Evil Ideals for the Dellusional?

[caleb_a_c]

- Continued giving of thanks.

- Acknowledgement of guilt.

- Requesting forgiveness of wrongs you've done.

- Forgiving others for wrongs done to you.

- Loving others as yourself.

- Doing your best to do what you know to be morally right.

- Giving to those less fortunate.

- Encouraging others in despair.

Are people who believe in the ideals above dellusional? Will embracing them hurt others or slow the progress of knowledge and study in the world? And if the answer is 'no' to those questions, does that mean a written source of those ideals should be considered evil, wrong, and/or misguiding?

To most of you it's obvious why I'm asking the questions and you know where those ideals come from. Please don't turn this topic into a debate about the legitimacy of the source, because there is a whole other forum dedicated to that. I'm asking if you think the ideals together constitute the source of them as being bad, based on your definition and opinion.

I'm not the least bit interested in responding to posts from people who are just going to pick the questions apart and turn them around on me. I would greatly appreciate simple honest answers from people should you choose to.


<edited>

[Straight A]

- Continued giving of thanks.

- Acknowledgement of guilt.

- Requesting forgiveness of wrongs you've done.

- Forgiving others for wrongs done to you.

- Loving others as yourself.

- Doing your best to do what you know to be morally right.

- Giving to those less fortunate.

- Encouraging others in despair.

Are people who believe in the ideals above dellusional?

The above ideals say nothing about the state of mind, dellusional or not, of the person doing them.

Be that an atheist, theist, desist or any other person.

Am I missing your point ???

[caleb_a_c]

Strawman of the very clearest kind !

- I haven't been on this board long enough to know what that term means, but I'm assuming since you know it you're probably right.


And no, you do not win a discussion by preemptively telling responders that they cannot challenge your assertions.

- Where in there did I say anything about trying to "win" anything. I'm simply asking three philosophical questions. By your reaction it seems your mode of operation is to just question the questions without even attempting to answer them. Starting out on the attack hardly seems like an effective way to start a philosophical discussion.


All in all, a poor stance, consider my shit thrown.

- You're a assuming exactly what my stance is without even asking. Though it guess I did say refrain from immediately throwing your poop.

[Mageth]

- Continued giving of thanks.

- Acknowledgement of guilt.

- Requesting forgiveness of wrongs you've done.

- Forgiving others for wrongs done to you.

- Loving others as yourself.

- Doing your best to do what you know to be morally right.

- Giving to those less fortunate.

- Encouraging others in despair.

Are people who believe in the ideals above dellusional?

No. Nor are such people required to be theists.

E.g., I believe in (more or less) and do my best to practice most of the above "ideals". With at least the following reservations:

- I "give thanks" to those who deserve it. I don't include a "god" of any sort on my thanks list.

- I acknowledge guilt for (and request forgiveness for) actual wrongs I have done to extant entities. Not imagined ones supposedly done to an imagined god by someone in the past.

- I don't claim to "know" what is "morally right." I do my best to live up to the morals and ethics that I have adopted. Including most of those you list.

Will embracing them hurt others or slow the progress of knowledge and study in the world?

Depends on where it leads one to. E.g., if one assumes the Christian God is behind those, and requires them of us. One may go from there to assuming that the Book that describes that deity is true. One may go from there to assuming that certain myths described in that Book are literal truth. One may go from there to oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools. And to oppose stem cell research based on Biblical moral grounds. And to oppose homosexuality based on Biblical moral grounds.

If all Xianity was was the teaching of certain moral guidelines as you listed above, then there would be no harm, and much good. But it too often leads to much more than that, and to harm, the impeding of knowledge, and so on.

And if the answer is 'no' to those questions, does that mean a written source of those ideals should be considered evil, wrong, and/or misguiding?

Problems come from such an approach. For one, the "written source" you imply is interpreted by many to say that we have "guilt" simply by being born human, and must "ask forgiveness" to some imagined deity or else suffer the consequences. That view imposes "guilt" on people where no guilt should be.

And to other "moral" teachings - i.e., the view of homosexuality as "evil" because the Bible says so.

To most of you it's obvious why I'm asking the questions and you know where those ideals come from. Please don't turn this topic into a debate about the legitimacy of the source, because there is a whole other forum dedicated to that. I'm asking if you think the ideals together constitute the source of them as being bad, based on your definition and opinion.

The "source" you speak of is but one source of such ideals; not the source. You err if you assert otherwise.

No, I don't think the the "ideals together constitute A source of them as being bad." (Again, I do not assume that the source you speak of is the source.)

Unfortunately, that's not all that particular source contains. And that's certainly not all morality-wise that we're whacked upside the head with by purveyors of that source. So I wouldn't say the source is "bad"; flawed, maybe. And those that refer to that source for their morality often add many other "do's and don'ts" to that list based on that source.

I'm not the least bit interested in responding to posts from people who are just going to pick the questions apart and turn them around on me. I would greatly appreciate simple honest answers from people should you choose to.

A bit of poisoning the well?

Anyway, my answer is certainly honest. Simple? I'll leave that for you to decide.

[sweetiepie]

I can't say I've ever related ideals to dellusions. hm.


Are people who believe in the ideals above dellusional?
No, no majority is ever dellusional. What would dellusional mean if one was?

Will embracing them hurt others or slow the progress of knowledge and study in the world?
Yes. Embracing any ideals over "do not hurt others" will ultimately hurt others. Similarly embracing any ideals over "study" will impede studying. This is why it's a bad idea to have a girlfriend while you're in college.


And if the answer is 'no' to those questions, does that mean a written source of those ideals should be considered evil, wrong, and/or misguiding?
Do you mean 'yes'? Obviously if the answer is no, there is no reason to believe that the written source is evil. If the answer to 2 is yes, as I claim, then I would guess that the source is wrong but not evil.

Or do you mean, "if the answer is no to those questions, does that necessitate that the source of such ideals are not evil/wrong/misguiding?"
Evil comes down to whether or not the source had good intentions, imo.

Wrong-- If you mean inaccurate-- then that depends on whether or not it's true. If you mean evil-- then I already answered that.

Misguiding-- (maybe the moral of your story)-- any event that leads to good ideals, true or false, can not be said to be guiding away from those ideals. Obviously, it could very well include other misguiding information though.

[caleb_a_c]

Mageth, thank you so much for your answer. That was the kind of response I was hoping for and the type of discussion I wanted to begin.

No. Nor are such people required to be theists.
- Totally agreed. None of them belong exclusively to any belief at all.

I don't claim to "know" what is "morally right." I do my best to live up to the morals and ethics that I have adopted. Including most of those you list.
- And doing your best to try living by those do you find that there are benefits from them? Granted I realize simply wanting to not be punished for breaking human laws is reason enough for most. But I'm talking about those morals that are based around interactions with other people.

One may go from there to oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools. And to oppose stem cell research based on Biblical moral grounds. And to oppose homosexuality based on Biblical moral grounds.
- I agree with you that if interpreting Biblical guidelines that it leads to questionable behavior which I personally think goes against some of the ideals above. I think the Christians who form political movements against others didn't read the Bible all that well. And I think those who show violence towards homosexuals and abortion doctors are contemptable.

If all Xianity was was the teaching of certain moral guidelines as you listed above, then there would be no harm, and much good. But it too often leads to much more than that, and to harm, the impeding of knowledge, and so on.
- What depresses me is that what is taught (as I know it) of the Bible, those ideals listed above are THE most important. I get depressed when I think about all the awful things that have gone on under the name of Christianity. And it makes me understand why so many people turn away from it. However that isn't the teaching which I know from the Bible.


Problems come from such an approach. For one, the "written source" you imply is interpreted by many to say that we have "guilt" simply by being born human, and must "ask forgiveness" to some imagined deity or else suffer the consequences. That view imposes "guilt" on people where no guilt should be.
- That's a tough one to reply to as a Christian and it would take me a whole lot of research and a new thread to address; though I am going to try at some point. For right now, I agree with most that it seems an unfair imposing of guilt in terms of what the Bible says, and I've wrestled with it trying to explain it even to myself.


The "source" you speak of is but one source of such ideals; not the source. You err if you assert otherwise.
- No arguing with you there at all, not even a little bit. Though if you, or someone else, could point me to another particular source that does endorse all of those I would like to read it.

And those that refer to that source for their morality often add many other "do's and don'ts" to that list based on that source.
- Agreed, which depresses me in many ways. I feel that there are a lot of specific do's and don'ts that come from those purveyors that I feel should be geared towards those who believe in it and not to those who are merely listening to it. Plus many of those purveyors also come up with many of those do's and don'ts in some convoluted and subjective way.

Anyway, my answer is certainly honest. Simple? I'll leave that for you to decide.

Very much so, and I really do appreciate it. Thank you for not slinging poo at my topic. :)

[Angra Mainyu]

Originally posted by caleb_a_c
Are people who believe in the ideals above dellusional?

Some might be, but I suspect that’s not what you’re trying to ask.
So, the answer is no. From the fact that someone believes in those ideals, it doesn’t follow that he or she is delusional.

Originally posted by caleb_a_c
Will embracing them hurt others or slow the progress of knowledge and study in the world?
It depends on the way they’re interpreted.

For instance, one of the ideals is, “Doing your best to do what you know to be morally right”

If your morality is in conflict with the progress of knowledge and study, then that would slow progress down, if sufficient people embrace that ideal. Also, if your morality doesn’t say anything specific against progress, but supports political and/or economic systems that would have a negative impact on progress, then that would be a problem too. Those are just examples, but one could probably think of many other possible negative situations.

In addition to that, the negative effect on the world isn’t necessarily (or only) against the progress of knowledge. Murdering people, for example, would be negative even if it had no impact on scientific research, and even if the murderer sees his actions as justifiable killings instead of murder.

The situations I mentioned aren’t unheard-of. For instance, suicide bombers may very well believe they’re doing the right thing. Supporters of brutal dictatorships may very well believe they’re doing the right thing, “saving the nation/race” (which they’d consider the right thing to do) or whatever.

Originally posted by caleb_a_c
And if the answer is 'no' to those questions, does that mean a written source of those ideals should be considered evil, wrong, and/or misguiding?

Even if the answer were “no”, one could not make inferences about the goodness or evilness of the source unless one has more information about said source.

In other words, one could think of many possible sources of those ideals, very different from one another.

I can’t tell which source you’re referring to, but – for instance – someone could argue that the God of a literal interpretation of the Bible (whatever that means) is a (or even “the” ) source of those ideals.

While the source of those ideals wouldn’t need to be evil, if that source is also the source of the ideal that some people should be tortured for eternity as a form of perfect justice, then the source would be evil in my view (if the source were consistent; else, all bets are off).

Then again, one could think of non-evil sources as well, so I’d need more information about the particular source you’re referring to. :)

Originally posted by caleb_a_c
What depresses me is that what is taught (as I know it) of the Bible, those ideals listed above are THE most important. I get depressed when I think about all the awful things that have gone on under the name of Christianity. And it makes me understand why so many people turn away from it. However that isn't the teaching which I know from the Bible.
That sounds like a much better type of Christianity. :)

Still, the issue of Hell – as many others – does present a serious problem in my view. How would you resolve that?

If a religion preaches tolerance and non-violence, but at the same time claims that some people deserve Hell, that sends a mixed message, and at least some adherents are likely to find it hard to respect the rights of those they view as deserving of eternal torture.

The problem with the Bible (and many other religious texts) is that it can be interpreted in many ways, some of which are definitely negative.

In short, maybe the source of those ideals you are considering, is not evil (I’m still unsure as my info on your source is still sketchy). But the source other people may have in mind is as bad as it gets – in my view, anyway.

[caleb_a_c]

Are people who believe in the ideals above dellusional?
No, no majority is ever dellusional. What would dellusional mean if one was?

- I admit that was sort of a loaded and rhetorical question. I really meant it to empasize the reality that those ideals are not those of dellusional individuals. Probably a poor question overall, but I put it up there and can't take it back. What can I say? I make mistakes.


Yes. Embracing any ideals over "do not hurt others" will ultimately hurt others. Similarly embracing any ideals over "study" will impede studying.
- I'm confused about this one, can you clarify? I agree that embracing just any ideal over not hurting other people is not good; but I'm refering specifically to the ideals above. They aren't meant to take up all the time of a person that holds to them and prevent them from doing anything else productive.

Obviously if the answer is no, there is no reason to believe that the written source is evil. If the answer to 2 is yes, as I claim, then I would guess that the source is wrong but not evil.
- Totally. =]

Or do you mean, "if the answer is no to those questions, does that necessitate that the source of such ideals are not evil/wrong/misguiding?"
Evil comes down to whether or not the source had good intentions, imo.
- I guess my point is that I think a source that presents all those ideals does have good intentions overall. Though the terms wrong and misguiding are a bit subjective I admit. There is no universal definition that every person holds to.

Misguiding-- (maybe the moral of your story)-- any event that leads to good ideals, true or false, can not be said to be guiding away from those ideals. Obviously, it could very well include other misguiding information though.
- Is it misguiding? I suppose to some yes, but to each their own. You are right that if the source does include other misguiding information that it can very well misguide people. I'm thinking more about the main teachings and purposes behind "the source" and them being the ideals listed above, and whether or not those ideals are misguiding overall should a person adhere to them.

[Caleb]


I thank you also for not flinging poop. :)

[Chris Porter]

Please refrain from refering to other members of this board by generally well-known insults. Please refrain from responding to such insults. Thank you very much.

[sweetiepie]

- I'm confused about this one, can you clarify? I agree that embracing just any ideal over not hurting other people is not good; but I'm refering specifically to the ideals above. They aren't meant to take up all the time of a person that holds to them and prevent them from doing anything else productive.
I think this is a solution of modern day industry. I, by no means, have a career or a background dealing with such things-- but I think the way in which we maximize business guides the way many of us think about morality.

Instead of 'guiding principles', we have possible futures, which each come with a degree of utility-- a level of goodness. These values can be set by many parameters or by just one. These values-- for those of us who think in this way, define good and evil.

If we want to help others or equivalently not hurt others, we ought to focus all of our resources-- not just some of them-- toward doing this-- and not toward doing things that are related to helping others. You, for example, might waste time begging someone's forgiveness when you ought to be loving them. You might be wasting time loving someone when you ought to be making as much money as possible so you can give it away to those who are in despair. It's not a question of how much time it takes up-- it has to take up all your time. Time wasted eating dessert is time that could be spent feeding the poor.

[caleb_a_c]

I want to apologize to everyone for refering to people on this board as being monkeys that fling poop. It was insulting and un-necessary and I won't do it again. It's poor behavior and my warning was completely justified.

This is my first time on a board like this and I'm not used to the kinds of questions being posed to me as counterarguments. I'm trying to learn the proper way to discuss topics like the ones dealt with here and I thank those who are pointing out my mistakes and flaws in logic.

I will do my best to do better and not be so stubborn and biased.


[Caleb]

[caleb_a_c]

If we want to help others or equivalently not hurt others, we ought to focus all of our resources-- not just some of them-- toward doing this-- and not toward doing things that are related to helping others. You, for example, might waste time begging someone's forgiveness when you ought to be loving them. You might be wasting time loving someone when you ought to be making as much money as possible so you can give it away to those who are in despair. It's not a question of how much time it takes up-- it has to take up all your time. Time wasted eating dessert is time that could be spent feeding the poor.

You're definitely right, and that's a good way to look at it. There has to be balance within the moral guidelines that we subscribe to. It also brings up the point that each individual is going to live their life based on their moral guidelines and forge what they view as the most beneficial path.

I think taking on each of the ideals I mentioned above as a general way of living promotes what the world in general sees as being beneficial, but that is purely my personal opinion. I'm just putting them out there to see if others agree with them, and I guess try to see if the way I live my life is generally acceptable. Those ideals are put out with paramount importance in the teachings I've received growing up, and they have proven in my life to be beneficial in every way. I wanted to put them out to everyone here and perhaps validate, and even reinforce, that I'm not dellusional in trying my best to follow them.

I guess it can be considered kind of selfish post and I apologize for that. But I do think that a teaching which involves those ideals can't be all that bad.


[Caleb]

[caleb_a_c]

Even if the answer were “no”, one could not make inferences about the goodness or evilness of the source unless one has more information about said source.

- That's true, and I'm really only referring to those ideals from a source that would teach them. Further study of a source that teaches those, which then contradicts them would be more of a determining factor in whether or not it would be considered evil.


While the source of those ideals wouldn’t need to be evil, if that source is also the source of the ideal that some people should be tortured for eternity as a form of perfect justice, then the source would be evil in my view (if the source were consistent; else, all bets are off).
- I agree, and that is something I continually wrestle with in the teachings of the Bible. However in spite of that, it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true; it's just a choice of whether or not to believe it or trust it.

That sounds like a much better type of Christianity. :)
- For sure, and that is the kind of Christianity that I have been taught about. It irritates me that damnation is the focus from pulpit to pulpit around the world.

Still, the issue of Hell – as many others – does present a serious problem in my view. How would you resolve that?
- That's one I don't currently have the knowledge to address. It's an extremely difficult concept to accept and I can't expect anyone to just "be ok" with it. As I said, I have a hard time with it as well; but I've read and heard about enough evidence to believe that the Bible is what it claims to be, inspite of my difficulty in accepting all it has to say. Everlasting punishment is something that noone in their right mind has an easy time with. And I almost feel like I need to apologize on behalf of the people that do.


[Caleb]

[Kemono]

- Continued giving of thanks.

This is quite delusional if, as is the case with religion, the thanks is given to an imaginary being. However, expressing gratitude to humans for things they have actually done seems a good idea and not in the least delusional.


- Acknowledgement of guilt.

This could be constructive in the context of a process where we would identify specific moral failures in our conduct in order to rectify them. Unfortunately this rarely the case with religion.

But is it delusional? Well, I hear that guilt is a pretty big theme in Catholicism and some other religions. In that form, yes, it is delusional and causes needless anxiety. In other forms of Christianity where being a sinner is more of a technicality and does not result in feelings of guilt, the harm done is probably not as big.

- Requesting forgiveness of wrongs you've done.

A good idea if the apology is directed at the (human) victim of the transgression. Asking for forgiveness from an imaginary being is, of course, delusional.

- Forgiving others for wrongs done to you.

Nothing delusional or harmful about this.

- Loving others as yourself.

A good ideal (if quite impossible).


- Doing your best to do what you know to be morally right.

I am ill at ease with the know part. Believing to know what is right seems a tad delusional.

- Giving to those less fortunate.

A good idea.

- Encouraging others in despair.

A good idea.

Are people who believe in the ideals above dellusional?

Only some. You have carefully worded these ideals to make them as palatable as possible to a non-religious audience. If they are taken to mean what they mean in the context of religion, then clearly embracing them is delusional. For example, giving thanks is not delusional per se, but giving thanks to something that does not exist for something it did not do clearly is.

Will embracing them hurt others or slow the progress of knowledge and study in the world?

Again, it depends. If these ideals are understood as they are understood in Christianity, many of them do hurt people and slow down the accumulation of knowledge and the progress of society.

And if the answer is 'no' to those questions, does that mean a written source of those ideals should be considered evil, wrong, and/or misguiding?

Your original post is likely the only written source for those exact ideals. The Bible says much more and is clearly evil, wrong and misguiding if taken as a guide to morality and science. If we took it for what it is -- just literature -- it would be none of those things.

I'm not the least bit interested in responding to posts from people who are just going to pick the questions apart and turn them around on me.

I hope you will approach all replies with an open mind. If the questions are picked apart, it is a probably a sign that people are actually trying to give you an honest answer.