Religion… What do you think?

@ccraft: @lordraiden:

The point isn't whether or not you choose to adhere to some type of ethical conduct, but whether or not there is an objective reason for why you should behave in such a manner.

@nick_hero22: To love thy neighbor, the Bible teaches some moral ways to behave. Not that it doesn't have some bad things in there, but you have to remember it was a different time back then, so you do have to cherry pick things out of the Bible.

That not the point though. The point is is there an actual objective standard for evaluating ethical behavior, so it is not whether you choose to do "good" things or "bad" things because if there is no standard in which we measure these actions then they are arbitrary.

@nick_hero22: There isn't a real standard, but that is beside the point, nothing has meaning humans give meaning to meaningless things, that's what we do. That's what our brains are hardwired to do, see patterns and we assign meaning to these patterns, and if we understand that all human's feel pain as we do, then we can create a set of ethics to live by, so that we don't get hurt or hurt others.

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

― William Shakespeare, Hamlet

If there is no objective standard then there is no reason to preference this set of actions versus the next set of action since it all boils down to personal taste, so when we talk about this set of particular actions being ethical it will in essence be arbitrary. The question then becomes why should I care that other feel pain? I'm sure that serial killers and murders feel a sense of emotional and physical pain when they get caught and arrested by law officials, but if we look at the implications of basing our ethics on purely pain then it would be wrong to arrest criminals since the act of catching and apprehending them involves pain.

What point are you trying to make, do you want to live in a society that lacks ethical behavior?

The point I'm trying to make is that ethical behavior without a standard for measuring ethical behavior is useless and pointless.

@nick_hero22: It's not pointless, loving people and wishing no harm on them are good things that can make a positive impact on that person and yourself lives.

Somethings don't need a standard for measuring.

We we're born with emotions like fear, which is the emotion for survival, and ethical behavior helps ensure your safety the safety of others so they can survive. To do no harm to others who wish you no harm, if you want a standard for ethical behavior it's FEAR.

That presupposes a moral obligation that cannot exist if you cannot measure what it means to be moral or what it means for an action to be moral. Why should I care about the safety of others? What creates that obligation for me to act in a manner that considers the safety of others? Fear is entirely subjective, and it covers a broad range of behaviors that could either be considered good or bad.

@nick_hero22: Fear is the standard measurement of survival, that is the purpose of fear, one could say that ethical behavior is for survival. You would want to be nice to people for self preservational purposes so they don't try to kill you. How does this not make sense?

Fear is subjective and influenced by social conditioning, so what might make you fearful in one instance might have another connotation to someone in a different culture. If we have a standard for something it presupposes uniformity for everyone, and there is no uniformity in fear. A rape can be used as tool for survival, but we wouldn't considered that ethical behavior. If dress up this scenario a little bit and ask since fear and survival are the basis for ethical behavior in your opinion would it be wrong to rape someone if the rapist feared that he wouldn't be able to procreate before it was too late? That begs the question of would I still have that obligation if I was in a position where I couldn't be harmed which throws self-preservation out of the window.

@nick_hero22: Fear is an evolution trait designed for survival purposes, when your faced with danger you get anxiety and your blood starts pumping, this is known as "fight or flight" response. The fear is there to make you acknowledge a dangerous situation, whether you run away from it or fight in order to survive.

Now using fear in that context we can say that this is the reason we have ethical behavior, not to hurt people who wish us no harm, because this way you need not to fight for survival. So creating ethical behavior is to insure your self preservation.

To add more to my point, the scientist Carl Sagan theorized our brains need to recognize patterns of human faces to differentiate between foe or friends from long distances, I'm talking about early man who lived in the jungle. Seeing patterns was a means to survive as well.

The research is in line with previous studies on the subject, and adds evidence to the theory that facial pareidolia emerged from an evolutionary need to recognize other friends – and foes – in a pinch. Doing so could have meant the difference between life and death tens of thousands of years ago, and modern humans seem to have just hung on to the skill.

Writing in his 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan theorized that “As soon as the infant can see, it recognizes faces, and we now know that this skill is hardwired in our brains. Those infants who a million years ago were unable to recognize a face smiled back less, were less likely to win the hearts of their parents, and less likely to prosper."

@pooty I need a second opinion, do you care to join this discussion?

The biological mechanism through which fear influences human behavior is uniform amongst all humans, but our conception of what meets the criteria for something to scare us is subjective. For instance, in some cultures it is common to hunt for giant spiders and eat them while some cultures see giant spiders as something to be fearful of. So, you cannot use fear as a basis for ethical behavior since our conception of what is dangerous is subjective. You didn't answer my question though. What obligation do I have for not harming someone if I know that they aren't in a position to harm me? Evolution is survival oriented, and not truth oriented which means that traits that increase survivability don't necessarily have to reflect some fundamental truth about anything. For example, I was watching some show (I think Brain Games on Nat Geo) talk about how paranoia evolved to help increase the survivability of our early ancestors.

@nick_hero22: @ccraft: You guys are both right! lol

But we are saying two different things?

@nick_hero22: I think your missing my point and I don't know how I can explain it in a way you might understand.

The fear of spiders is subjective, but fear isn't subjective, it is an emotional response one gets from being in a dangerous situation. Human's might have created ethical behavior for self preservation unknowing, to eliminate dangerous situations between other human beings, thus creating morals like don't harm those who don't wish harm upon you.

Guess what, our society is based on ethical behavior, not based on Evolution, the survival of the fittest, so your just going to have to not hurt people because you will be punished.

He's right we are both right, your pov is just more cynical.

I agree with what you are saying here. The mechanism through which fear acts isn't subjective, but what is drives this mechanism is subjective; so you cannot create a standard out of something that isn't objective because what you might consider dangerous might be radical different from what I or someone else might consider to be dangerous. That also still doesn't answer the question of why should I engage in ethical behavior if there is no harm being done to my well-being. Is someone obligated not to rape a person in coma even though that person in coma isn't in a position to harm the rapist? If I know I can do "bad" things and avoid punishment does that still make me obligated to not do those "bad" things, and why?

Actually, I'm not cynical! I believe that there are objective moral facts in which we evaluate actions and moral duties we have to other people.

@nick_hero22: Would you want to be raped if you were in a comma?

Nope, but what I would want and what someone else wants are two radically different things.

@nick_hero22: If only there was an ethical behavior to prevent such a thing from happening... What's wrong with thinking "treat others the way you'd want to be treated"?

Self preservation is at the heart of this matter, and if treating others kindly prevents them from wanting to harm you then ethical behavior isn't broken or wrong.

Because someone could easily say "No" that statement, and there would be no objective reason to say that person is bad. You aren't answering my question! If I could do "bad" things and prevent myself from being harmed like raping someone in a coma where is the obligation for me not to perform these kinds of action since self-preservation is thrown out of the window because I'm not endangered?

Because some family member could want vengeance and come after you and kill you, or the government, if caught, would punish you. It's the society that we live in.

The question is what if know one knew that I did something bad?

@nick_hero22: It's a very unlikely hypothetical, but just because you don't get caught doesn't mean you didn't do something wrong.

Religion=recycled mythology created to steal peoples money, control them, and manipulate them into fighting wars for resources and power.

Anyone who claims they know what is beyond this life or who or what created this reality or anything about them is lying (except maybe near-death experience survivors and they could have just experienced hallucinations/vivid dreams)

@street_level_hero: Religion recycled stories that capture the human imagination, what you have problems with is organized religion which exploits people for money.

Religion used mythological stories to control people. Religion is and has always been organized and has always exploited people for resources and has always been used to control others. Any type of religion I think is just inane and believing what someone else wrote (religion-wise) and believing it to be something 'divine" is the epitome of being a sucker imo.

Christainity, which stole from nearly every other mythology, was created to convert worshipers of thor so they could get their loot and control them, just as all of the other religions did (except possibly the annunaki which may actually be just a history but was probably a scheme as well)

Whole heartedly agree! What I don't understand is, what this has to do with the bible and why people go to the bible to supposedly try and adhere to this philosophy of understanding?? This was well known and written down well before the 7th century bce roughly when the OT first starting having been put ink to papyrus!

If you need to cherry pick something to get good things out of it, then that should tell you right there what you need to know! The bible as a whole is about a group of people that have killed, conquered and enslaved other races and people and taught all about slavery and what to do with your slaves, but it's got some nice stuff in there that you have to cherry pick which is what counts and matters, not the horrible stuff, the infanticide, the rape, the murder, the slavery, it's the nice stuff that it supposedly teaches you that matters?? That as a whole, the bible isn't what it's cracked up to be! it's ancient bronze age pieces of parchments/papyrus of a people living so long ago that it's somewhat insane for people today of this day and age to think that a few bits and pieces from desert dwelling people living in an area on the earth that most of the world doesn't share, inhabit or have anything to do with these days, other than pillage it's resources, that they should share the same outlook on life is insane in of itself, imo. One can learn a lot from a variety of literature from some of the greatest minds and philosophical people in history, that absolutely put the bible to shame in terms of meaningful literature that could teach them a lot, imo!! The bible is nothing more than literature, that's been taken to far in it's meaning and has caused more death and destruction by people in power using dim witted people to cause havoc and destruction to gain power, wealth and means for themselves! Just my two cents worth!

Nailed down to a T for me!

My upbringing was Macedonian Orthadox, up until about mid 2000's, which I broke away from religion not long after. When my son was born in Dec 2001, he was christened the following year and I was well into it back then, believing whole heartedly, if ignorantly. My mom, in all honestly, is agnostic as far as believing in a god goes, doesn't really know, doesn't really care. Loves her tradition though. With that said, she isn't a regular sunday church goer. She goes on easter, Christmas, christenings, weddings etc, which I don't have a problem with, as I also go (not so much with the easter and xmas ones, just don't have the time and motivation) I actually get a long with the priest quite well, as he baptized my son (though, we've never really discussed religion or belief, and he has no idea about my beliefs these days). I honestly don't mind going to catch up and meet up with family and friends, if that is the case.

Many thanks :D

Religion only becomes organized when it grows large, when Christianity was small it was just a few people going around telling stories about Jesus and the miracles he preformed, any yeah they probably gave the preachers/store tellers money so they could travel and live etc... But at that time it wasn't to control anybody.

Many religions adopted and altered older myths into their own stories, such as the great flood and creation of man from clay myth. Christianity mainly adopted the stories from Greek mythology.

What you believe in Ancient Aliens?...

Wrong. Religion is organized whether it is large or small. The term "organized" has nothing to do with size

organized

adjective

: arranged into a formal group with leaders and with rules for doing or planning things

Not that it matters because Christianity was created by the Romans ( a quite sizable group) with the sole purpose of stealing away and indoctrinating worshippers of thor. It was created completely to control people and to get their possessions and indoctrinate and subjugate them in order to control the british isles more easily and to usurp and replace all of the various religions within their empire in order to more easily control their subjects most probably.

Yes, I already stated that all religions are just rehashed mythology, making christianity and all religions mythology by default. And you are wrong the bible took from norse mythology (The tree of life=Yygdrasil the world tree, the forbidden fruit=Idun's apples of immortality, the serpetn in the garden of eden=the midgard serpent) and from the annunaki (Adam=annunaki Adamu meaning first man), the ten commandments were taken from the egyptian book of the dead, Jesus is a rehashed, retelling of hercules ( Divine father, mortal mother/died and arose to Olympus/12 labors (12 disciples) and rehashed telling of egyptian mythology (the bible mirrors egyptian mythology in a great many ways and all mythology stole from other myths.

You are pretending to know things concerning the history of christianity but you are quite in error on a great many things.

This movie should enlighten you:

I don't believe in anything that can't be proven so no, I do not believe in ancient aliens any more than I believe in God i.e. either is possible but no one will know for sure until they die. This is why i used the words "possibly" and "may". Ancient alien dna manipulation is just as possible as a divine being but I won't believe either until there is real proof. Until then the only true answer is "no one knows" and if someone tells you they do know they are lying and trying to indoctrinate you and brainwash you.

@street_level_hero: Zeitgeist is well known to be a crock of s***. A simple google search would show a lot of the claims they made are incorrect.

Hardly. Zeitgeist is correct. Yes, you can find religious zealots who deny the truth in the movie online but what do you expect? They have been brainwashed from a young age and indoctrinated into chrisianity and cannot think logically and correctly. You can google and find people that believe the world is only 10,000 years old but that does not make them correct i.e. you can find opposition to anything on google.

No actually it's completely incorrect. None of it by religious zealots but historical scientists that studied these civilizations. The claims of the the zodiac are wrong the whole 25th of December is hilariously wrong. None of these religious have texts with the date 25th of December. A lot of the attributes of the god and goddesses they claim are also wrong.

@street_level_hero: I know what organized means, I do not need a definition. When I said organized religion I was using the context as in big organized religion who exploit people.

Did I ever say The Romans didn't use Christianity to control people? I am very aware of what the Roman's did, but they did not create the religion as you so did imply. Christians were persecuted for many years under Roman rule until Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, he convert to Christian beliefs. The reason why he did is debatable, but nothing can be said to be 100% true either way. There where many Christians in Rome at the time, the numbers only grew once it was legalized.

Again did I only say they adopted Greek myths as their own? I said they mainly used myths and stories from the Greeks and made it their own. This wasn't an unpopular thing to do at that time, just because people ignore that fact today doesn't make the stories in the Bible bad or wrong in some way. People love stories, we have been telling stories since we first learned to write on cave walls, guess what the other ancient religions and myths (Greek, Summerian, Pagan, and Norse) aren't the first to create the very first stories.

Ancient Aliens is full of errors, because we can't explain how some things the ancients did doesn't mean it was aliens, and not to mention they make up stuff to fit their alien theories. But that's all I'm going to say about the show.

No it is not completely incorrect:You must not have watched the movie and are allowing others to decide for you. A few of the attributes that of Horus and Ra are contested by religious zealots. Watch the movie and decide for yourself.

I used to think Zeitgeist was right as well, but you can do more research and see they are wrong.

I have seen it. It's wrong read any book on historical Egypt and their myths and you can see for yourself. Part 1 of that movie is misinformation again there is plenty of evidence and facts out there to dismiss plenty of religious claims. Zeitgeist is not it, it utterly fails.

You obviously did not know what organized meant because you stated that religion becomes organized when it grows large which is false (wrong).All religion exploits people whether big or small and all religion is organized.

Yes you stated that "when Christianity was small it was just a few people going around telling stories about Jesus and the miracles he preformed, any yeah they probably gave the preachers/store tellers money so they could travel and live etc... But at that time it wasn't to control anybody." You did not realize it was a roman creation (christianity) and again you were wrong. Also you are citing the bible as a historically accurate text and it is not.

You stated that christianity mainly adopted from greek mythology which was wrong, they used just as much, if not more, from norse mythology and egyptian mythology than greek mythology. You were wrong again.

I was not citing ancient aliens the show, i was referring to ancient annunaki texts and once again, i don't believe any of it is true, only somewhat possible, just as possible as a divine being.

You should try to read my posts without the emotions that seem to be clouding your comprehension and you should realize that it is ok to admit your errors instead of trying to explain them away or state things that you did not type initially, because all anyone has to do is scroll up and see what you typed in the first place.

I do not believe you when you state that you have watch the movie in it's entirety. Zeitgeist does not utterly fail you are simply choosing to believe biased zealots.

I already told you I don't listen to religious zealots I have no interest in listening to any religious zealot about any subject. I seen this movie when it first came out I have seen all two sequels many times. Mainly to show people were it is wrong and I can provide evidence for all of it. You should not be so naive to things that are easily disproved. You are sharing a film that has been proven time and time again by scientific historians and scholars on the subjects put forth by this movie.

You are obviously interested in and "listening to" religious zealots. There are just as many zeitgeist debunked debunkers with evidence to prove the zeitgeist debunkers wrong. You yourself are the one who should not be so naive to debunking that is itself debunked.

Read your last sentence carefully. You are admitting that the movie is proven: "You are sharing a film that has been proven time and time again by scientific historians and scholars on the subjects put forth by this movie"

That was clearly a misspelling on my part. That should of been disproven why would I claim and movie is false and then say it's true. Come on think about it.

Obviously!! Look lad I have no idea what religious zealots you think I am talking to the facts and evidence that show that this movie is false have been around thousands of years before this movie was even made. They get a few things correct but than just come out with blatant lies and misinformation.

The claims of Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra are incorrect. Why ? Because we know about Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra. The Horus and Jesus connections are wrong again we have loads of information about the Horus myth.

If you actually are interested in being educated and discuss the evidence I can provide it to you. Which unlike Zeitgeist is not made up and can be referenced by peer reviewed scientific institutes.