Pope Benedict (who finally reached his level of incompetance, his last job being that of Grand Inquisitor) seems to be making still another effort to be divisive, unevolved, and fear-based. I didn't see the whole story, but according to the wire service brief, he recently said, in effect, kiss my ring or go to hell.

That is, he "reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation. The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders."

As well it should.

The sooner that everyone (or at least a sizable minority of us) realizes that we are All One, and that no person, religion, nation, gender, sexual orientation or whatever is better than any other, the sooner that war, poverty and homelessness will cease to exist.

Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation. The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders."

As well it should.

Why should Protestants criticize? Their very same book says that non-Christians who have heard the word yet don't believe will not be saved. How can Protestants criticize another group for believing that they won't be saved without being hypocrites?


The sooner that everyone (or at least a sizable minority of us) realizes that we are All One, and that no person, religion, nation, gender, sexual orientation or whatever is better than any other, the sooner that war, poverty and homelessness will cease to exist.
Lots of people are better than others and some religions are certainly better than others. Whether "we are All One", whatever that means, is irrelevant.

^ Making such value judgements is a sure way of holding back your spiritual evolution.

Surely, some folks are richer than others; physically stronger, smarter, whatever--to so note is merely descriptive, not judgemental. And while there is no one true religion, each religion has some grains of truth, a few pieces of the puzzle--even though many people pervert religion and use it to promote hate and fear.

But each one of us is an individuation of the divine--each of us (even you, Sparky) has within a god or goddess in embryo, so to speak--which is one reason why Jesus once said "Why are you amazed? All these things I have done, ye shall do also."

^ Making such value judgements is a sure way of holding back your spiritual evolution.
So if you pretend not to judge religions based on what hate they preach compared to religions that don't (or at least preach less hate), you're "more spiritually evolved"?

If you want to pretend that all religious edicts are no better or worse than those of other religions, knock yourself out.

And while there is no one true religion, each religion has some grains of truth, a few pieces of the puzzle--even though many people pervert religion and use it to promote hate and fear.
And the ones that preach less bullshit, hate, unjust punishments, etc., are better than ones who preach more of the above.

But each one of us is an individuation of the divine--each of us (even you, Sparky) has within a god or goddess in embryo, so to speak
Unfounded bullshit.

Sparky? Showing us how evolved you are, eh?

Pope Benedict (who finally reached his level of incompetance, his last job being that of Grand Inquisitor) seems to be making still another effort to be divisive, unevolved, and fear-based. I didn't see the whole story, but according to the wire service brief, he recently said, in effect, kiss my ring or go to hell.

That is, he "reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation. The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders."

As well it should.

The sooner that everyone (or at least a sizable minority of us) realizes that we are All One, and that no person, religion, nation, gender, sexual orientation or whatever is better than any other, the sooner that war, poverty and homelessness will cease to exist.

Why shouldn't a religion asserts its primacy? Islam does it, Protestants do it to Catholics, Scientologists do it. And I have no problem with it? Why do Catholics get criticized for thinking non-Catholics have it wrong?

We are not all one. That is your opinion. We all have to face up to and stop making excuses to do things our own way.

^
Surely, some folks are richer than others; physically stronger, smarter, whatever--to so note is merely descriptive, not judgemental.
Saving is better than murdering, right? Giving better than stealing, no? Is pointing out the differences between those who murder, steal, etc., and those who save, give to the poor, etc., merely descriptive? I would think that pointing these differences out is not just descriptive, but also judgmental, since it's obvious to the sane which qualities are better, which are fine qualifications of who is better than another. Physical strength and money is not how most of us decide what makes one a 'good' person as compared to a 'bad' person.

Jesus said "Judge not, that you be not judged". He never said not to judge. We must judge who to hire, fire, marry etc. And yes, we value those that are 'better'. Claiming that you don't make 'value judgments' in order to show some sort of spiritual evolution is bullshit. Claiming that no religion is better than another is even bigger bullshit.

OP, I really disagree with your worldview. I see it as nihilism. The idea of man believing we are all one and then attempting to lose his ego in order to attain eternal bliss in the next life I find incredibly pathetic and dangerous. Allow me to take apart this essential part of your belief system (if it is an essential part of your belief system) to show why:

(1) seeing this world as nothing but a ground for attaining pure bliss in another world devalues it. You subordinate it to the next world and waste your time trying to attain the next world (a world there isn’t even any evidence for). If it’s not real, then you’ve wasted your life. Of course, you can say “but if there is no next life, then it’s not like it will matter when you’re dead”, but if you do say this, then I question what makes you neglect this world so much that you’d adopt such a view.

(2) the idea of losing your ego and obtaining “spiritual evolution” appeals to the weak and the downtrodden for an obvious reason. You can then look at all the successful people in the world, all the people who have actually made something of themselves, and then feel better about yourself because you believe this will mean nothing in the next world, because you can feel that although they are “materially higher”, you are “spiritually higher” and that being “spiritually higher” is better than being “materially higher”. Of course, being spiritually higher equals ascetically resigning from this life, which sounds great for those who have suffered and not made something of themselves, because then they can turn their destruction into something positive. The danger with this, however, is when they start spreading the idea to healthy people.

(3) there’s something pathetic about your life-long goal being eternal pleasure. There should be more to life than pleasure and pain shouldn’t simply be there to encourage hope, but to make us overcome ourselves and make something of ourselves. If eternal pleasure is what we should be hoping for, then why don’t we look up to the rich junky who can support his habit and is in a 24/7 bliss? I don’t know if you do, but I find that person pathetic. Who I admire are people like Nietzsche, who suffered agonizing physical pain 24/7, yet forced themselves to push through to create something amazing, such as “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” or Bergson’s “On the Two Sources of Morality and Religion”.

(4) I saw you arguing in another thread that everyone will be spiritually punished or rewarded. I can quote the post
(here it is (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=8601671&postcount=13)), which I find strange since you said hell was a horrible concept. Anyways, I find this a dangerous belief, because it makes people think like children, and again, there is no evidence for a next life and to hope for retribution in that life instead of doing something about it here (even if here it doesn’t always work out how you want it to) is terrible, and I believe that such a belief can lead to such childish actions.

(5) I’m no moral absolutist, but even I am appalled that you would say a religion preaching nothing but love is equal to a religion preaching nothing but hate. No such religions exist, but if they did, I would hope that you would take them into consideration and adjust your worldview.

Don’t take this post personally, because it can be directed at most religious people on the forum - especially Christians and those idiots who would doubt the external world they can see everyday because of a lame Cartesian argument, yet believe in a God based on a feeling in their stomach.

Arms, I'm not sure why the rantings of the pope should vex you so. ALL (with the honorable exception of the Quakers) christian churches/denominations/sects have at some point claimed that they and only they were up to their necks in the blessed life-giving waters of the river Jordan, whilst casting not only the first stone but a whole trailer load of rocks at anyone who disagreed with them.

Let us just be grateful that dissent no longer ensures a fiery immolation by the secular arm.

. If eternal pleasure is what we should be hoping for, then why don’t we look up to the rich junky who can support his habit and is in a 24/7 bliss?
No, because that sort of pleasure is unsustainable and unhealthy for him and others. It will end up causing more suffering than pleasure. I don't see anything wrong with wanting 24/7 bliss, though.

No, because that sort of pleasure is unsustainable and unhealthy for him and others. It will end up causing more suffering than pleasure. I don't see anything wrong with wanting 24/7 bliss, though.

"Wrong" is not part of my working vocabulary, being a value judgement. In my book, there is no "right" or "wrong"--only what works and what doesn't. Perma-bliss don't work.

I don't know of anyone serious who advocates 24/7 bliss--it would get boring, fast.

Here is an obvious example. Most of us, I assume, have had some experience with sex, which is arguably the most blissful physical experience one can have. Okay, suppose you had sex twenty times a day. It would not take long for you to get very tired of it.

I have met a few people--brainwashed fundies, for instance--who appeared to be more or less permanently blissed out, and they were bloody insufferable. I have known many moments of bliss, flashes of unity consciousness, and they were great while they lasted. But nothing lasts. At the quantum level, things flash into reality from the Void, interact, and vanish back into the Void, Such is Ultimate Reality.

But we can only know a thing through its opposite. If you were born blind, you do not know what darkness is really like, never having known the light. If you have never known sadness, "happiness" is an empty concept to you. And so on.

Oh, and on the "more highly evolved" thing--that is not a value judgement, merely a description. "More highly evolved" does not equate with "better"--ultimately, we are all on the same path--some of us are just farther ahead than others. This should be obvious.

Oh, and on the "more highly evolved" thing--that is not a value judgement, merely a description. "More highly evolved" does not equate with "better"
Semantic games.

How then do you define "better"?

If it's not better to be highly evolved, why bother?


--ultimately, we are all on the same path--some of us are just farther ahead than others. This should be obvious.
No, we're not on the same path. Further ahead in what sense?

Semantic games.

How then do you define "better"?

If it's not better to be highly evolved, why bother?


No, we're not on the same path. Further ahead in what sense?

"Semantics" is a grossly misused word. I suggest you look it up. I strive to be
precise.

I do not attempt to define better, as the word denotes nothing. All it does is connote what one approves of. And it connotes superiority-- but in the eyes of me and God, no one is superior or inferior to anyone else. It is a label, and an arbitrary one at that. When we label anything, the label says more about us that it says about what or who we label.

Spiritual evolution is what I have chosen as a priority--above gaining material wealth, or fame, or having a trophy wife or a huge gas-guzzling SUV. To me, therefore, it is preferable to be highly evolved--it is ONLY my preference, and is in no way "superior" to anyone elses. I DO contend however, that if more people made choices similar to mine, we would have a more secure, less violent, less fearful and generally healthier society.

"Path" is just another word for evolution, akthough the word does imply a conscious choise. Evolution is inevitable; it is built into the way the universe works.

In time, all of us will attain unity consciousness--the Christians call it "going to Heaven"--regardless of what we do, or do not do. It is my preference to experience Heaven on Earth.

"Semantics" is a grossly misused word. I suggest you look it up. I strive to be
precise.
I didn't misuse it whatsoever.



I do not attempt to define better, as the word denotes nothing.
I think you're the one that needs to look words up. If it means nothing, you have essentially said nothing when saying no religion is better than another.


no one is superior or inferior to anyone else.
Same with religions, eh?

By that rationale, no one can better himself, since he will always be equal to his old self.



It is a label, and an arbitrary one at that.
There's nothing arbitrary about it.


To me, therefore, it is preferable to be highly evolved--it is ONLY my preference, and is in no way "superior" to anyone elses.
If you believe it to be preferable, then you believe it to be better. Semantic games.


I DO contend however, that if more people made choices similar to mine, we would have a more secure, less violent, less fearful and generally healthier society.
And you don't think that makes your choices 'better'?



In time, all of us will attain unity consciousness
Cite?

So many misconceptions, so little time.

Sure, it is arbitrary. Some people say Fords are better than Chevys; Chinese food better than Italian; men better than women; straights better than gays; Eminem better than Dr. Dre; white people better than black people; Muslims better than Christians; conservatives better than liberals--this is ALL arbitrary, and all ultimately fear-based.

At one time, educated and well-meaning white people truely believed that they were superior to black people, and did many scientific studies to "prove" it. That has changed.

At one time, many German people believed that they were "better" than Jews, and feared that Jews in fact posed a threat to their way of life--hence the death camps. That has changed.

At one time, Catholics believed that eating fish on Friday was "better" than eating a Big Mac. That has changed.

At one time, the medical profession believed that heroin was "better" than morphine, and prescribed heroin as a cure for morphine addiction. That has changed.

As long as the word "better" remains in your working vocabulary, you will fall prey to fuzzy thinking, if not out and out bigotry.

I'm wasting my time since you don't answer questions and ignore relevant points. You're being disingenuous with your Chevy-Ford comparison. If you decide to actually reply to the questions and points I made in my past several posts, I'll be sure to get back to you.

ArmsMerchant, for someone who doesn’t believe in value judgments, I sure do sense a lot of self-righteousness oozing off of you. You can keep saying you don’t make value judgments, but with statements like “Spiritual evolution is what I have chosen as a priority--above gaining material wealth, or fame, or having a trophy wife or a huge gas-guzzling SUV. To me, therefore, it is preferable to be highly evolved--it is ONLY my preference, and is in no way "superior" to anyone elses. I DO contend however, that if more people made choices similar to mine, we would have a more secure, less violent, less fearful and generally healthier society.” it’s clear that you do, and you’re merely covering up your feeling of “spiritual superiority” behind words.

Arms, I'm not sure why the rantings of the pope should vex you so. ALL (with the honorable exception of the Quakers) christian churches/denominations/sects have at some point claimed that they and only they were up to their necks in the blessed life-giving waters of the river Jordan, whilst casting not only the first stone but a whole trailer load of rocks at anyone who disagreed with them.

Let us just be grateful that dissent no longer ensures a fiery immolation by the secular arm.

Point taken--what was I thinking? They are the folks who assassinated the first Pope John Paul, after all.

I guess John Paul II's few lucid moments faked me out.

Armsmerchant,
Many profitable remarks have already been made.
Prefer or preferably
Definition:favor
Synonyms:adopt, advance, aggrandize, choose, cull, desire, elect, elevate, fancy, finger, fix upon, go for, incline, like better, mark, opt for, optate, pick, place, pose, present, promote, propone, proposition, propound, put, put forward, raise, select, single out, suggest, tag, take, tap, upgrade, wish, would rather*, would sooner*

Value judgments are a necessity in life. No one can walk out there door or and function in reality without value judgments. When you go to work you pick which route would be better depending on time, traffic, etc. When you buy a Ford or a Chevy you check the fuel efficiency, type of motor, etc. And yes, these are all based on their predispositions but then again ... so is yours since you ... prefer. I am not trying to attack you, but it is irrelevant for you to talk if you maintain that value judgments should not be used because everything that comes out of your mouth is connected to a judgment. You think that it is better to speak of the pope or evolution in the spiritual realm or what not, but if you adhere to your logic, which maybe you have misspoken or I have misread, but if you adhere to this logic than you should simply not talk because in talking you are claiming that you have something to say and if you claim that than you have made a value judgment of it being better if you said something than if you didn't. Again this is exaggeration but it really is applicable to what your saying if I have understood it correctly or maybe I have not. If not please correct me. Again I am not trying to give offense but just trying to understand.

ArmsMerchant, for someone who doesn’t believe in value judgments, I sure do sense a lot of self-righteousness oozing off of you. You can keep saying you don’t make value judgments, but with statements like “Spiritual evolution is what I have chosen as a priority--above gaining material wealth, or fame, or having a trophy wife or a huge gas-guzzling SUV. To me, therefore, it is preferable to be highly evolved--it is ONLY my preference, and is in no way "superior" to anyone elses. I DO contend however, that if more people made choices similar to mine, we would have a more secure, less violent, less fearful and generally healthier society.” it’s clear that you do, and you’re merely covering up your feeling of “spiritual superiority” behind words.

I think you mistake self-esteem for egotism. I have stated--again and again and AGAIN--that no one is better or worse than anyone else. Further, we all create our own reality--there are no villains, no victims--therefore there is no reason to hate, fear or envy anyone else.

Evolution is not some sort of meritocracy. Arguably, a chimpanzee is more highly evolved that a cat, but I wouldn't want a chimp in my cabin. And the more highly spiritually evolved one is, the more one is free from unevolved feelings such as superiority--and inferiority. The only reason I have gotten where I am spiritually, is because I have been fucking WORKING at it for over fifty years, intently for the last twenty or so, and VERY intently for the last four. Plus, I have the very great advantage of living in Alaska--one of the cleanest (in terms of air and water quality, and feedom from psychic pollution) and most beautiful places of earth--and studies have shown that looking at trees and mountains and sunsets is much better for one's physical and emotional health than looking at strip malls, parking lots, and concrete.

What's more, I have made no secret of the fact that I am a long way from perfect. I have a violent temper, but am rather pleased with the fact that it has been seven years since my last ADW (assault with a deadly weapon). And while my default emotion IS radiant happiness, it is still somewhat conditional, and outer-directed--business has been so slow this year that my family's debt has been increasing every year, and my wife just informed me that the credit card of hers (my own credit rating is shot, due to having declared bankruptcy a while back) which I use to get gas with, and buy stock for my business with is almost maxed out. So I had been a tad bummed out the past week, just got my groove back yesterday.

One of the hardest, and most important things, for any of us to learn is how to forgive ourself, over and over again. Just yesterday, I fucked up three times--four if you count the time I spent looking for my jade earrings yesterday morning, and finally found them--they were in my ear lobes.

Does that sound like I am on some sort of ego trip?

And I don't judge. I do make observations--I observe, for instance, that the human race seems to be collectively committing suicide (for instance, 38 percent of ALL male American adults have heart disease, and 70 percent are overweight). I observe that our government is deluded, arrogant, and essentially clueless--the New York Times made essentially the same observation a week or so ago.

I reserve my harshest criticism for myself.

Armsmerchant,
Many profitable remarks have already been made.
Prefer or preferably
Definition:favor
Synonyms:adopt, advance, aggrandize, choose, cull, desire, elect, elevate, fancy, finger, fix upon, go for, incline, like better, mark, opt for, optate, pick, place, pose, present, promote, propone, proposition, propound, put, put forward, raise, select, single out, suggest, tag, take, tap, upgrade, wish, would rather*, would sooner*

Value judgments are a necessity in life. No one can walk out there door or and function in reality without value judgments. When you go to work you pick which route would be better depending on time, traffic, etc. When you buy a Ford or a Chevy you check the fuel efficiency, type of motor, etc. And yes, these are all based on their predispositions but then again ... so is yours since you ... prefer. I am not trying to attack you, but it is irrelevant for you to talk if you maintain that value judgments should not be used because everything that comes out of your mouth is connected to a judgment. You think that it is better to speak of the pope or evolution in the spiritual realm or what not, but if you adhere to your logic, which maybe you have misspoken or I have misread, but if you adhere to this logic than you should simply not talk because in talking you are claiming that you have something to say and if you claim that than you have made a value judgment of it being better if you said something than if you didn't. Again this is exaggeration but it really is applicable to what your saying if I have understood it correctly or maybe I have not. If not please correct me. Again I am not trying to give offense but just trying to understand.


To me, a value judgement is saying that one thing somehow has more intrinsic value or merit than some other thing. One can get all airy-fairy about this, so lets talk more about cars.

I think it is rather silly to say that one car is "better" or "worse" than another. Take mine--a 1991 Mazda MPV with about 200,000 miles on it. I paid $2500 for the thing--there are many more "valuable" cars in dollars and cents. There are larger cars, and faster cars, roomier cars and more fuel-efficient cars (I get around 20 mpg). But there is nothing I would prefer to own. I am leery of air bags, so I wouldn't own anything newer than 1994, when they became standard. I wouldn't want anything smaller, since I have to get essentially my whole retail business in it--I haul my merchandise and three folding tables in it, since my main venue is at a local flea market. And I certainly wouldn't want anything faster.

Sure, it has flaws--the power windows don't work, the gear indicator is broken, the rear hatch doesn't lock, the windshield is cracked, the ignition switch is fucked up so I have to keep the key in it all the time, and the ride is harsh and noisy on uneven ground--but the car is "best" for me. It is comfortable, easy to drive, the sound system sounds fine, the interior and exterior are almost cherry (except for the ding I put in the rear bumper when I backed into a trailer) and I consider myself very fortunate to have it.

I'm wasting my time since you don't answer questions and ignore relevant points. You're being disingenuous with your Chevy-Ford comparison. If you decide to actually reply to the questions and points I made in my past several posts, I'll be sure to get back to you.

You throw a lot at me in one post. I get overwhelmed, and my comp time is limited--I drive twenty miles to get an hour on a library comp.

But I have had experience with many people like yourself in the past--and their minds have been so firmly made up--they were so entrenched in the superstition of materialism, so brainwashed by the culture, that it is pointless to try to convince them.

In any case, many of your questions HAVE been answered in SotD--again and again and AGAIN. It gets tedious after a while, re-explaining EVERYTHING to the newcomers.

As Walter Lippman observed, the music is wasted when the audience is deaf. There is nothing "wrong" with being deaf, but it does rather make going to concerts a waste of time.

I think you mistake self-esteem for egotism.

I do not. You keep saying you’re a moral relativist of sorts, but I see by the connotation of your words what you really believe to be superior.

I have stated--again and again and AGAIN--that no one is better or worse than anyone else. Further, we all create our own reality--there are no villains, no victims--therefore there is no reason to hate, fear or envy anyone else.

You can keep saying that, but I don’t believe you really believe that.

Arguably, a chimpanzee is more highly evolved that a cat, but I wouldn't want a chimp in my cabin.

Really? How can it be arguably more evolved when scientific evolution says nothing about being “more evolved” and you don’t believe in value judgments?

Does that sound like I am on some sort of ego trip?

Yes, this does sound like judging people as below you: "Spiritual evolution is what I have chosen as a priority--above gaining material wealth, or fame, or having a trophy wife or a huge gas-guzzling SUV. To me, therefore, it is preferable to be highly evolved--it is ONLY my preference, and is in no way "superior" to anyone elses. I DO contend however, that if more people made choices similar to mine, we would have a more secure, less violent, less fearful and generally healthier society.”

The connotation is astounding. As for all that stuff you've said about not being perfect, I've seen Christians say the same thing and then begin preaching self-righteously, as you do with your heavily connotative anti-materialist tirades.

And I don't judge.

“Iraq had broken ceasefire treaties (specifically no-fly zones and attacking our aircraft) before the war, so we had every right to attack.”

What do you call this if not a judgement of something being right to do?

I observe that our government is deluded, arrogant, and essentially clueless--the New York Times made essentially the same observation a week or so ago.

Other people would observe the government and disagree with you. You’re dressing value judgments up as “observations”.

As far as I can see Catholicism is a power-based perversion of the "Christian messege" as far as I can see it - goddam Jesus' apostles failed so badly at life......

I'm just not surprised really, but then I have a bit of a thing about the Catholic Church as a body - sure, I know there are proportionalists and liberal types, but that all seems on an individual level. The Vatican was one of the most "un-Godly" places i've ever mean, if "God" involves some degree of humility of equality...

I thought in modern times though, the Vatican n Pope might know better, though.

As far as I can see Catholicism is a power-based perversion of the "Christian messege" as far as I can see it - goddam Jesus' apostles failed so badly at life......

I'm just not surprised really, but then I have a bit of a thing about the Catholic Church as a body - sure, I know there are proportionalists and liberal types, but that all seems on an individual level. The Vatican was one of the most "un-Godly" places i've ever mean, if "God" involves some degree of humility of equality...

I thought in modern times though, the Vatican n Pope might know better, though.

Where do you come to the conclusion that Catholicism is a power-based perversion?

What does corruption have to do with the message of Catholicism?

And what should the Pope know better than? Thinking that his view is the right one? Like you're doing?

But I have had experience with many people like yourself in the past--and their minds have been so firmly made up
--they were so entrenched in the superstition of materialism, so brainwashed by the culture, that it is pointless to try to convince them.
You know that my mind is firmly made up and that I'm "entrenched in the superstition of materialism", eh? As long as you fit people you know little about into a particular group, "you will fall prey to fuzzy thinking, if not out and out bigotry".


In any case, many of your questions HAVE been answered in SotD--again and again and AGAIN. It gets tedious after a while, re-explaining EVERYTHING to the newcomers.
"I've explained my position before to others, so I don't have to debate the points you've made now", doesn't cut it.


As Walter Lippman observed, the music is wasted when the audience is deaf. There is nothing "wrong" with being deaf, but it does rather make going to concerts a waste of time.
No, you don't believe in spiritual superiority. Gimme a break!

You've said nothing to support your contention that no religions are better than another. Why "better" denotes nothing. Why you think "preferable" is a word any different than "better", and a few more unanswered questions about your bullshit.

"Wrong" is not part of my working vocabulary, being a value judgement. In my book, there is no "right" or "wrong"--only what works and what doesn't.

2 + 2 = 5; right or wrong? That's what I thought. Therein lies the fatal flaw in the filter through which you view the entire world: this "relative truth" bullshit. There is no such thing as relative truth; truth is an ABSOLUTE, a CONSTANT, because there are truths inherent in the universe, such as the laws of physics, math, or economics. No matter how hard I believe that 2 + 2 = 5, it will ALWAYS be 4, that is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH. "Right" and "wrong" are very, very real.

But nothing lasts. At the quantum level, things flash into reality from the Void, interact, and vanish back into the Void, Such is Ultimate Reality.

"Value judgement, omg!!!" Yes, we're all glad you passed a basic logic course; stop contradicting yourself. At the quantum level, things exist. THEY EXIST AND THEY ALWAYS EXIST, because neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. You're talking a lot of balls today.

But we can only know a thing through its opposite.

Yes, that is part of being human. We need something to benchmark against.

Oh, and on the "more highly evolved" thing--that is not a value judgement, merely a description. "More highly evolved" does not equate with "better"--ultimately, we are all on the same path--some of us are just farther ahead than others. This should be obvious.

No, it is a value judgement, because what you think is "more highly evolved" seems to someone such as myself to be nothing more than "barking up the wrong tree".

Are you SURE you passed that logic class?

Why don't you make a statement about it. ;)

So many misconceptions, so little time.

There, you have said it yourself. You are convinced that your worldview is correct, and everyone else's is wrong... the "wrong-ness" of their views being directly proportional to how different they are from yours.

That, my friend, is a value judgement.

^ Sigh. Once more--describing something is NOT the same as judging it.

^ Sigh. Once more--describing something is NOT the same as judging it.

But your description is completely subjective. Therefore, it is a value judgement. It's like weasel words on Wikipedia.

Now, why don't you quit playing word games, and address all the shit I've called you on?

ArmsMerchant, do you even know what a value judgement IS? I'll tell you: it's something that does not hold truth value. If it is not capable of being absolutely true or false, then it is a value judgement. If it IS capable of being true or false, it has truth value, and is therefore a statement. Your "description" is a value judgement, because it is subjective. There is no truth value.

^ But in a larger sense, it is ALL subjective. Don't take my word for it, read an elementary text on quantum physics.

In a mundane sense, you seem to be agreeing with me. That is, when one labels a thing as good or bad, one says nothing about it, really. One merely expresses approval or disapproval.

For instance, most of us--I think--disapprove of pedophilia. In some cultures, however, it is commonplace and accepted.

^ But in a larger sense, it is ALL subjective. Don't take my word for it, read an elementary text on quantum physics.

You don't know anything at all about quantum physics, do you? All of quantum EVERYTHING comes back to Schrodinger's wave equation - MATHEMATICS, something which is not subjective. I will school you on the topic of quantum physics. Your metaphysical nonsense has no place in science; stop talking about things you know nothing about.

In a mundane sense, you seem to be agreeing with me. That is, when one labels a thing as good or bad, one says nothing about it, really. One merely expresses approval or disapproval.

What about when a lot of people label something good or bad? Does that say something about it?

For instance, most of us--I think--disapprove of pedophilia. In some cultures, however, it is commonplace and accepted.

Yeah, so? Cultural differences do nothing to prove your "relative morality" point.

There is a lot of projection going on here. When did I ever use the word "morality"?

As I understand it, morality is all about right and wrong. In my view--and I am far from alone here--there in no such thing as right and wrong--only what works and what does not work. Or as the Huna Principle (I forget which one--there are seven) put it, "Effectivness is the measure of truth."

What's more, accuracy is not something to be determined by a popular vote. Used to be, most everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe, and that it was flat.

And according to a recent poll, 56 percent of the American public thinks the world is about 10,000 years old.

There is a lot of projection going on here. When did I ever use the word "morality"?

Do you understand the difference between connotation and denotation? You are talking about no such thing as right and wrong. You did not use the word "morality", but what you are talking about is relative morality, dig? Pick up a damn thesaurus...

As I understand it, morality is all about right and wrong. In my view--and I am far from alone here--there in no such thing as right and wrong--only what works and what does not work.

Yeah, that's exactly what I've been saying you've been saying. I'm also saying that you're wrong. We are all born with a conscience, and we all know that it is wrong to do something which violates the inherent rights or freedoms of another person. Those of us who do not know this are called sociopaths according to DSM-IV.

What's more, accuracy is not something to be determined by a popular vote.

Well, yuh, no shit.

Here's the deal: if a lot of people think something is good or bad, it DOES say something about the something in question. If a lot of people think X is good, then X has qualities which most people consider to be good. If a lot of people think X is bad, then X has qualities which most people consider to be bad. Dig?

And according to a recent poll, 56 percent of the American public thinks the world is about 10,000 years old.

Anyone can write down some numbers. Do you have a source for this statistic?

^I am not inclined to waste my time replying to a member who is ) relatively inactive and 2) too lazy or fearful to bother with putting in any meaningful profile info.

All the statistics I cite are common knowledge among people who take the time to read the daily newspaper. You seem to be clever, at least in a snarky sarcastic way, you are probably more highly skilled at websearching than I am. (I get so tired of spoonfeeding you people basic information.)

Finally, I am mildly discomposed at how grossly offtopic this thread has become, and will make one last forlorn stab at getting my point across, and will strive to eschew being sucked into any further ad hominem persiflage.

The statement released by Benny and the Hats was divisive and irresponsible, given the level of religious violence being perpetrated over the world. No spiritual leader with two brain cells to rub together would have made such a statement. However--and this is where I erred--the pope is not a spiritual leader so much as a bureaucrat. He presides over a world-wide bureacracy which has had over the years, priorities ranging from the oppression of women and gays to cultural genocide.

What's more, the church is in rather bad odor due to the ongoing scandal of rapist-priests. I think it is no accident that the statement in question came on the heels of the greatest pay-off in history on behalf of priests who couldn't keep their cocks in their cassocks --I refer to the $660 MILLION settlement made by the LA diocese to victims of predatory priests--none of whom, BTW, will do any jail time.

What's more, the church is in rather bad odor due to the ongoing scandal of rapist-priests. I think it is no accident that the statement in question came on the heels of the greatest pay-off in history on behalf of priests who couldn't keep their cocks in their cassocks --I refer to the $660 MILLION settlement made by the LA diocese to victims of predatory priests--none of whom, BTW, will do any jail time.

As far as I know the Church has moved towards the belief that child abusing priests suffer from a 'syndrome' and therefore require not punishment but prayerful treatment.

You and , to some extent I, were of course born before every problem of man was due to a syndrome. All this Attention Deficit crap for example.

How did we manage before it?!

How did we get through being teenagers without Ritalin® ?!

[/rant]

I rather doubt that the priests "suffer" as much as their victims. And regardless of how one attempts it justify or excuse it, baby-raping is a crime, and an egregious one at that.

As the Hells Angels say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

^I am not inclined to waste my time replying to a member who is ) relatively inactive and 2) too lazy or fearful to bother with putting in any meaningful profile info.

Yeah, you caught me. I'm afraid of a bunch of people who are represented by nothing but words on a screen... none of whom I am ever going to see in real life. I cannot believe that you have called me on this obvious character flaw, because there is obviously a reason to be afraid of people on the Internet.

(Let's be serious...)

How can you go on about technicalities regarding value judgements and then succumb to such a blatant logical fallacy?

Most of us would call this "the bitch way out".

These statistics are not common knowledge, because everyone does not know them. Either tell people where your random numbers are coming from or don't whip them out.

Sorry, but I don't take notes when I read the daily paper. I haven't worried much about citations since I was in grad school. At the risk of sounding arrogant, given the fact that I am somehting of a recognized authority in my field, I am not so much a "citer" as a "citee".

For me, "common knowledge" is common among the few of us who actually pay attention, read the paper (or consult bbc.com), and a read books that aren't graphic novels. That, or "common knowledge" among professionals in my field.

"Common knowledge" is a misnomer--as many people are abysmally ignorant.

If you want details or more depth on stats I mention, ask someone how to do a web-search.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, given the fact that I am somehting of a recognized authority in my field, I am not so much a "citer" as a "citee".
You mean, "A the the risk of sounding idiotic..."

You made factual claim. You are not exempt from providing a cite because you claim you are an authority in your field. Do you not realize how stupid that statement is? Which field are you an authority in?

For me, "common knowledge" is common among the few of us who actually pay attention, read the paper (or consult bbc.com), and a read books that aren't graphic novels. That, or "common knowledge" among professionals in my field.
If BBC.com states that 56% of Americans think the world is about 10,000 years old, you should have no problem finding it. Oh, I forgot- claiming you are an authority in an unnamed field precludes you from providing cites.


If you want details or more depth on stats I mention, ask someone how to do a web-search.
Because you're not the one who's responsible for backing up YOUR statements, right?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061110.html

Pope Benedict (who finally reached his level of incompetance, his last job being that of Grand Inquisitor) seems to be making still another effort to be divisive, unevolved, and fear-based. I didn't see the whole story, but according to the wire service brief, he recently said, in effect, kiss my ring or go to hell.

Fuck you, Palpatine is fucking awesome. He is a great man deeply devoted to the lulz

Sorry, but I don't take notes when I read the daily paper. I haven't worried much about citations since I was in grad school. At the risk of sounding arrogant, given the fact that I am somehting of a recognized authority in my field, I am not so much a "citer" as a "citee".

For me, "common knowledge" is common among the few of us who actually pay attention, read the paper (or consult bbc.com), and a read books that aren't graphic novels. That, or "common knowledge" among professionals in my field.

"Common knowledge" is a misnomer--as many people are abysmally ignorant.

If you want details or more depth on stats I mention, ask someone how to do a web-search.

Also known as "appeal to authority".

Just because your name is on Wikipedia doesn't mean you are exempt from the standards everyone else is held to.