Prove to me that God doesn’t exist

[saltydancin]

Do you have an industrial stapler? You should print these out and staple them up around town on telephone poles. That will complete the circle and your message will be received by the proper audience.

So is it another history repeats itself with Russia's Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin theft, destruction & eradication of Ukraine food supplies while having Russia's officers purged along with his military being crippled.....

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So is it another history repeats itself with Russia's Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin theft, destruction & eradication of Ukraine food supplies while having Russia's officers purged along with his military being crippled.....

That is the most appropriate response to my post. Thanks.

 

[saltydancin]

That is the most appropriate response to my post. Thanks.

So proving God doesn't exist in "one nation under God with equal justice under law" as SCOTUS Fourth Reich July 9/11 granting standing to Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement suicidal super ego malfeasance avoidance of "one nation under God with equal justice under law" acceptance as Christiananality pedophilia is sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming "man is God" business as usual just as Russia's Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin communism of Christianity destruction of Ukraine with phosphorous bombings.....

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So proving God doesn't exist in "one nation under God with equal justice under law" as SCOTUS Fourth Reich July 9/11 granting standing to Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement suicidal super ego malfeasance avoidance of "one nation under God with equal justice under law" acceptance as Christiananality pedophilia is sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming "man is God" business as usual just as Russia's Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin communism of Christianity destruction of Ukraine with phosphorous bombings.....

I wish I could buy you some punctuation.

 

[Cypress]

Perhaps we are practicing what any intelligent creatures would practice in order for relative peace and civilization to survive.

I am an agnostic type...and I practice not doing the things I see as wrong...mostly from a practical application of the Golden Rule.** I would not want to be murdered nor have a loved one (or even a stranger) murdered, so I do not murder; I do not cheat on my wife (commit adultery) because I would not want to have my wife cheat on me; I do not steal, because I would not be stolen from...and so forth.

I suspect the people who wrote the books upon which those religions are based....did that same thing. There may be a GOD...or gods, but to suppose a GOD had to tell us those things were wrong if we wanted to live together is absurd.

**Many ancient societies had forms of the Golden Rule...outside of any religious context.

Thanks for the response

When you say many ancient societies had some form of the golden rule, you are illustrating that this line of thinking came from religious tradition; Jesus, The Buddha, Confucius, all had a version of the golden rule, and that is where we first see it in ancient literature.

The sacred texts of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Daoism, Hinduism were very radical for their time in terms of a binding ethical vision. If one looks at the pre-Axial age religious sources one does not see anything like them; not in the pagan Roman texts, not in the Greek Homeric canon, not in the pre-Islamic Arabian sources, not in the Mesopotamian epic literature, and not in the pre-classical Hindu Vedic sources. Those sources are either just focused on the ritual of cosmic maintainance, or the ethical framework focused on the aquisition and maintainance of reputation, bravery, loyalty, valor, an abiding concern with what other people thought of you.

Prohibitions against murder, stealing, and rape are more like a criminal code rather than a comprehensive universal ethical framework. Being able to restrain oneself from committing murder, rape, and theft is the absolute bare minimum, the bottom of the barrel, the lowest possible bar to clear towards living a decent life. There's a lot higher ethical bars to clear than that.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Thanks for the response

When you say many ancient societies had some form of the golden rule, you are illustrating that this line of thinking came from religious tradition; Jesus, The Buddha, Confucius, all had a version of the golden rule, and that is where we first see it in ancient literature.

The sacred texts of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Daoism, Hinduism were very radical for their time in terms of a binding ethical vision. If one looks at the pre-Axial age religious sources one does not see anything like them; not in the pagan Roman texts, not in the Greek Homeric canon, not in the pre-Islamic Arabian sources, not in the Mesopotamian epic literature, and not in the pre-classical Hindu Vedic sources. Those sources are either just focused on the ritual of cosmic maintainance, or the ethical framework focused on the aquisition and maintainance of reputation, bravery, loyalty, valor, an abiding concern with what other people thought of you.

Prohibitions against murder, stealing, and rape are more like a criminal code rather than a comprehensive universal ethical framework. Being able to restrain oneself from committing murder, rape, and theft is the absolute bare minimum, the bottom of the barrel, the lowest possible bar to clear towards living a decent life. There's a lot higher ethical bars to clear than that.

Am I correct in assuming you are of the opinion that "religious thought" was required for the development of concepts like the "Golden Rule"? That it required some sense of the metaphysical or supernatural?

I may be missing something from this post.

 

[Cypress]

Am I correct in assuming you are of the opinion that "religious thought" was required for the development of concepts like the "Golden Rule"? That it required some sense of the metaphysical or supernatural?

I may be missing something from this post.

We first read about the golden rule being a binding moral expectation in the religious texts of the axial age.

That doesn't mean nobody was ever capable of being nice to other humans prior to 400 BCE. But if they did, it was a voluntary choice, a personal decision. No system of thought had ever concieved of it as a binding universal moral imperative. And that is what we have inherited from Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism.

I don't think there's anything complicated about this. Human beings make advancements in moral and ethical thought. Ethical thought was different in classical antiquity than it was in the late Bronze age. To some extent, we inherited those moral advancements that rose in the Axial Age religious traditions. There is no biological need for humility and mercy.

The 18th century concept of the universal natural rights of man were the next major moral advancement in human history, a tipping point, and we inherited that tradition as well

 

[Ross Dolan]

We first read about the golden rule being a binding moral expectation in the religious texts of the axial age.

That doesn't mean nobody was ever capable of being nice to other humans prior to 400 BCE. But if they did, it was a voluntary choice, a personal decision. No system of thought had ever concieved of it as a binding universal moral imperative. And that is what we have inherited from Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism.

I don't think there's anything complicated about this. Human beings make advancements in moral and ethical thought. Ethical thought was different in classical antiquity than it was in the late Bronze age. To some extent, we inherited those moral advancements that rose in the Axial Age religious traditions. There is no biological need for humility and mercy.

The 18th century concept of the universal natural rights of man were the next major moral advancement in human history, a tipping point, and we inherited that tradition as well

I understand what you are saying, BUT...

...in the Analytics of Confucius...written 500 - 600 years before Christ...

Confucius said:

“What I do not want others to do to me, I have no desire to do to others."

and...

“Do not do to others what you would not like yourself.”

Neither is actually the Golden Rule, but they are pretty close.

Under any circumstances, supposing the Golden Rule came as the result of religion...is not the same as supposing it came as a result of divine inspiration.

My guess would be that clans throughout human history have required variations of the Golden Rule as part of law...in order for the clans to survive and prosper.

I may be wrong.

 

[Cypress]

I understand what you are saying, BUT...

...in the Analytics of Confucius...written 500 - 600 years before Christ...

Confucius said:

“What I do not want others to do to me, I have no desire to do to others."

and...

“Do not do to others what you would not like yourself.”

Neither is actually the Golden Rule, but they are pretty close.

Under any circumstances, supposing the Golden Rule came as the result of religion...is not the same as supposing it came as a result of divine inspiration.

My guess would be that clans throughout human history have required variations of the Golden Rule as part of law...in order for the clans to survive and prosper.

I may be wrong.

But that's just a blind guess, really.

In the written sources, the first time the golden rule is concieved of as a binding ethical principle is in the texts of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Confucianism.

I'm not saying that people couldn't be nice to each other before the 5th century BCE. But they were doing it as an individual choice. The golden rule was first concieved as a binding universal moral imperative in the religious texts of the Axial Age.

This is not remotely surprising to me. Human beings make advancements in moral and ethical thought over time. That is not even open to debate, because it is so transparently self evident.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

We first read about the golden rule being a binding moral expectation in the religious texts of the axial age.

That doesn't mean nobody was ever capable of being nice to other humans prior to 400 BCE. But if they did, it was a voluntary choice, a personal decision. No system of thought had ever concieved of it as a binding universal moral imperative.

I am not entirely certain I agree with that. Surely if it made it into writing there was a concept pre-dating that. I am firmly of the opinion that as humans developed stronger social networks that were more expansive than small clan groups, that such things would come to the fore as a means of stabilizing the social network and providing the security of the "group" (hence our being social animals).

I won't argue that the earliest writings about this fall into largely "religious" texts but that does not obviate the possibility that they, as a "binding concept" greatly pre-dated any religious tradition. But that also assumes religious concepts didn't start the minute we started looking around the world and found ourselves unable to explain it without reliance on magical thinking.

And that is what we have inherited from Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism.

I will agree to disagree that just because they mention the concept that it somehow means the concept originated with those traditions. It should be obvious that if it arose under many different societies with little to no cross-pollination that there must be some natural inclination to it as a moderating force in any society.

There is no biological need for humility and mercy.

Would you say Neanderthals were Christians? I wouldn't, but one of the earliest examples of care for hurt members of the group is found in examples from Neanderthals who had broken bones mended which meant that the larger group was caring for members of that group rather than just abandoning them to die..

Indeed there IS a biological value to "mercy" and "care for others" if only to ensure the overall survival of the species (given that we are social animals).

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Confucius say " Better to be pissed off then pissed on"

 

[saltydancin]

I wish I could buy you some punctuation.

So proving God doesn't exist in "one nation under God with equal justice under law" is due to cognitive dissonance & attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that can't be bought.....

 

[BidenPresident]

Every culture has some code or norm of ethics. Nothing to do with religion.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So proving God doesn't exist in "one nation under God with equal justice under law" is due to cognitive dissonance & attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that can't be bought.....

Well, at least it's more coherent now. Good job. Keep going.

 

[Cypress]

I am not entirely certain I agree with that. Surely if it made it into writing there was a concept pre-dating that. I am firmly of the opinion that as humans developed stronger social networks that were more expansive than small clan groups, that such things would come to the fore as a means of stabilizing the social network and providing the security of the "group" (hence our being social animals).

I won't argue that the earliest writings about this fall into largely "religious" texts but that does not obviate the possibility that they, as a "binding concept" greatly pre-dated any religious tradition. But that also assumes religious concepts didn't start the minute we started looking around the world and found ourselves unable to explain it without reliance on magical thinking.



I will agree to disagree that just because they mention the concept that it somehow means the concept originated with those traditions. It should be obvious that if it arose under many different societies with little to no cross-pollination that there must be some natural inclination to it as a moderating force in any society.



Would you say Neanderthals were Christians? I wouldn't, but one of the earliest examples of care for hurt members of the group is found in examples from Neanderthals who had broken bones mended which meant that the larger group was caring for members of that group rather than just abandoning them to die..

Indeed there IS a biological value to "mercy" and "care for others" if only to ensure the overall survival of the species (given that we are social animals).

It is self evident to the casual observer that human ethical and moral thought evolves over time. It changes and develops. I don't see it being open to debate.

We have seen even in our own lives an evolution of ethical thought in the last 50 years, going back to moral leaders like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.

Whether the neanderthals or homo sapiens of the early Paleolithic had the exact same ethical vision as us isn't even a legitimate question.

The binding moral imperatives concieved of by the Axial Age religions was a watershed moment, as was the Enlightenment conception of a universal natural law -- and those moral frameworks remain with us in some form, as humanity progresses in it's never ending trajectory towards an unattainable apotheosis of moral perfection

 

[BidenPresident]

It is self evident to the casual observer that human ethical and moral thought evolves over time. It changes and develops. I don't see it being open to debate.

We have seen even in our own lives an evolution of ethical thought in the last 50 years, going back to moral leaders like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.

Whether the neanderthals or homo sapiens of the early paleolithic had the exact same ethical vision as us isn't even a legitimate question.

The binding moral imperatives concieved of by the Axial Age religions was a watershed moment, as was the Enlightenment conception of a universal natural law -- and those moral frameworks remain with us in some form, as humanity progresses in it's never ending trajectory towards an unattainable apotheosis of moral perfection

Don't harm others. You don't need a God for this to make sense.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Whether the neanderthals or homo sapiens of the early Paleolithic had the exact same ethical vision as us isn't even a legitimate question.

I greatly disagree. If early humans and related hominids like Neanderthals were showing evidence of mutual care and mercy etc. then I think the idea that these "binding ethical concepts" clearly predates the religious traditions that finally put pen to paper.

It is much more a confirmation of my hypothesis that these concepts like the Golden Rule et al. may have biological roots within social animals.

I am not disagreeing that morality and ethics have changed over time, but the core concepts are not necessarily "religious" in origin.

 

[Cypress]

I greatly disagree. If early humans and related hominids like Neanderthals were showing evidence of mutual care and mercy etc. then I think the idea that these "binding ethical concepts" clearly predates the religious traditions that finally put pen to paper.

It is much more a confirmation of my hypothesis that these concepts like the Golden Rule et al. may have biological roots within social animals.

I am not disagreeing that morality and ethics have changed over time, but the core concepts are not necessarily "religious" in origin.

Caring for your parents and siblings, and being able to restrain oneself from murdering and raping is the bare minimum, the bottom of the barrel, that absolute lowest moral bar to clear in an ethical life. You really shouldn't even get a pat on the back for that. Human ethics has advanced far beyond those basic and elemental natural instincts.


Even the very mainstream, very moderate, and very reputable Encyclopedia Britannica concludes that religious thought played a watershed role in the development of human ethics.

Encyclopedia Britannica - Christian Ethics Influence on Western Civilization

"The (Judeo-Christian) conception of morality had important consequences for the future development of Western ethics. The Greeks and Romans—and indeed thinkers such as Confucius—did not conceive of a distinctively moral realm of conduct. For them, everything that one did was a matter of practical reasoning, in which one could do either well or poorly. In the more legalistic Judeo-Christian view, however, falling short of what the moral law requires was a much more serious matter than, say, failing to do the household budgets correctly. This (Judeo-Christian) distinction between the moral and the nonmoral realms now affects every question in Western ethics, including the way the questions themselves are framed."

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-ethics-vs-Roman-values&p=4881385#post4881385

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Caring for your parents and siblings, and being able to restrain oneself from murdering and raping is the bare minimum, the bottom of the barrel, that absolute lowest moral bar to clear in an ethical life. You really shouldn't even get a pat on the back for that. Human ethics has advanced far beyond those basic and elemental natural instincts.


Even the very mainstream, very moderate, and very reputable Encyclopedia Britannica concludes that religious thought played a watershed role in the development of human ethics.

Oh, I didn't realize the Encyclopedia Britannica said that. I guess I'm just wrong then.

So why do you think that it requires a "religious" or "supernatural" or "metaphysical" scaffolding to support the concept of something like "The Golden Rule"? I have shown evidence that mutual care of other members of a group was already part of ancient human and related species long predating anything even remotely like the religious groups you mention.

If these things predated the religious traditions you mention then why is it so hard to imagine that the concepts can arise wholly naturally within a social organization?

 

[Cypress]

Oh, I didn't realize the Encyclopedia Britannica said that. I guess I'm just wrong then.

So why do you think that it requires a "religious" or "supernatural" or "metaphysical" scaffolding to support the concept of something like "The Golden Rule"? I have shown evidence that mutual care of other members of a group was already part of ancient human and related species long predating anything even remotely like the religious groups you mention.

If these things predated the religious traditions you mention then why is it so hard to imagine that the concepts can arise wholly naturally within a social organization?

The golden rule is a universal binding moral imperative that goes beyond helping your grandmother, your siblings, your fellow tribal peers. Helping your family and peers are just natural impulses, which is the very lowest ethical bar to clear. Its not even really noteworthy.

I don't think religion is required for ethical development. That's just the primary way it worked out historically. I think for a comprehensive ethical framework to take root, it needs some kind of institutional support and credibility. Siddhartha Gautama didn't cause the eightfold noble path to take root across Asia. The religion he inspired did.