3 of 3
3
How can I become more tolerant of the religious?
Posted: 22 November 2012 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
boagie - 22 November 2012 09:09 AM

As far as the desert religions go, tolerance has become a withered, weed which threatens the garden, We quite simply, as citizens of the world cannot afford these child like fantasy which can turn violent on a dime. We must face the fact that humanity like it or not, needs to grow up [mentally]  if we are to survive. We simply cannot allow the most ignorant, the most child like among us to lead the way. As Martin Luther once said, reason is the enemy of faith, they lay it out for you, you just cannot afford to listen to these people babble and run for office. May Allah behead all those whom you do not like!!  Never suffer a witch to live, good grief people, its time, it is really time. Disrespect and intolerance is what is presently called for, if its laughable, laugh at it. To show tolerance for willful ignorance, is NOT a virtue.


That is consistent with something Ayn Rand said in The Virtue of Selfishness:


> I will confine my answer to a single, fundamental aspect of this question. I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?


Rand, Ayn (1964-11-01). The Virtue of Selfishness (Signet) (p. 70). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  111
Joined  2011-12-28

“That is consistent with something Ayn Rand said in The Virtue of Selfishness:


> I will confine my answer to a single, fundamental aspect of this question. I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

Rand, Ayn (1964-11-01). The Virtue of Selfishness (Signet) (p. 70). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

 

Rami Rustom,

I quite agree with most of above, though I have never read Ayn Rand. I do not believe however that one can assume selfishness here, simply an expanded concept of the self. Morality, compassion are part of the human condition, just as there is selfishness,  Without the identification with other, no compassion arises, and with no compassion, a morality is impossible. As long as I or anyone else, sees in another, another self, then I think there is very much less likelihood of violence erupting, for the presence of some small level of compassion is assured. You might say that it is a form of selfishness in that one see another self in all sentient beings, it is always the self that concerns us. One is not required to respect another’s views or beliefs if those views and/or beliefs are harmful or just stupid but, one is required to remain human, to remember the self.

[ Edited: 22 November 2012 10:15 AM by boagie]
 Signature 

The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one.
David Hume

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

That is consistent with something Ayn Rand said in The Virtue of Selfishness:


> I will confine my answer to a single, fundamental aspect of this question. I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

Rand, Ayn (1964-11-01). The Virtue of Selfishness (Signet) (p. 70). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

 

Rami Rustom,

I quite agree with most of above, though I have never read Ayn Rand. I do not believe however that one can assume selfishness here,

That quote said nothing about selfishness. What do you mean?

boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

simply an expanded concept of the self. Morality, compassion are part of the human condition, just as there is selfishness,  Without the identification with other, no compassion arises, and with no compassion, a morality is impossible.

Morality has nothing to do with compassion. Morality is the knowledge about how one should decide between options. He doesn’t need compassion for that.

boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

As long as I or anyone else, sees in another, another self, then I think there is very much less likelihood of violence erupting, for the presence of some small level of compassion is assured. You might say that it is a form of selfishness in that one see another self in all sentient beings, it is always the self that concerns us. One is not required to respect another’s views or beliefs if those views and/or beliefs are harmful or just stupid but, one is required to remain human, to remember the self.

I don’t know what that means. Could you rephrase without saying “the self”? Or at least tell me what that means?

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  111
Joined  2011-12-28


“I quite agree with most of above, though I have never read Ayn Rand. I do not believe however that one can assume selfishness here,

That quote said nothing about selfishness. What do you mean?’’ quote

My mistake I thought your injection of Ayn Rand was to refer to selfishness, as I had not mention it myself until this point.

boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

simply an expanded concept of the self. Morality, compassion are part of the human condition, just as there is selfishness,  Without the identification with other, no compassion arises, and with no compassion, a morality is impossible.

“Morality has nothing to do with compassion. Morality is the knowledge about how one should decide between options. He doesn’t need compassion for that.“quote

 

What then do you see as the foundation of morality, do you not believe it is innate to humanity, as something which arises out of humanities nature. Your above statement seem to wish to infer a cold analytical process as the bases of morality, as a conscious system of logic? Perhaps I am missing something here, bare with me.

 

boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

As long as I or anyone else, sees in another, another self, then I think there is very much less likelihood of violence erupting, for the presence of some small level of compassion is assured. You might say that it is a form of selfishness in that one see another self in all sentient beings, it is always the self that concerns us. One is not required to respect another’s views or beliefs if those views and/or beliefs are harmful or just stupid but, one is required, to remain human, to remember the self.

 

I don’t know what that means. Could you rephrase without saying “the self”? Or at least tell me what that means?

 

Well, do you recognize that you yourself are in fact what we are speaking of as, the self?  Can you not recognize in others that same lively consciousness which is you, but is also in them pretty much the same?  You must introduce me to your understanding of morality without compassion, it is very alien to me. When you see people in a bad circumstance and are moved or at least you do help them out of that circumstance, why do you think you might have done that, outside of what I suggested that you identify with them, and feel something for them in their peril. Even with an animal you can see a self there, a self that is as capable of physical suffering as you. I have this formula, which a great many people do not agree with, nonetheless, they have never provided me with a good argument against it. The formula is this, life is consciousness, consciousness is life, and I believe wheresoever you find consciousness/ life, you find also, the self, a needy self interested thing, reaching searching to sustain itself.

[ Edited: 22 November 2012 01:40 PM by boagie]
 Signature 

The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one.
David Hume

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
boagie - 22 November 2012 01:30 PM

What then do you see as the foundation of morality, do you not believe it is innate to humanity,

I don’t know what you mean by “foundation of morality”. What are you trying to figure out? What problem are you trying to solve?

boagie - 22 November 2012 01:30 PM

as something which arises out of humanities nature. Your above statement seem to wish to infer a cold analytical process as the bases of morality, as a conscious system of logic? Perhaps I am missing something here, bare with me.

All people should have the freedom to pursue their own happiness and their freedom should not be infringed upon by others.

boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

Well, do you recognize that you yourself are in fact what we are speaking of as, the self?

I am a person. Yes.

boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

Can you not recognize in others that same lively consciousness which is you, but is also in them pretty much the same?

Yes. I am a person among many people.

boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

You must introduce me to your understanding of morality without compassion, it is very alien to me. When you see people in a bad circumstance and are moved or at least you do help them out of that circumstance, why do you think you might have done that, outside of what I suggested that you identify with them, and feel something for them in their peril.

Create a hypothetical situation so that I can examine it, and I’ll tell you what the hypothetical person should do.

boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

Even with an animal you can see a self there, a self that is as capable of physical suffering just as you.

“Physical suffering” is problematic. I think you mean physical pain. Note that sometimes I have a headache and I don’t immediately go get a painkiller because I prefer to finish my post before I get up. The important thing to talk about is *mental suffering*. That happens when somebody does something he doesn’t want to do, or has something done to him that he doesn’t want done. So, if he has physical pain, and he doesn’t want physical pain, then he is mentally suffering. But, if he has physical pain, but doesn’t mind it, then he is not mentally suffering.

boagie - 22 November 2012 10:07 AM

I have this formula, which a great many people do not agree with, nonetheless, they have never provided me with a good argument against it. The formula is this, life is consciousness, consciousness is life, and I believe wheresoever you find consciousness/ life, you find also, the self.  a needy self interested thing looking to sustain itself.

What about an ameoba? It is life. Is it conscious? Do you think it registers physical pain? Do you think it can experience mental suffering?

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 02:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  111
Joined  2011-12-28

Well, I believe we are taking this a little off topic. I get the impression that the concept of autonomy is very important to you. I’ll leave you with this quote from Nietzsche, “Autonomy and morality are mutually exclusive”,this is is of course assuming the subject is a member of a given society, tribe or group. The amoeba is of course life, the question of consciousness is a matter of degree, but an amoeba is conscious of its environment in that it will move itself away from a hostile environment. If you are interested, you might look out Arthur Schopenhauer’s, The Foundations of Morality, I believe it is included in his two volume set, “The world as will and representation.”  Perhaps we can pick this up later, we do not seem to be in the same ballpark right now, but perhaps later.

 Signature 

The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one.
David Hume

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
boagie - 22 November 2012 02:49 PM

Well, I believe we are taking this a little off topic. I get the impression that the concept of autonomy is very important to you. I’ll leave you with this quote from Nietzsche, “Autonomy and morality are mutually exclusive”,this is is of course assuming the subject is a member of a given society, tribe or group.

That doesn’t make sense. Morality is about how to make choices. If one doesn’t have freedom to choose, then he’s not able to make choices because somebody else is choosing for him.

boagie - 22 November 2012 02:49 PM

The amoeba is of course life, the question of consciousness is a matter of degree, but an amoeba is conscious of its environment in that it will move itself away from a hostile environment. If you are interested, you might look out Arthur Schopenhauer’s, The Foundations of Morality, I believe it is included in his two volume set, “The world as will and representation.”  Perhaps we can pick this up later, we do not seem to be in the same ballpark right now, but perhaps later.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that I should go read that book before we continue this discussion? If so, for me to be read that book, I’d have to be interested. Right now I’m not. Persuade me. Whats good about it? What will I learn? What problem does it solve?

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  111
Joined  2011-12-28

I simply mean that we are not off to a good start when to many terms are in question, example, what is your definition of morality, of what does it consist, you say you do not understand the term foundation/s. To me morality is behaviour which is judged after the fact to be either moral, immoral or amoral, for me the foundation would be what generated that behavior, one must be moved from within before one moves without, I am terribly sorry I do not mean to be rude, I just realized how very weary I am, and I am afraid you caught some misdirected frustration, again my apologies. Tomorrow is another day.

 Signature 

The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one.
David Hume

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
boagie - 22 November 2012 04:09 PM

I simply mean that we are not off to a good start when to many terms are in question,

That is common. So what? Whats wrong with including that as part of our discussion?

boagie - 22 November 2012 04:09 PM

example, what is your definition of morality, of what does it consist, you say you do not understand the term foundation/s. To me morality is behaviour which is judged after the fact

No. It should be judged before the behavior. Otherwise, how is one supposed to know whether what he’s about to do is right/good/moral or wrong/bad/evil/immoral?

boagie - 22 November 2012 04:09 PM

to be either moral, immoral or amoral,

There is no amoral action. Only moral actions and immoral actions. Can you give an example of an amoral act?

boagie - 22 November 2012 04:09 PM

for me the foundation would be what generated that behavior, one must be moved from within before one moves without, I am terribly sorry I do not mean to be rude, I just realized how very weary I am, and I am afraid you caught some misdirected frustration, again my apologies. Tomorrow is another day.

I don’t know why you’re apologizing. I’m not frustrated and I didn’t think you were frustrated.

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

Ramis policy is to find something to disagree about with every post.  LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
GenerousGeorge - 22 November 2012 04:17 PM

Ramis policy is to find something to disagree about with every post.  LOL

Its common for George to evade questions and criticism.

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2012 04:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

We continue to disagree.  LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 10:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  126
Joined  2009-05-12

RE: the OP:


Why on earth would you want to be more tolerant of a steaming pile of bollocks? It is what it is.


The trick is simply to separate the bollocks from the person, the way you get angry at the bad things a child does without becoming angry at the child itself. You make the child sit somewhere so that you can wipe the steaming bollocks off it, and then you toss the steaming load of bollocks back out on the dung-heap where it belongs, and clean up the mess it made in your house. And then, with forbearance and infinite patience, you explain to the child that wallowing in a steaming pile of bollocks is a filthy, unacceptable thing to do.


Hopefully, with patience, forbearance and endless repetition, the child in question will see the error of its ways.


See? Simple.

[ Edited: 01 December 2012 03:30 AM by gsmonks]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2014 11:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2012-07-06

this is how: dont!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2014 12:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  48
Joined  2014-08-24

After life belief gives enormous solace to millions and since no one has ever returned to confirm or deny it the logic does not matter. Our family and friends lost in deaths dateless night live in our minds and we cannot believe them gone forever. Some modern thinkers say that the self is a delusion; well its a an almost exclusively deluded world in that case. I’m sure we all take ourselves pretty seriously and believe we are living some sort of ordered existance.

‘Was it for this the clay grew tall?
What made fatuous sunbeams toil to break the earths sleep at all.’

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed