically said that they have rules for living). Once she laid out the reasons I would check to see if she could agree atheist might also choose decide to care about the environment for similar reasons.

So far however she has not settled on my skin but like a mosquito in the darkness she can be heard.

[S.A.M.]

God tells us what to do. We NEVER think for ourselves. Saves on wear and tear.

[Randwolf]

God tells us what to do. We NEVER think for ourselves. Saves on wear and tear.

Wouldn't want any wear and tear, now would we... Why don't you tell us if you actually care about the environment. Do you care, SAM?

[Simon Anders]

God tells us what to do. We NEVER think for ourselves. Saves on wear and tear. This is getting evasive SAM. What ways do you think for yourselves that leads some of you towards conservation that are not available to atheists? (or if they choose these ways of thinking for themselves must, therefore, be hypocrites)

[S.A.M.]

Well clearly religious people only do things that their religion tells them to do and forswear them if their religions tells them not to. Like vegetarian Hindus and teetotaling Muslims. So clearly, there are no two opinions here. What is the evasion?

Wouldn't want any wear and tear, now would we... Why don't you tell us if you actually care about the environment. Do you care, SAM?

I have an electronic searchable copy of the Quran, never take a step without consulting it. :worship:

[Randwolf]

Sam: Well, I am really more curious about how you personally feel about the environment. Can you tell me? Do all Muslims feel exactly the same way?

[S.A.M.]

Bells: Well, I am really more curious about how you personally feel about the environment. Can you tell me? Do all Muslims feel exactly the same way?

We don't have any personal thoughts or feelings. We're not conditioned that way. :shrug:


Bells?

[Randwolf]

We don't have any personal thoughts or feelings. We're not conditioned that way. :shrug:


Bells?

Sorry, sam, 2 different threads. But thanks for answering...

[Randwolf]

We don't have any personal thoughts or feelings. We're not conditioned that way. :shrug:


Who is "we" in this context?

[Bells]

We don't have any personal thoughts or feelings. We're not conditioned that way. :shrug:


Bells?

AAArrrrggghhhhh stop it!:mad:

What's with the 'we are drones' kind of speak Sam? It is highly disconcerting.:bawl:

[S.A.M.]

AAArrrrggghhhhh stop it!

What's with the 'we are drones' kind of speak Sam? It is highly disconcerting.:bawl:

Well its a cult, we have to speak for all of us. http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w303/cascabelsl/smiley-zombie46ni.gif

You know I'm catering to the gallery, right?:D

Nothing like agreeing with a critic to take the wind from their sails /evil laughter

[Simon Anders]

Well clearly religious people only do things that their religion tells them to do and forswear them if their religions tells them not to. Like vegetarian Hindus and teetotaling Muslims. So clearly, there are no two opinions here. What is the evasion?

God tells us what to do. We NEVER think for ourselves. Saves on wear and tear. The fact that you don't believe this. In fact I feel foolish even pointing this out because it implies I think you might not know what you are doing.

[Randwolf]

Well its a cult, we have to speak for all of us. http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w303/cascabelsl/smiley-zombie46ni.gif
...

Nothing like agreeing with a critic to take the wind from their sails /evil laughter

You're actually swaying a lot of people's opinions, SAM, now that we understand. Do tell us more, before this, I never really understood the depth of your convictions...

[S.A.M.]

I always believe in arguing in an unexpected way. One should not confuse an argument with an opinion. At least in my case. ;)

[Simon Anders]

I always believe in arguing in an unexpected way. One should not confuse an argument with an opinion. At least in my case. ;)
Me no do this. But you are implying an opinion over and over. I think it would sound weaker if you stated it directly. Thus I am saying you are being evasive. Being evasive may not be your motive but it ends up being the result. I think most of the atheists missed your point - as I did for a while. I do not think the discussion can more forward with you simply repeating that religious people simply do what they are told. I think it would be useful if you made your position explicit. You don't want to do this. Fine. But saying that religious people simply do what they are told and do not think for themselves is, from you, rather expected now. A 3rd option?

[S.A.M.]

I believe it was from atheists on this forum that I first learned of the unique notion of an exclusively theistic brainwashing. Apparently, if cast into the wild as infants, all people grow into rational human beings with altruistic and intelligent opinions derived from self examination of their navel lint over a long period of time.

Hence, after facing constant bouts of anti-S.A.M-itism, I have decided to uphold this "rational" universal truth for its own sake. Apparently, this does not sit too well with atheists either. One is hard put to reach any non-brainwashed conclusions in this matter.

[Randwolf]

I always believe in arguing in an unexpected way. One should not confuse an argument with an opinion. At least in my case. ;)

Gee, SAM, this is unexpected. Are you arguing that your opinion is confusing? Or in your case, are we to opinionate that your argument is believable? In my case, I'm very confused....

[Simon Anders]

I believe it was from atheists on this forum that I first learned of the unique notion of an exclusively theistic brainwashing. Apparently, if cast into the wild as infants, all people grow into rational human beings with altruistic and intelligent opinions derived from self examination of their navel lint over a long period of time.

Hence, after facing constant bouts of anti-S.A.M-itism, I have decided to uphold this "rational" universal truth for its own sake. Apparently, this does not sit too well with atheists either. One is hard put to reach any non-brainwashed conclusions in this matter.

That first paragraph may get some bites from the atheists, I suppose, and move the discussion along. It is not something I agree with, nor am I likely to agree with the corrected versions atheists may give you - like 'we never implied that feral children would be atheists, but when a child is presented with critical thinking tools.....' and so on.

For me knowing the category someone falls into gives me little information about their levels of brainwashing. Most people have ideas shoved into their brains that they do not question and most people think ideas should be shoved into brains. Most people have developed tools for cutting off portions of their intuition and experience and they tend to pass these on to their children using a variety of devices from direct pavlovian beating type approaches to shaming, mocking, belittling, going cold to, or even the rather effective silently judging while pretending to do otherwise.

I see most people as having put on blinders, some cotton in their ears, a huge set of mental defense mechanisms that come into play when they experience certain things outside or inside themselves.

Atheists and religious alike.

But it sounds like I will get frustrated in the crossfire. Who knows? maybe your repetitive strategy here and taking on the insult will get somewhere or at least is fun for you.

I'll check back another time and see if anything has developed. For me it is a dead end.

[S.A.M.]

Well I used to try and have discussions, before I realised that the only discussion you can have in the religion forum is "theists are stupid and delusional and anti-science"

So I decided it may at least be amusing to have my own discussions as mirror images of their arguments. If nothing else, its interesting to see how the perspectives are almost laughably alike.

[Simon Anders]

Well I used to try and have discussions, before I realised that the only discussion you can have in the religion forum is "theists are stupid and delusional and anti-science"

So I decided it may at least be amusing to have my own discussions as mirror images of their arguments. If nothing else, its interesting to see how the perspectives are almost laughably alike.
Revenge has its place and so does mockery. I think in the right spirit they can be teaching devices.

(changed my mind about including the rest of this)

[S.A.M.]

Mostly what I have noticed is that everyone thinks they are right and this gives them some divine right to impose their will on others.

[Simon Anders]

Mostly what I have noticed is that everyone thinks they are right and this gives them some divine right to impose their will on others. How do you see this imposing of their will taking form here? I mean, how can anyone really impose, here?

[GeoffP]

I was trying to box SAM in in the same way she was on her thread in relation to atheists. I think she has a valid line of reasoning, but it is easier for to maintain via implication and some of its weaknesses will be more visible if she states it rather than circling it a la Socractes. I wanted her to disagree with me and present how religious people decide to be conservationists. (she had earlier sarcastically said that they have rules for living). Once she laid out the reasons I would check to see if she could agree atheist might also choose decide to care about the environment for similar reasons.

So far however she has not settled on my skin but like a mosquito in the darkness she can be heard.

Fair enough. I will wait and observe.

[greenberg]

How do you see this imposing of their will taking form here? I mean, how can anyone really impose, here?

In my estimation, some people have this sense that others are imposing their will on them due to the following: Namely, a person who is not sure about their own conviction will feel pressured when facing someone who expresses surety about their own conviction. If you are sure you are right, you won't feel threatened by what others claim that is right. If you have doubts whether you are right, it can easily happen that you will feel threatened by what others say and become defensive and so on.
Of course, if confronted directly about their convictions, many people will state that they are sure of their own convictions, that they know for sure about right and wrong - but this doesn't yet mean they actually are. What convictions we declare to have is often not what is actually taking place in our minds at any given time.

[greenberg]

Religious people have rules for living. If their religion tells them to treat nature well, they do. If it doesn't, they don't. The only possible motivation for caring about something is because one follows rules. No one knows what the future will bring. It would be foolish to worry about the future of nature, except if your God has told you to do this. One cannot recognize the value in anything without being told what to value.

Consider this scenario:
I gave up smoking. Previously, you have told me to give up smoking. Does this mean that I have given up smoking because you told me to and I simply obeyed you?

[Simon Anders]

In my estimation, some people have this sense that others are imposing their will on them due to the following: Namely, a person who is not sure about their own conviction will feel pressured when facing someone who expresses surety about their own conviction. If you are sure you are right, you won't feel threatened by what others claim that is right. If you have doubts whether you are right, it can easily happen that you will feel threatened by what others say and become defensive and so on.
Of course, if confronted directly about their convictions, many people will state that they are sure of their own convictions, that they know for sure about right and wrong - but this doesn't yet mean they actually are. What convictions we declare to have is often not what is actually taking place in our minds at any given time.

I see this as doubling the responsibility and quite rightly. It is my issue to work on: how to deal with people who are present themselves as certain (perhaps while merely suppressing their own doubts or thinking to do so is a winning system). And it is their responsibility to notice if they are feeding off of other people's uncertainty.

I cannot simply wait for them to be better people or more fully aware of themselves, etc.

Nevertheless, I am not the only one with responsibility here.

[Simon Anders]

Consider this scenario:
I gave up smoking. Previously, you have told me to give up smoking. Does this mean that I have given up smoking because you told me to and I simply obeyed you?
Well, the whole thread was me trying to squeeze SAM out of her self-deprecating irony in another thread. So I don't really have the opinion you are responding to. But in the spirit of answering anyway...
Not unless the power dynamic is what would generally be considered illegal, for example in Europe.

[greenberg]

Nevertheless, I am not the only one with responsibility here.

Agreed. It is the nature of human interaction that we are mutually responsible both for our own and for each other's welfare.
I can't come posting to a forum and insist that "I am just doing my thing and others read my stuff at their peril".

[Simon Anders]

Agreed. It is the nature of human interaction that we are mutually responsible both for our own and for each other's welfare.
I can't come posting to a forum and insist that "I am just doing my thing and others read my stuff at their peril". Oh, no. You caught one of my moods.
Hm. Not 'peril' I suppose.

[greenberg]

Oh, no. You caught one of my moods.

What do you mean?


Hm. Not 'peril' I suppose.

What else did you have in mind, as opposed to "peril"?

[greenberg]

Well, the whole thread was me trying to squeeze SAM out of her self-deprecating irony in another thread. So I don't really have the opinion you are responding to. But in the spirit of answering anyway...
Not unless the power dynamic is what would generally be considered illegal, for example in Europe.

Given that this thread was started as a SAM fest, I'm not sure whether to respond seriously ...
But I'll respond anyway -

Following religious rules can be done simply out of coercion or blind obedience, but it can also be done out of a deep sense of conviction and realization. There may also be other motivations for following religious rules, such as ulterior motives. On the outside, all those different motivations for following religious rules might produce the same result.
All in all, we must beware not to jump to conclusions when it comes to understanding why people do the things they do.

[Simon Anders]

What do you mean? I meant that some of my posts could easily be seen as coming from that attitude and perhaps, I wondered, actually are coming from that attitude. But then I could not identify with 'peril'.What else did you have in mind, as opposed to "peril"? Since I had my guilty response first I will counterbalance with a very positive view:
"at the risk of a shock of recognition which may, at first, at least, seem unpleasant despite its value."

And nowthe waves of guilt and pomposity interfere and cancel each other out.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

3 pages and the subject has not even been debated, you guys suck.


peace.

[Simon Anders]

3 pages and the subject has not even been debated, you guys suck.


peace. SAM evaded me with great skill and panache. But you are welcome to bring us back to 'the subject'.