@hockeybum90n5..some name !...Einstein also talked about people being "a prisoner of their own ideas"..this is how i view zealots wether it is in religion, politics, or even football...good Science breaks out of the prison using Socratic questioning.. "do you believe in God?"..answer.."what do you mean by God ?"..or perhaps more interestingly ..what did you feel when you experienced God ? .
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
The Modern Ecumenical Church supports Karen's focus on compassion.
The church invites people to consider that agnostics can have a beneficial spirituality NOT based on myths or superstition which can foster a compassionate life.
for more information, we invite people to visit the our website
"That which is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah and everything else is only commentary" Rabbi Hillel
Directly from the Torah: "If your own brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods…do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him." (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
@CleverAssessment Let's highlight the words 'entices you secretly to serve other gods'. Really shows why idiot Americans and other Christians are aimed at by the Muslims. Basically mind your own goddamn business! US/NATO/UN...GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST
"Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, ... ... if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.Quran (49 -13 )
dross... ¿a dónde coño quieres llegar? ¿qué quieres hacer en tu vida? "Si tengo la oportunidad los mato, asi de simple" ¿¡¿¡Acaso quieres a alguien en tu vida!?!? "Yo le pego a mi madre...¿y QUÉE?" "10 Formas EFECTIVAS PARA JODER A UN PROFESOR HIJO DE PUTA" Yo entiendo, pero, si esto es un chiste, lo único que tengo para decirte es que eres un bufón. Así es, leíste bien, y otra cosa, hay gente que lastimás con tus insultos.
Here I will respond to people wondering why anyone would dislike this. Two reasons, its just common sense. Of course we should be compassionate. Now you have an organization where people will eventually need staff, salaries and a nice office. They will have to go to conferences, fly around the world and eat at nice restaurants.
People are cold, hungry and homeless in your own cities. Be compassionate, help someone out yourself.
It may be a tad naive, but would beenn15 please explain his argument? The argument that religions cannot thrive without conflict and cannot coexist 'peacefully' (peacefully in the normal context, not necessarily without theological debate) is likely nothing more than a canard.
Surely you wouldn't claim that working towards a world in which we (agree to disagree/ remain firm in our views while being courteous and kind) is an unworthy cause?
I love Ms. Karen Armstrong. Her books are amazing, and her seminars are just great!! .. God bless her, and may she continue to spread love and light wherever she goes!! .. I'm all for a postive change and will do everything in my power to help spread God's message on earth: Love, mutual respect and peace.
I love this woman! I believe the message she speaks is essential to humanity's ability to survive and thrive. And she admits it's not easy. Gotta love honesty!
Why so many thumbs down? Join the largest movement for social change with over 500k supporters around the world, The Zeitgeist Movement! We can solve all the problems we face from world hunger to poverty to crime and violence. It is all possible and we can show you how! Watch Zeitgeist Addendum online for free!
The problem isn't religious people or atheist people, the problem is just people. She seems to be making the assumption that people base their behavior on their religious beliefs when in fact the opposite is true, most people base their religious beliefs on their behavior.
I agree there are many people distorting the teachings of the Bible to promote hate, but there are also many people teaching the truth. People simply choose to ignore the people teaching the truth. The problem is people.
I am an atheist, I defy religion regularly, and I LOVE this talk. She is good at pointing out what IS good about all the nonsense, and I think it is beautiful.
We have never followed the golden rule more, than now.
Sure it'd be good to follow it more, if not to the extreme absolute that the speaker proposes: "Always" "refuse, under any circumstance whatsoever"...pure idiocy.
Also: Religion completely goes against the golden rule (yes they mention it, but then what religion isn't hypocritical?)
Honestly I'm an atheist and other atheists aren't fucking listening...lol This has nothing to do with religion what she wants is a world where people are kind to each other no matter how much they hate each other okay? this is a good thing not a bad geez your just as bad as a modern christian if you're prejudging it...
@VulgarityDivine "a world where people are kind to each other no matter how much they hate each other okay?"
Would it not be better to get rid of the hate as well?
Religion divides. Religion creates differences, magnify them and breeds hatred towards them.
Yes, she's well meaning. Yes the golden rule is good (though the extreme absolute compliance to it, that she advocates is lunacy), and should be followed more.
...but if you think that the speech isn't crap, just because of that...
@ZarlanTheGreen I'm looking for a possible world not irrational a world without hate is a world of indoctrination with no politics no religion no free will to think about the possibility of something we do is wrong hate exists as it always will religion and politics breed hate and fascism I'm saying she has good intentions but is grossly mislead
@VulgarityDivine "a world without hate is a world of indoctrination with no politics no religion no free will"
True, but I didn't mean that we should get rid of hate, completely (I may have been a little unclear ...though not as unclear as you, what with your complete lack of punctuation. I'm bad at it, but at least I try)
"I'm saying she has good intentions but is grossly mislead"
No.
You basicly said disagreeing with her good speech is not listening and prejudging.
"Honestly I'm an atheist and other atheists aren't fucking listening...lol This has nothing to do with religion what she wants is a world where people are kind to each other no matter how much they hate each other okay? this is a good thing not a bad geez your just as bad as a modern christian if you're prejudging it..."
1. It has very much to do with religion, despite the fact that the golden rule has nothing to do with religion.
@VulgarityDivine I think it's naive to think religious leaders and believers will agree to follow a charter that they believe is written by men. Different religions exist mostly because there have been disagreements among them. If they were to agree to live peacefully, there wouldn't need to be different religions, one would be enough. Religions cannot thrive without conflict. It's all about who's right, who's going to hell, who's immoral...
the best way of living your life is living it based on facts. period. the same fact that you exist does not make it a fact that god exists. you are a fact; god is not, it's a speculation but nothing more. live your life based on facts and not idea's and speculations but rather proof it instead. (if you can't proof it then work towards proving it until you one day can) If that's not a reason to live life for i don't know what is.
What a worthless, inversely cogent, and indeed dangerous -yes, dangerous- talk.
This mawkish, dimwitted, preternaturally ridiculous woman is, ironically, a most disconcerting demonstration of just how trivial the golden rule can be made to seem, and (for me) how much contempt and resentment I can be made to feel for an undoubtedly kindhearted person.
The GR made to simplistic by some. made into what it isn't by others. I have read elsewhere that the GR is not a moral compass, but a path, a path where you U use UR moral compass to get to the answer
If men are rewarded for wearing their pants under their butts and effecting a thug attitude -- they will.
If men are rewarded for the number of slaves they have, they will.
If men are rewarded for reciting poetry and wearing bell bottoms, they will.
Men are like trained seals, and women throw the fish. Whatever men think will get them the most power prestige and pussty, well, that's what they will do.
What hoops? All you need to do is run up from behind real fast and ram it hard in her asshole like I did to your mom last night before she sucked my cock
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE? FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs japanjunkie ..
@diablo728 i really can't imagine a reason for you posting that!? it's not even advertisement. you gain absolutely UTTERLY nothing by doing that... i can not wrap my head around people like you and they're fruitless spam. truly fruitless.
whats she is saying all faiths advocate this one good idea (the golden rule) and therefore if we only look at that value then religion is great.
the prolem is that hitler said we should be "good to our neighors" and therefore if we only look at that aspect of nazism then nazism is a great way to build a peacefull and tolerant world. of course this one verse y hitler does not compel thinking people that nazi ideology is a tool of tolerance, and our faiths are as divisive as
I don't get it why TED hires people like Karen Armstrong and markets them as wise woman for money.
All Armstrong seems to be saying is: The new atheists are wrong! Dawinks, Dennett and Harris are wrong! Religion is somehow still really a good thing, worth aspiring to and merits our respect. Of course no one would still believe in a patriarchial, sky daddy kind of god, but hey, I studied theology and need to work on my day job and there are questions even Dennett cannot grasp. Give me a break.
@hyperseauton Wasn't aware she bothered to say that. But I sure as hell will. Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris are wrong and religion has worth just as much as any other human endeavour.
Can't believe someone so ridiculously bias has studied theology. If you did, you wouldn't be saying such stupid shit as 'sky daddy kind of god'.
@0Krusnik0 So I need a degree in theology to criticize theology? It's like saying you cannot say leprechauns do not exist because you are not an expert in leprechauns. The only field you actually need to have studied and work on to get ahead is science because it is real and it does not make shit up to make us feel better and just saying something for science does not make it fucking so.
Religion is ancient nonsense and the emperor of religion has no clothes on.
Science is what is and ever has been and ever will be.
Religion is what is not, never has been and never will be.
As humans we have a choice between Reality and Truth and what makes us feel good and what we wish to be.
I want to be ever happy and someone who loves me always as well, but I have to find it in humans. THIS is the grandest of ideas. Not to turn your back on what we ARE and love us the way we are, such is humanism and Carl Sagan love.
Doing good deeds all day and every day will only help you "find Nirvana" if you do that from your heart. We need to look into our hearts and find Love FIRST... that's where good deeds will come from.. compassionate action only ever comes from Love. You wont find Love or compassion by "looking into your own heart and discover what it is that causes you pain". Where is the logic in being motivated from what we SHOULDNT do?! Even dog trainers know that doesnt work!
To understand how others feel from your own actions (i.e. to know from an outside perspective if what you are doing is good or bad) you must place yourself in their position. This imaginative act helps others understand how to treat everyone in a way where finding love is much easier, not only to yourself but to everyone.
Yes, placing yourself in anothers position is a great way of connecting to that compassionate place. I also think we need to spend time strengthening our heart by accepting the generosity of others as well. So much is said about how we "do" compassion for others, but I feel we actually lack an ability to do this because we fail to fully enter the space of gratitude that comes from receiving a good deed from another... ie accepting and noticing the grace of God.
You're right, not enough people are gracious of good deeds done to them, but that is a lacking in their ability of placing themselves in the shoes of the person who is doing a good deed to them, if they were to do this they would understand that they should show more gratitude.
If you are saying on the other hand that all good deeds come from god and that people need to acknowledge the grade of god, I disagree completely.
Well, we can only ever reject a concept of God (unless you believe in a God which you know through the 5 senses and therefore your brain). If you disagree with me about God, remember, thats your idea of God you are disagreeing with, not mine:). I accept what I call the Love of God that fills my heart because it is filled with meaning that is beyond those 5 senses. Who knows anything about that?
The punishment must fit the crime. If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him—fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. (Leviticus 24:19-20) This sort of thing is called cruel and unusual by most people today. Ill grant you, it is unusual—nothing in western jurisprudence today is this logical, this sensible, this fair.
We habitually substitute anemic and pointless punishments for infractions of law, typically incarceration or fines, that have neither any direct bearing on the problem, nor deterrent value, nor redress for the injured party. I submit to you, however, that direct and equivalent response is anything but cruel. It is merely the logical, practical application of the golden rule.
Pure science doesn't explain the entirety of the human experience; anybody who's felt deep emotion cannot put into a logical framework what exactly they've felt. That is what art attempts to accomplish.
Pure scientific reasoning is merely another dogmatic train of thought that fears change. Remember: "Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein
Lack of understanding, or an inability to describe something, does not put something outside of the sphere of reason. Lightning was once in this domain. You are talking about gaps. No gap has ever been filled with something supernatural, so it is extremely unlikely (vanishingly so) that something supernatural will ever be the reason for anything. Saying science is a theology, demonstrates that you dont know what theology means, or you dont know what science is. Which is it?
science is still on the way of piecing out all reason behind our emotion infact they making a computer composing of many computer tosimulate how our brain works lol... better put your self into reasonable side rather than give blind faith towards religion or any dogmatic ideology
If there is a god I'm sure that deity would hate religion for many reasons! But this woman is talking about compassion... harmony... morality...
Just because she mentioned that one would think religion would be facilitating this philosophy and instead seem to be part of the problem does not mean she is talking about religion.
For the sake of humanity we do need this kind of attitude in our world... religion has nothing to do with it.
Yes it does. Listen to the part when she talks about the earth needing this now or we wont have an earth to pass onto the next generation. There is absolutely no reason for this apocalyptic talk, except to invoke fear? Fear of the end of days, or death is the basis for all religion. "The end is nigh" unless mankind makes friends? Come on, is that any more true now than at anytime in the past 10000 years? The actual problem the human race faces is over-population, not war.
Why is it so important now that we take up the golden rule, or we wont have a society to pass onto the next generation? She is no more coherent than a fool on a soapbox saying the "end is nigh". She is preaching religion in another form.
If you remember nothing else that I say. It is very possible and even likely that human morality came to be without the existence of God. Morality is part of what allowed our species to flourish. Atheists have morals, other religions have morals, and even Godless religions have morals. Morals are not the property of any church, they are part of who we are and how we got here.
If you lived in 12th century Germania, you would have believed that mugging old ladies is immoral not because of an external empathy for the pain you would put the woman in, but out of an internal safeguarding of your warrior status and warrior ethic. Morals ARE the property of the Church (and the divine laws inherrent within that faith system) since societal perception for what is moral and why it is moral is entirely influenced by it.
If you were a Roman atheist, I doubt you wouldn't find it morally objectionable to have gaul POW's being torn apart by lions in the arena for public entertainment.
Divine decrees of morality have and do shape modern moral perception. What you believe and why you believe it has been shaped by 2000 years worth of Christians and Jews before you.
Ironically, many atheists today voice moral objections to Christians, absent-minded of the fact that Christianity made the offence objectionable
The only objections that atheists have to Christians is the Dogma associated with religion. When laws are immutable and absolute morality is no longer at the essence of those laws. People will circumvent them for their own manipulative ends. That is why the Bible constantly needs reinterpretation. The morality we see today is partially thanks to Christianity but also very much in spite of it. We are ignoring more of the Bible as time goes on. Not since we are immoral, but since we see past it.
If you live in Chistian America pre 1885 you could have thought slavery is okay, like it says in the Bible. Humanity has existed long before the church and there is evidence of humans caring for infirm humans in prehistoric times. Your argument for morality being the property of the church is wrong. And also is your morality reflected in a public code? Why would you think that was true for 12th century Germania, are you a Necromantic mind reader.
Not only that, why wasn't the world in the 12th century or even now completely under the banner of Christianity. You consistently neglect that if there were a God it would have created 12th century Germanians. So, in essence, you are saying God fucked up.
Quote"If you lived in 12th century Germania, you would have believed that mugging old ladies is immoral not because of an external empathy for the pain you would put the woman in, but out of an internal safeguarding of your warrior status and warrior ethic." You admit that they knew what was immoral. No Bible required. Societies morals are not written by religion, I am an Atheist with morals that affect society. There were many moral people long before the Bible was thought of.
But I'm still not certain how you can generalize and speak for an entire society. America for instance is primarily Christian (I beleive from what I read) but that gives me no understanding of the morality of the individual, Christian or Not. There are moral atheists and immoral Christians. And from the research I've seen, It appears that secular humanists are the most moral based on the function od their society. The United States blew the world away with secularism, now they're falling back.
Those studies are skewed, since all the did was tabulate religiosity with GDP and crime rates for each country.
Africa went from being 2% Christian to 90% Christian within the last 100 years, but poverty and 3rd world conditions existed when African mysticism dominated the continent. The study takes no account of the fact that poverty existed before theism, and yet people use this study to suggest that theism promotes crime and poverty. The methodology used for such a conclusion is invalid.
Africa is a great example. Science has alleviated hunger, while Christianity has done a fabulous job of claiming the credit. Perhaps the reason the Christian Children Fund changed it's name was to appeal to the larger base of those who donate and are tired of the effects of Christianity in Africa. Like the continued proliferation of AIDS and teen pregancy with the infallible words of the Pope saying condoms are bad. It's causing and continues to cause gret harm.
This is why using sample groups within the same geopolitical and economic history is better for eliminating problems like these, and when you eliminate these biases the data supports the opposite conclusion.
Repeated studies show higher levels of education, particularly in the sciences, correlate directly with atheism. Education levels also correlate with lower teen pregnancy and other factors. Right or wrong, atheism is skyrocketing, particulaly in the United States, with religious dogma being at the center of it. People are turning away from moderate religion, not just extreme religion, because of the association.
So I guess my main point now is that we understand a lot more how to create harmony and it appears to be that providing basic necessities and giving oppurtunities for personal growth is a far better method than preaching doctrine. When you grow up seeing nothing but people helping people, what option is there? Hope is a far better tool than religious doctrine, and when you're provided for, which science helps provide, it's hard to fight against anything.
The only other countries which would go to war in times of wealth, are those of extreme ideology. But I doubt even Nazi Germany would ever have gone to war or had those conditions if it weren't for poverty. If you could galvanize a country to work towards the goals of science, it would be taking care of itself in no time, whereas religion has never had such results. Even Godless religions cause extremism, truth is always the path, and religious dogma skews that path.
The Bible condones slavery - However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
In many ways, our moral sense and our moral philosophies have exceeded the quality found in the bible, so yes, one could say that in some respects our morality exceeds the Bible.
I'm saying that while you may have basal human moral instincts that exist in all human beings throughout the world, the finer details of everything is developed by the culture or religion. An atheist in India has different opinions on moral subjects than an atheist from America, and the reason why is because some of your moral perception has been placed upon you by the teachings and norms of your society.
No, religion is not required for the existence of morality. A moral intuition existed before any holy book was penned. However, moral intuition is also shaped by the exploration of moral philosophy, and the answers gained through such exploration have been passed through our society akin to how an ever increasing knowledge of our physical universe has been passed from generation to generation. All I'm saying is that religion played a HUGE part in that development.
I disagree in saying the church is good for morality. I can't over generalize, but it has been scientific progress which appears to shake faith, mainly because it isn't just the physical or biological sciences that have progressed, but also the social ones. The results of those studies can also be contradictory the th laws of the Bible for allowing humanity to progress. I will agree that the Bible did lay a framework for comparison throughout history, but it didn't always go well.
To really drive this point home. We see nowhere in nature when omnipotence, omni-benevolence and omniscience comes from nothing, I doubt whether it's possible for it to exist, yet the religious claim it was just there. Why is it so hard to understand that matter from the vaccuum, then the coalescence of matter, then the formation of star systems, then a planet(s) with conditions suitable for Abiogenesis, then evolution. It's like tic tac toe. There is evidence to varying degrees for all of this.
We don't know what was going on before the first planck second of this universe. However, if you're going to suggest that cosmogenesis involves the ex nihilo appearance of the big bang singularity, why would argue that ex nihilo creation of intelligence is absurd? If you believe in an ex nihilo universe, then why do you invoke absurdity on ex nihilo intelligence?
If on the other hand you argue that the universe did not appear ex nihilo, what brought the universe into existence?
I don't know exactly what brought the universe into existence, but I am guessing that intense vaccuum brought it into existence, but according to occam's razor anything is more likely than God. For if there were a God, it would need a means to acquire intelligence and omnipotence ex nilhilo. Not even remotely probable. So if you find the universe difficult to find a start. Imagine a being able to create all that, coming from nothing. Again show me what created God, then what created that.
Seven traits characterize a learned person. A learned one doesnt begin speaking before one who is greater than he in wisdom or in years; he doesnt interrupt the words of his fellow; he doesnt answer impetuously; he questions with relevance to the subject and replies accurately; he says first things first and last things last; about something he hasnt heard he says, 'i havent heard'; and he acknowledges the truth. the reverse characterize an unlearned person.
Shimon says: all my days i have been raised amongst the Sages and i found nothing better for ones self than silence; not study, but practice is the main thing; and one who talks excessively brings on sin.
Yehoshua says: accept a teacher upon yourself; acquire a friend for yourself; and judge everyone favorably.
Hillel says: be among the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people, and bringing them closer to the Torah.
Test your faith, either you are not faithful or this isn't true. Go ahead, pray for anything.
And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)
Am I the only one wondering what she is actually proposing? Pretty much the only remotely substantive things she says are, "be nice" and that religions should play some part in making people be nice.
As a future educator I'm going to take this on board. Though I don't see it coming up in a science lesson, perhaps there'll be space in a morning tutorial.
If we want to show real compassion, we have to get over religion. When people still believe thinking about someone (praying) will help them, there's no incentive to get off your ass. When people still believe compassion is only good because a God said so, there is no compassion.
on some level i agree, yet i hope that at least SOME people who DO have faith in certain religions pray in the hopes of gaining some power, or positive influence and motivation that will help them to become a compassionate person. As oppose to just thinking if i do THIS (like praying) then the following will definitely occur. religion is just a means to cope with daily life, if it works for them... and it doesn't bring harm to others, i don't see the fault in that.
"Submit or burn" is a human distortion of the golden rule. There are influences from human beings who distort the many "golden teachings" for whatever reasons (such as power and control). The key point she is emphasizing is that people need to be able to recognize these influences/distortions and not to get distracted by them. some who propagate certain distortions (
Religion vs. Science is not an argument worth having. To study the word of God and to study the work of God serve the same purpose, to become closer to god, and ultimately to become godly.
I'm more fearful of Theologists and Atheists fighting than anything else.
She sounds more like a Buddhist preaching the Nobel Eightfold Path than a Christian preaching the divinity of Jesus...
As such, she isn't representing all religions or any religions, rather she argues for the primacy of goodness. That is something that can had without belief in the unreasonable.
She always whitewashes religion! In every major religion: the golden rule only applies to people within your own religion! You are to kill, convert or enslave all others! What a crappy "source of all morally". I can't stand this lady, she is always flying cover for religion. "we need to revived that spirit" Really? The only way is to tear up all the religious texts.
"She always whitewashes religion! In every major religion: the golden rule only applies to people within your own religion! You are to kill, convert or enslave all others!"
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Doesnt sound like the golden rule too me. Nore does it sound like he is turning the other cheek. The Old Testement is FILLED with god commanding the death of any group that faces the jews. Dont get me started on Islam.
How refreshing. Normally you guys quote Leviticus. It's nice to see a change once in a while.
The fact though that you quote that within the context of the previously known teaching of 'turning the other cheek' implies that there was far more to Jesus' teachings then what you present.
As for the Jews, its kill or be killed. They lived between two or more major civilizations, and were constantly attacked, pillaged, and enslaved by others.
UNFFwildcard, the Jews were attacked because they were INVADERS. Remember? They came out of Egypt. The Jews were taking peoples land the same way they are taking Palestinian lands today.
A normadic people who were formerly slaves do not possess the economic, political, or militaristic capacity to wage any sort of invasion against anyone, expecially when there are sandwiched between some of the world's largest civilizations in the middle of a trading zone in the cradle of civilization. The fact that the Jews didn't even have a place to call there own until the establishment of Israel nearly 2000 years later is testament to their incapacity to do what you just suggested they did.
UNFFwildcard, according to the fairytale bible, the jews had a magical box call The Ark of the Covenant that made them invincible and it would fly around and zap people too.
So you should be able to understand then, that if the Jews had to perport that the Ark could protect them, its probably because they didn't have any standing armies to perform that protective role.
Even if the Jews did undertake offensive action, it would very likely be small scale, and most probably pre-empively. This argument still doesn't help you: If a people had to attribute supernatural qualities to an Ark in that it will help them in battle, its probably because they didn't have any professional armies to do that for them.
I meant morale, sorry. It plays up the confidence of the people going into battle.
I would say that it's appearance at the front lines is a defensive strategic move. It is obviously an item of immense meaning to them so the primary goal of the enemy would be to destroy it and thus shaking the morale of the enemy. With pointed attacks like that, it would be easier to catch enemies off guard.
That's from a parable and it's not a command from Jesus to His Apostles. You need to pick another verse. This parable was actually about how one should treat others as they want to be treated themselves. This quote is way out of context the way you used it.
gambleor, you talked right into it. I use that as an example of how easy it is to twist the bible to mean anything. The inquisition used this to justify killing people in the streets. Hitler used it too. The bible is a useless book because it is too easily manipulated and there is no single authority on its interpretation.
"I use that as an example of how easy it is to twist the bible to mean anything."
But you missed something very important here. The fact that you have to identify that the bible was 'twisted' to justify something implies that there is an 'untwisted' form which is regarded as the norm. You've basically admitted that there exists a normative way of thinking that lends itself to mercy and compassion while using the spare Bible quote in an attempt to demonstrate otherwise.
"The bible is a useless book because it is too easily manipulated and there is no single authority on its interpretation. " You're wrong. There's a difference between there being no authority and there being an authority which is rejected.
"Hitler used it too." Hitler also used Darwinian ideas to create the belief that the most successful gene pool was the Aryan gene pool and was therefore superior, then he coupled that by telling Germany that all other races were hindering progress....
I'm not Catholic and I didn't say that the Pope was any such authority. I'm Greek Orthodox and we don't believe that the consensus of the saints is the authority, not any single bishop. You're equivocating authority with power and they're not the same thing.
Non sequitor response. This does not demonstrate that all religions are dangerous. All the first video shows for example is that scientology is a money grubbing cult recognized by atheist and theist alike, and the 3rd video shows that having a superstition about opening umbrellas indoors may be debilitating to your personal life - not that it is dangerous.
That depends on the religion. If the religion, when sincerely believed is one that advocates violence and hate, then yes, it is dangerous. When, on the other hand, you have a religion that actually tries to teach you something about your relationship to the world and your relationship to one another, but you use it to advocate violence and hate, then it's not the religion which is dangerous, it's the twisting of that religion that is the danger.
by your own argument, since Hitler used "survival of the fittest" as propaganda as well as a mix of occultism and Christianity, then we can say that Darwin's ideas about survival of the fittest should be done away with because they are dangerous. Of course, you'll disagree (or at least I hope you will). Rather we should encourage proper understanding of survival of the fittest and not it's application after it's being twisted and deformed into something foreign to what it's intended to be.
Your protestant religion is a splinter off the the first Christian religion. Religions keep splintering and fracturing because they all contain lies and some people can't tolerate the lies, but they can't stand the thought od dying either. Human fraility and denial is holding our entire species back, just like it does in an individual.
You don't know anything about the history of Christendom it seems. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism retained their Apostolic roots through succession. The Orthodox do not deny this and neither do the Catholics. BOTH have a simultaneous birth in history because BOTH were one and the same. The Orthodox disagreed about the authority of the Pope to change ecumenical decisions without the consensus of the balance of the Church and so the schism occurred.
If God has His own ways which was delivered to the saints through Jesus, who are supposed to preserve those ways as traditions (the traditions of the Apostles), then contradicting those traditions sets you outside the bounds of those traditions separating you from them. If there is one God and one tradition, then there is one way to adhere to it. This is why there is a separation.
I never said God has to have a consensus. Please take the time to read my statements. I said that God's decision is held by the "consensus of the saints." If there is a saint which deviates from the consensus of the saints, that saint is wrong and subject to correction but until correct is separate from the consensus. The consensus does not change, the saint does.
HAHA that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. If God told us the truth, then anyone who does not accept that truth is not part of that community which holds to that truth. If I turned it around and said that the sun revolves around the earth despite the evidential truth to the contrary, is my position scientifically valid, or am I contrary to the scientific community?
I love it. Orange rationality (as manifested in the dogmas of game theory and rational choice models) leaves out the important blue aspects of just to trust our own goodness.
Dennett, Dawkins, Wilson et al. are leaving out the experience of the golden rule in their studies and are doing harm when going up against the beneficial traits of faith.
What a load of crap. Maybe you should try reading Dawkins and Dennett before making incorrect assertions. Dawkins, Dennett and Harris all talk about the golden rule in their books and its origins and the Darwinian origins of human morality.
Sorry I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say there. There are darwinian explanations for the origins of human morality as hilighted by Dawkins in The God Delusion.
Sam Harris goes on to explain, that the golden rule predates christianity in Letter to a Christian Nation.
Dawkins frequently sites the golden rule in interviews when people ask where we get our morality from. The golden rule exists in every culture and civilisations couldn't exist without it.
I think the very thing that most people and Karen fail to realize is that has made great strides in the area of morality. We treat each other with respect and kindness. But if you want me to respect and treat you as an equal when you think the idea of God is better than everything else, guess what, you're in for being laughed at. If I were wearing the proverbial spinach in my teeth I would hope someone would tell me.
It's not just sophistry. The point you're missing is that love is hard work. You can't just say it and make it so. You need to take it seriously (hence rituals), but also be gentle about it... and that itself is hard work. You have to constantly check yourself, whether you are religious or not... and from time to time you're going to fail at love. That's what religion is about.
As she said, quoting Hillel, "all the rest is commentary."
cathode - i'm not missing armstrong's point. i'm suggesting that it's deeply flawed & ultimately unworkable. reducing all the world's religious texts to 'the golden rule' is verifiably untrue & suggesting 'god' is the sum total of humanity's quest for the 'ineffable' is just shifting the goal posts.
one doesn't have to rely on the supernatural & ritual to be of good & caring character. one doesn't need simple catchphrases to be what comes naturally to most humans.
@hockeybum90n5..some name !...Einstein also talked about people being "a prisoner of their own ideas"..this is how i view zealots wether it is in religion, politics, or even football...good Science breaks out of the prison using Socratic questioning.. "do you believe in God?"..answer.."what do you mean by God ?"..or perhaps more interestingly ..what did you feel when you experienced God ? .
couthyband 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 weeks ago
Great rule. I will try to practise it
crudhousefull 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
why so many dislikes this is a good speech
011giant 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Empathy is innate in us. Excluding sociopaths of course.
joshlazarus 2 months ago
The Modern Ecumenical Church supports Karen's focus on compassion.
The church invites people to consider that agnostics can have a beneficial spirituality NOT based on myths or superstition which can foster a compassionate life.
for more information, we invite people to visit the our website
ModernEcumenicalChur 6 months ago
"That which is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah and everything else is only commentary" Rabbi Hillel
Directly from the Torah: "If your own brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods…do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him." (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
CleverAssessment 10 months ago
@CleverAssessment Let's highlight the words 'entices you secretly to serve other gods'. Really shows why idiot Americans and other Christians are aimed at by the Muslims. Basically mind your own goddamn business! US/NATO/UN...GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST
crudhousefull 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
"Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, ... ... if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
Storms of My Grandchildren
fuck compassion.
We need war to end fossil fuel use.
jffryh 10 months ago
O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.Quran (49 -13 )
temtem3000 11 months ago
absolutely right this is Zarathustra teaching only positive energy, bad energy even in thinking about it bead, thats it
jissa683 1 year ago
dross... ¿a dónde coño quieres llegar? ¿qué quieres hacer en tu vida? "Si tengo la oportunidad los mato, asi de simple" ¿¡¿¡Acaso quieres a alguien en tu vida!?!? "Yo le pego a mi madre...¿y QUÉE?" "10 Formas EFECTIVAS PARA JODER A UN PROFESOR HIJO DE PUTA" Yo entiendo, pero, si esto es un chiste, lo único que tengo para decirte es que eres un bufón. Así es, leíste bien, y otra cosa, hay gente que lastimás con tus insultos.
kaeloriussama 1 year ago
Here I will respond to people wondering why anyone would dislike this. Two reasons, its just common sense. Of course we should be compassionate. Now you have an organization where people will eventually need staff, salaries and a nice office. They will have to go to conferences, fly around the world and eat at nice restaurants.
People are cold, hungry and homeless in your own cities. Be compassionate, help someone out yourself.
No more layers of crap like this needed.
leftofleft11 1 year ago
It may be a tad naive, but would beenn15 please explain his argument? The argument that religions cannot thrive without conflict and cannot coexist 'peacefully' (peacefully in the normal context, not necessarily without theological debate) is likely nothing more than a canard.
Surely you wouldn't claim that working towards a world in which we (agree to disagree/ remain firm in our views while being courteous and kind) is an unworthy cause?
JustOneMoreChild 1 year ago
It sounds like Secular Humanism..Don't know to much about this woman..sounds like a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing..
rollinglibs101 1 year ago
@rollinglibs101
Sounds like you are the wolf like many religious people are, because unconsiouniess and heartless fundamentalism.
busigaberit 7 months ago
Why are there so many thumbs down? She talking about compassion. Can someone help me understand why there over half thumbs down?
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
I love Ms. Karen Armstrong. Her books are amazing, and her seminars are just great!! .. God bless her, and may she continue to spread love and light wherever she goes!! .. I'm all for a postive change and will do everything in my power to help spread God's message on earth: Love, mutual respect and peace.
su237 1 year ago
I love this woman! I believe the message she speaks is essential to humanity's ability to survive and thrive. And she admits it's not easy. Gotta love honesty!
098anne 1 year ago
Why so many thumbs down? Join the largest movement for social change with over 500k supporters around the world, The Zeitgeist Movement! We can solve all the problems we face from world hunger to poverty to crime and violence. It is all possible and we can show you how! Watch Zeitgeist Addendum online for free!
koberask 1 year ago
The problem isn't religious people or atheist people, the problem is just people. She seems to be making the assumption that people base their behavior on their religious beliefs when in fact the opposite is true, most people base their religious beliefs on their behavior.
I agree there are many people distorting the teachings of the Bible to promote hate, but there are also many people teaching the truth. People simply choose to ignore the people teaching the truth. The problem is people.
ThatsTooFunnyIMO 1 year ago
I am an atheist, I defy religion regularly, and I LOVE this talk. She is good at pointing out what IS good about all the nonsense, and I think it is beautiful.
Yep, I know it is crazy. :) Don't care!
AtheistdotEDU 1 year ago
We have never followed the golden rule more, than now.
Sure it'd be good to follow it more, if not to the extreme absolute that the speaker proposes: "Always" "refuse, under any circumstance whatsoever"...pure idiocy.
Also: Religion completely goes against the golden rule (yes they mention it, but then what religion isn't hypocritical?)
Religion is antithetical to compassion.
Religion is antithetical to equality.
Religions create and magnify differences.
A well meaning, if ignorant, speech.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
Scientism? Are you fucking kidding me? Any who thinks there is such a thing obviously has no sense of waht real 'Science' is actually about.
MilesB1975 1 year ago
Honestly I'm an atheist and other atheists aren't fucking listening...lol This has nothing to do with religion what she wants is a world where people are kind to each other no matter how much they hate each other okay? this is a good thing not a bad geez your just as bad as a modern christian if you're prejudging it...
VulgarityDivine 1 year ago 13
@VulgarityDivine "a world where people are kind to each other no matter how much they hate each other okay?"
Would it not be better to get rid of the hate as well?
Religion divides. Religion creates differences, magnify them and breeds hatred towards them.
Yes, she's well meaning. Yes the golden rule is good (though the extreme absolute compliance to it, that she advocates is lunacy), and should be followed more.
...but if you think that the speech isn't crap, just because of that...
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
@ZarlanTheGreen I'm looking for a possible world not irrational a world without hate is a world of indoctrination with no politics no religion no free will to think about the possibility of something we do is wrong hate exists as it always will religion and politics breed hate and fascism I'm saying she has good intentions but is grossly mislead
VulgarityDivine 1 year ago
@VulgarityDivine "a world without hate is a world of indoctrination with no politics no religion no free will"
True, but I didn't mean that we should get rid of hate, completely (I may have been a little unclear ...though not as unclear as you, what with your complete lack of punctuation. I'm bad at it, but at least I try)
"I'm saying she has good intentions but is grossly mislead"
No.
You basicly said disagreeing with her good speech is not listening and prejudging.
That's irrational.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
@ZarlanTheGreen issues? you can read it... I basically said I understand her point but she goes about it wrong
VulgarityDivine 1 year ago
@VulgarityDivine
No. You said, and I quote:
"Honestly I'm an atheist and other atheists aren't fucking listening...lol This has nothing to do with religion what she wants is a world where people are kind to each other no matter how much they hate each other okay? this is a good thing not a bad geez your just as bad as a modern christian if you're prejudging it..."
1. It has very much to do with religion, despite the fact that the golden rule has nothing to do with religion.
2. Prejudging? No.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
@VulgarityDivine I think it's naive to think religious leaders and believers will agree to follow a charter that they believe is written by men. Different religions exist mostly because there have been disagreements among them. If they were to agree to live peacefully, there wouldn't need to be different religions, one would be enough. Religions cannot thrive without conflict. It's all about who's right, who's going to hell, who's immoral...
beenn15 1 year ago
the best way of living your life is living it based on facts. period. the same fact that you exist does not make it a fact that god exists. you are a fact; god is not, it's a speculation but nothing more. live your life based on facts and not idea's and speculations but rather proof it instead. (if you can't proof it then work towards proving it until you one day can) If that's not a reason to live life for i don't know what is.
gr4ndhustle 1 year ago
What a worthless, inversely cogent, and indeed dangerous -yes, dangerous- talk.
This mawkish, dimwitted, preternaturally ridiculous woman is, ironically, a most disconcerting demonstration of just how trivial the golden rule can be made to seem, and (for me) how much contempt and resentment I can be made to feel for an undoubtedly kindhearted person.
polymath7 1 year ago
@polymath7 Really? Interesting, if it were not so tragic, how skewed your heart is and how it affects your critical thinking. This is dismaying.
rebouel 1 year ago
@polymath7 Well said.
...though I have gotten better at not being resentful towards kind-hearted ignorance.
What she says is misleading and evil (yes, evil), but it is only so, due to ignorance and it is well meaning.
That tempers my feelings towards such folk.
Their ideas however, I hate with a passion.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
The GR made to simplistic by some. made into what it isn't by others. I have read elsewhere that the GR is not a moral compass, but a path, a path where you U use UR moral compass to get to the answer
westkan 1 year ago
If men are rewarded for wearing their pants under their butts and effecting a thug attitude -- they will.
If men are rewarded for the number of slaves they have, they will.
If men are rewarded for reciting poetry and wearing bell bottoms, they will.
Men are like trained seals, and women throw the fish. Whatever men think will get them the most power prestige and pussty, well, that's what they will do.
It's human nature.
ItchMyFoot 1 year ago
Social rules are seuxal hoops we must -- rightly -- jump thru to get laid.
The fundamental truth of mankind is that men are like trained seals - and women throw the fish.
Societies and cultures are really shaped by what women reward. So if women reward "Do unto others" - men will adopt it.
ItchMyFoot 1 year ago
What hoops? All you need to do is run up from behind real fast and ram it hard in her asshole like I did to your mom last night before she sucked my cock
scottspeaksfuckinsux 1 year ago
Scott - your dad was sucking -- can't you tell the difference yet?
He is your parent with teeth.
ItchMyFoot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE? FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs japanjunkie ..
diablo728 2 years ago
@diablo728 i really can't imagine a reason for you posting that!? it's not even advertisement. you gain absolutely UTTERLY nothing by doing that... i can not wrap my head around people like you and they're fruitless spam. truly fruitless.
gr4ndhustle 1 year ago
whats she is saying all faiths advocate this one good idea (the golden rule) and therefore if we only look at that value then religion is great.
the prolem is that hitler said we should be "good to our neighors" and therefore if we only look at that aspect of nazism then nazism is a great way to build a peacefull and tolerant world. of course this one verse y hitler does not compel thinking people that nazi ideology is a tool of tolerance, and our faiths are as divisive as
nazism.
discronificator 2 years ago
I don't get it why TED hires people like Karen Armstrong and markets them as wise woman for money.
All Armstrong seems to be saying is: The new atheists are wrong! Dawinks, Dennett and Harris are wrong! Religion is somehow still really a good thing, worth aspiring to and merits our respect. Of course no one would still believe in a patriarchial, sky daddy kind of god, but hey, I studied theology and need to work on my day job and there are questions even Dennett cannot grasp. Give me a break.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
@hyperseauton Wasn't aware she bothered to say that. But I sure as hell will. Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris are wrong and religion has worth just as much as any other human endeavour.
Can't believe someone so ridiculously bias has studied theology. If you did, you wouldn't be saying such stupid shit as 'sky daddy kind of god'.
0Krusnik0 1 year ago
@0Krusnik0 So I need a degree in theology to criticize theology? It's like saying you cannot say leprechauns do not exist because you are not an expert in leprechauns. The only field you actually need to have studied and work on to get ahead is science because it is real and it does not make shit up to make us feel better and just saying something for science does not make it fucking so.
Religion is ancient nonsense and the emperor of religion has no clothes on.
hyperseauton 1 year ago
@hyperseauton Scientism is a dangerous notion. Have fun in life.
0Krusnik0 1 year ago
Science is what is and ever has been and ever will be.
Religion is what is not, never has been and never will be.
As humans we have a choice between Reality and Truth and what makes us feel good and what we wish to be.
I want to be ever happy and someone who loves me always as well, but I have to find it in humans. THIS is the grandest of ideas. Not to turn your back on what we ARE and love us the way we are, such is humanism and Carl Sagan love.
Love to you.
hyperseauton 1 year ago
@hyperseauton Great speech but that has nothing at all to do with the video it's about the golden rule not religion
VulgarityDivine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VulgarityDivine "it's about the golden rule not religion"
It isn't about religion?
Really?
How come she mentioned religion a whole lot more than the golden rule?
How come she talked like the golden rule has its roots in religion, for that matter?
She didn't say it, sure, but then why even bother to mention religion, when the golden rule has nothing to do with it?
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
Doing good deeds all day and every day will only help you "find Nirvana" if you do that from your heart. We need to look into our hearts and find Love FIRST... that's where good deeds will come from.. compassionate action only ever comes from Love. You wont find Love or compassion by "looking into your own heart and discover what it is that causes you pain". Where is the logic in being motivated from what we SHOULDNT do?! Even dog trainers know that doesnt work!
theBadaman 2 years ago
@theBadaman
To understand how others feel from your own actions (i.e. to know from an outside perspective if what you are doing is good or bad) you must place yourself in their position. This imaginative act helps others understand how to treat everyone in a way where finding love is much easier, not only to yourself but to everyone.
chon4186 2 years ago
Yes, placing yourself in anothers position is a great way of connecting to that compassionate place. I also think we need to spend time strengthening our heart by accepting the generosity of others as well. So much is said about how we "do" compassion for others, but I feel we actually lack an ability to do this because we fail to fully enter the space of gratitude that comes from receiving a good deed from another... ie accepting and noticing the grace of God.
GroupworkInstitute1 2 years ago
@GroupworkInstitute1
You're right, not enough people are gracious of good deeds done to them, but that is a lacking in their ability of placing themselves in the shoes of the person who is doing a good deed to them, if they were to do this they would understand that they should show more gratitude.
If you are saying on the other hand that all good deeds come from god and that people need to acknowledge the grade of god, I disagree completely.
chon4186 2 years ago
Well, we can only ever reject a concept of God (unless you believe in a God which you know through the 5 senses and therefore your brain). If you disagree with me about God, remember, thats your idea of God you are disagreeing with, not mine:). I accept what I call the Love of God that fills my heart because it is filled with meaning that is beyond those 5 senses. Who knows anything about that?
theBadaman 2 years ago
The punishment must fit the crime. If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him—fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. (Leviticus 24:19-20) This sort of thing is called cruel and unusual by most people today. Ill grant you, it is unusual—nothing in western jurisprudence today is this logical, this sensible, this fair.
materialclassified 2 years ago
We habitually substitute anemic and pointless punishments for infractions of law, typically incarceration or fines, that have neither any direct bearing on the problem, nor deterrent value, nor redress for the injured party. I submit to you, however, that direct and equivalent response is anything but cruel. It is merely the logical, practical application of the golden rule.
materialclassified 2 years ago
Pure science doesn't explain the entirety of the human experience; anybody who's felt deep emotion cannot put into a logical framework what exactly they've felt. That is what art attempts to accomplish.
Pure scientific reasoning is merely another dogmatic train of thought that fears change. Remember: "Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein
hockeybum90n5 2 years ago 7
Lack of understanding, or an inability to describe something, does not put something outside of the sphere of reason. Lightning was once in this domain. You are talking about gaps. No gap has ever been filled with something supernatural, so it is extremely unlikely (vanishingly so) that something supernatural will ever be the reason for anything. Saying science is a theology, demonstrates that you dont know what theology means, or you dont know what science is. Which is it?
markthnark 2 years ago
science is still on the way of piecing out all reason behind our emotion infact they making a computer composing of many computer tosimulate how our brain works lol... better put your self into reasonable side rather than give blind faith towards religion or any dogmatic ideology
earthangelrojanie 2 years ago
@hockeybum90n5 lol. bullshit, neuroscience can explain that emotion perfectly.
JohnF30Music 2 months ago
you've hit it kat!
... 'religion' has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!
boysandbombs 2 years ago 2
If there is a god I'm sure that deity would hate religion for many reasons! But this woman is talking about compassion... harmony... morality...
Just because she mentioned that one would think religion would be facilitating this philosophy and instead seem to be part of the problem does not mean she is talking about religion.
For the sake of humanity we do need this kind of attitude in our world... religion has nothing to do with it.
KatMyrrh 2 years ago 2
Yes it does. Listen to the part when she talks about the earth needing this now or we wont have an earth to pass onto the next generation. There is absolutely no reason for this apocalyptic talk, except to invoke fear? Fear of the end of days, or death is the basis for all religion. "The end is nigh" unless mankind makes friends? Come on, is that any more true now than at anytime in the past 10000 years? The actual problem the human race faces is over-population, not war.
markthnark 2 years ago
what IS the golden rule?
"religion in another form?" ????!!!!
'treat others as you would want to be treated.'
simple ... right?
the easiest thing in the fucking world if you ask me!!
where is the wrong in that?
'religious doctrine'?
you people are blind ... she's talking transcending 'doctrine' ... and living the way that we were meant to live .... as equals
in harmony!!
blindness will only get you so far ....
boysandbombs 2 years ago
Why is it so important now that we take up the golden rule, or we wont have a society to pass onto the next generation? She is no more coherent than a fool on a soapbox saying the "end is nigh". She is preaching religion in another form.
markthnark 2 years ago
Na, she's preaching wisdom. Don't be so dogmatic about your way of thinking; pure science is itself just another theology.
Keep that in mind.
hockeybum90n5 2 years ago
If you remember nothing else that I say. It is very possible and even likely that human morality came to be without the existence of God. Morality is part of what allowed our species to flourish. Atheists have morals, other religions have morals, and even Godless religions have morals. Morals are not the property of any church, they are part of who we are and how we got here.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 2
If you lived in 12th century Germania, you would have believed that mugging old ladies is immoral not because of an external empathy for the pain you would put the woman in, but out of an internal safeguarding of your warrior status and warrior ethic. Morals ARE the property of the Church (and the divine laws inherrent within that faith system) since societal perception for what is moral and why it is moral is entirely influenced by it.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
If you were a Roman atheist, I doubt you wouldn't find it morally objectionable to have gaul POW's being torn apart by lions in the arena for public entertainment.
Divine decrees of morality have and do shape modern moral perception. What you believe and why you believe it has been shaped by 2000 years worth of Christians and Jews before you.
Ironically, many atheists today voice moral objections to Christians, absent-minded of the fact that Christianity made the offence objectionable
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
The only objections that atheists have to Christians is the Dogma associated with religion. When laws are immutable and absolute morality is no longer at the essence of those laws. People will circumvent them for their own manipulative ends. That is why the Bible constantly needs reinterpretation. The morality we see today is partially thanks to Christianity but also very much in spite of it. We are ignoring more of the Bible as time goes on. Not since we are immoral, but since we see past it.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
If you live in Chistian America pre 1885 you could have thought slavery is okay, like it says in the Bible. Humanity has existed long before the church and there is evidence of humans caring for infirm humans in prehistoric times. Your argument for morality being the property of the church is wrong. And also is your morality reflected in a public code? Why would you think that was true for 12th century Germania, are you a Necromantic mind reader.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Not only that, why wasn't the world in the 12th century or even now completely under the banner of Christianity. You consistently neglect that if there were a God it would have created 12th century Germanians. So, in essence, you are saying God fucked up.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
God did not create 12c Germanians by any standard. Explain to me how a Christian could possibly come to this realization.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Quote"If you lived in 12th century Germania, you would have believed that mugging old ladies is immoral not because of an external empathy for the pain you would put the woman in, but out of an internal safeguarding of your warrior status and warrior ethic." You admit that they knew what was immoral. No Bible required. Societies morals are not written by religion, I am an Atheist with morals that affect society. There were many moral people long before the Bible was thought of.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
But I'm still not certain how you can generalize and speak for an entire society. America for instance is primarily Christian (I beleive from what I read) but that gives me no understanding of the morality of the individual, Christian or Not. There are moral atheists and immoral Christians. And from the research I've seen, It appears that secular humanists are the most moral based on the function od their society. The United States blew the world away with secularism, now they're falling back.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Those studies are skewed, since all the did was tabulate religiosity with GDP and crime rates for each country.
Africa went from being 2% Christian to 90% Christian within the last 100 years, but poverty and 3rd world conditions existed when African mysticism dominated the continent. The study takes no account of the fact that poverty existed before theism, and yet people use this study to suggest that theism promotes crime and poverty. The methodology used for such a conclusion is invalid.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Africa is a great example. Science has alleviated hunger, while Christianity has done a fabulous job of claiming the credit. Perhaps the reason the Christian Children Fund changed it's name was to appeal to the larger base of those who donate and are tired of the effects of Christianity in Africa. Like the continued proliferation of AIDS and teen pregancy with the infallible words of the Pope saying condoms are bad. It's causing and continues to cause gret harm.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
This is why using sample groups within the same geopolitical and economic history is better for eliminating problems like these, and when you eliminate these biases the data supports the opposite conclusion.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Repeated studies show higher levels of education, particularly in the sciences, correlate directly with atheism. Education levels also correlate with lower teen pregnancy and other factors. Right or wrong, atheism is skyrocketing, particulaly in the United States, with religious dogma being at the center of it. People are turning away from moderate religion, not just extreme religion, because of the association.
watch?v=QCNftnJZX1Y
stevenweir76 2 years ago
So I guess my main point now is that we understand a lot more how to create harmony and it appears to be that providing basic necessities and giving oppurtunities for personal growth is a far better method than preaching doctrine. When you grow up seeing nothing but people helping people, what option is there? Hope is a far better tool than religious doctrine, and when you're provided for, which science helps provide, it's hard to fight against anything.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
The only other countries which would go to war in times of wealth, are those of extreme ideology. But I doubt even Nazi Germany would ever have gone to war or had those conditions if it weren't for poverty. If you could galvanize a country to work towards the goals of science, it would be taking care of itself in no time, whereas religion has never had such results. Even Godless religions cause extremism, truth is always the path, and religious dogma skews that path.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
No, if you're in the American south you believed that the bible says that slavery is okay. If you lived in the north, you think it says the opposite.
gambleor 2 years ago
The Bible condones slavery - However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
stevenweir76 2 years ago
A relic from an older time. Slavery was a universal phenomenon.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Slavery was a universal phenomenon. So, now our morality exceeds the Bible??
stevenweir76 2 years ago
In many ways, our moral sense and our moral philosophies have exceeded the quality found in the bible, so yes, one could say that in some respects our morality exceeds the Bible.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
I'm saying that while you may have basal human moral instincts that exist in all human beings throughout the world, the finer details of everything is developed by the culture or religion. An atheist in India has different opinions on moral subjects than an atheist from America, and the reason why is because some of your moral perception has been placed upon you by the teachings and norms of your society.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Absolutely. Thumbs Up. But the statement you made shows that religion is not required for morality.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
No, religion is not required for the existence of morality. A moral intuition existed before any holy book was penned. However, moral intuition is also shaped by the exploration of moral philosophy, and the answers gained through such exploration have been passed through our society akin to how an ever increasing knowledge of our physical universe has been passed from generation to generation. All I'm saying is that religion played a HUGE part in that development.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
I disagree in saying the church is good for morality. I can't over generalize, but it has been scientific progress which appears to shake faith, mainly because it isn't just the physical or biological sciences that have progressed, but also the social ones. The results of those studies can also be contradictory the th laws of the Bible for allowing humanity to progress. I will agree that the Bible did lay a framework for comparison throughout history, but it didn't always go well.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
To really drive this point home. We see nowhere in nature when omnipotence, omni-benevolence and omniscience comes from nothing, I doubt whether it's possible for it to exist, yet the religious claim it was just there. Why is it so hard to understand that matter from the vaccuum, then the coalescence of matter, then the formation of star systems, then a planet(s) with conditions suitable for Abiogenesis, then evolution. It's like tic tac toe. There is evidence to varying degrees for all of this.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
We don't know what was going on before the first planck second of this universe. However, if you're going to suggest that cosmogenesis involves the ex nihilo appearance of the big bang singularity, why would argue that ex nihilo creation of intelligence is absurd? If you believe in an ex nihilo universe, then why do you invoke absurdity on ex nihilo intelligence?
If on the other hand you argue that the universe did not appear ex nihilo, what brought the universe into existence?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
I don't know exactly what brought the universe into existence, but I am guessing that intense vaccuum brought it into existence, but according to occam's razor anything is more likely than God. For if there were a God, it would need a means to acquire intelligence and omnipotence ex nilhilo. Not even remotely probable. So if you find the universe difficult to find a start. Imagine a being able to create all that, coming from nothing. Again show me what created God, then what created that.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
May I invoke the design of the universe, or do you simply adhere to the multiverse hypothesis?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Seven traits characterize a learned person. A learned one doesnt begin speaking before one who is greater than he in wisdom or in years; he doesnt interrupt the words of his fellow; he doesnt answer impetuously; he questions with relevance to the subject and replies accurately; he says first things first and last things last; about something he hasnt heard he says, 'i havent heard'; and he acknowledges the truth. the reverse characterize an unlearned person.
all quotes from Pirkei Avos. goodbye
hungrykiller666 2 years ago
Shimon says: all my days i have been raised amongst the Sages and i found nothing better for ones self than silence; not study, but practice is the main thing; and one who talks excessively brings on sin.
Yehoshua says: accept a teacher upon yourself; acquire a friend for yourself; and judge everyone favorably.
Hillel says: be among the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people, and bringing them closer to the Torah.
hungrykiller666 2 years ago
Elazar HaKappar says: against your will your were created, against your will you were born, against your will you live, and against your will you die.
Yehoshua says: an evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred of other people remove a person from the world.
Hillel says: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if i am for myself, what am i? And if not now, when?
Shammai says: Make your Torah study a fixed practice, say little and do much, and receive everyone with a cheerful face.
hungrykiller666 2 years ago
Test your faith, either you are not faithful or this isn't true. Go ahead, pray for anything.
And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)
stevenweir76 2 years ago
wow ... this talked made me cry...
BusinessButterfly 2 years ago
Am I the only one wondering what she is actually proposing? Pretty much the only remotely substantive things she says are, "be nice" and that religions should play some part in making people be nice.
Aletheophile 2 years ago
Is that Imogen Heap in the audience at 7:26?
questioninghearts 2 years ago
Altruism only works if everyone is altruistic though.
zangetsujoo 2 years ago
As a future educator I'm going to take this on board. Though I don't see it coming up in a science lesson, perhaps there'll be space in a morning tutorial.
mooxim 2 years ago
Wishful thinking... but truly good talk.
VooDooMadMan 2 years ago
The golden rule ignores the fact that people have different preferences. Good talk though.
theendofconfusion 2 years ago 2
If we want to show real compassion, we have to get over religion. When people still believe thinking about someone (praying) will help them, there's no incentive to get off your ass. When people still believe compassion is only good because a God said so, there is no compassion.
andid 2 years ago 2
on some level i agree, yet i hope that at least SOME people who DO have faith in certain religions pray in the hopes of gaining some power, or positive influence and motivation that will help them to become a compassionate person. As oppose to just thinking if i do THIS (like praying) then the following will definitely occur. religion is just a means to cope with daily life, if it works for them... and it doesn't bring harm to others, i don't see the fault in that.
Crazee108 2 years ago 2
The golden rule in religion: SUBMIT OR BURN..
There is no compassion
DoctorE0 2 years ago 5
To quote Bill Hicks "Believe or die! Thank you for giving lord, for all those options"
grnlfe01 2 years ago 2
"Submit or burn" is a human distortion of the golden rule. There are influences from human beings who distort the many "golden teachings" for whatever reasons (such as power and control). The key point she is emphasizing is that people need to be able to recognize these influences/distortions and not to get distracted by them. some who propagate certain distortions (
vandance22 2 years ago
Comment removed
mk555712 2 years ago
the question is, why is she out of the kitchen.
mk555712 2 years ago
Religion vs. Science is not an argument worth having. To study the word of God and to study the work of God serve the same purpose, to become closer to god, and ultimately to become godly.
I'm more fearful of Theologists and Atheists fighting than anything else.
SheepStone 2 years ago
I concur with the majority of the below comments
Plecter 2 years ago
"The words of the lord" PLEASE! They were Written by racist,white, homophobic,lying, hypocritical men
olderbluesfan 2 years ago 5
yep, the bible isn't an exception when it comes to "the winners write history".
Crazee108 2 years ago
actually, if I think could of a counter example to that rule. That is, a history written by the perpetually losing side. It would be the bible
underpantsjihad 2 years ago
Only sheep need a shepherd
caseygtr 2 years ago 4
the golden rule is already inherent in every individual; religion is what makes people act otherwise
T3rraBahamut 2 years ago 3
She sounds more like a Buddhist preaching the Nobel Eightfold Path than a Christian preaching the divinity of Jesus...
As such, she isn't representing all religions or any religions, rather she argues for the primacy of goodness. That is something that can had without belief in the unreasonable.
danielt63 2 years ago 2
The first half of the speech was very good. The golden rule is, indeed, very important. Religious or not, everyone should try following it!
RenataVentura 2 years ago
She always whitewashes religion! In every major religion: the golden rule only applies to people within your own religion! You are to kill, convert or enslave all others! What a crappy "source of all morally". I can't stand this lady, she is always flying cover for religion. "we need to revived that spirit" Really? The only way is to tear up all the religious texts.
ndyt 2 years ago
"She always whitewashes religion! In every major religion: the golden rule only applies to people within your own religion! You are to kill, convert or enslave all others!"
That's a load of shit and you know it.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
UNFFwildcard, Load of shit huh? Refute this:
Luke 19:27
Jesus said:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Doesnt sound like the golden rule too me. Nore does it sound like he is turning the other cheek. The Old Testement is FILLED with god commanding the death of any group that faces the jews. Dont get me started on Islam.
ndyt 2 years ago
How refreshing. Normally you guys quote Leviticus. It's nice to see a change once in a while.
The fact though that you quote that within the context of the previously known teaching of 'turning the other cheek' implies that there was far more to Jesus' teachings then what you present.
As for the Jews, its kill or be killed. They lived between two or more major civilizations, and were constantly attacked, pillaged, and enslaved by others.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
UNFFwildcard, the Jews were attacked because they were INVADERS. Remember? They came out of Egypt. The Jews were taking peoples land the same way they are taking Palestinian lands today.
ndyt 2 years ago
A normadic people who were formerly slaves do not possess the economic, political, or militaristic capacity to wage any sort of invasion against anyone, expecially when there are sandwiched between some of the world's largest civilizations in the middle of a trading zone in the cradle of civilization. The fact that the Jews didn't even have a place to call there own until the establishment of Israel nearly 2000 years later is testament to their incapacity to do what you just suggested they did.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
UNFFwildcard, according to the fairytale bible, the jews had a magical box call The Ark of the Covenant that made them invincible and it would fly around and zap people too.
ndyt 2 years ago
So you should be able to understand then, that if the Jews had to perport that the Ark could protect them, its probably because they didn't have any standing armies to perform that protective role.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
UNFFwildcard, there you go, bearing false witness. You know that they used it OFFENSIVELY. They carried it at the FRONT of their army.
ndyt 2 years ago
Comment removed
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Even if the Jews did undertake offensive action, it would very likely be small scale, and most probably pre-empively. This argument still doesn't help you: If a people had to attribute supernatural qualities to an Ark in that it will help them in battle, its probably because they didn't have any professional armies to do that for them.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Not offensively. It is a moral builder to believe that one is especially protected by a being who cannot be defeated.
gambleor 2 years ago
morale*
gambleor 2 years ago
gambleor, Not offensively? Then wouldn't you put it at the back of the army as you run away?
Moral builder? How?
ndyt 2 years ago
I meant morale, sorry. It plays up the confidence of the people going into battle.
I would say that it's appearance at the front lines is a defensive strategic move. It is obviously an item of immense meaning to them so the primary goal of the enemy would be to destroy it and thus shaking the morale of the enemy. With pointed attacks like that, it would be easier to catch enemies off guard.
gambleor 2 years ago
That's from a parable and it's not a command from Jesus to His Apostles. You need to pick another verse. This parable was actually about how one should treat others as they want to be treated themselves. This quote is way out of context the way you used it.
gambleor 2 years ago
gambleor, you talked right into it. I use that as an example of how easy it is to twist the bible to mean anything. The inquisition used this to justify killing people in the streets. Hitler used it too. The bible is a useless book because it is too easily manipulated and there is no single authority on its interpretation.
ndyt 2 years ago
"I use that as an example of how easy it is to twist the bible to mean anything."
But you missed something very important here. The fact that you have to identify that the bible was 'twisted' to justify something implies that there is an 'untwisted' form which is regarded as the norm. You've basically admitted that there exists a normative way of thinking that lends itself to mercy and compassion while using the spare Bible quote in an attempt to demonstrate otherwise.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
"The bible is a useless book because it is too easily manipulated and there is no single authority on its interpretation. " You're wrong. There's a difference between there being no authority and there being an authority which is rejected.
"Hitler used it too." Hitler also used Darwinian ideas to create the belief that the most successful gene pool was the Aryan gene pool and was therefore superior, then he coupled that by telling Germany that all other races were hindering progress....
gambleor 2 years ago
gambleor, the Pope was on Hitler's side and he still got it wrong.
ndyt 2 years ago
I'm not Catholic and I didn't say that the Pope was any such authority. I'm Greek Orthodox and we don't believe that the consensus of the saints is the authority, not any single bishop. You're equivocating authority with power and they're not the same thing.
gambleor 2 years ago
gambleor, Because all religions are dangerous.
watch?v=UnC7Nwqw5Dg
watch?v=iQG2FITHvdg
watch?v=f15PNrk94kg
ndyt 2 years ago
Non sequitor response. This does not demonstrate that all religions are dangerous. All the first video shows for example is that scientology is a money grubbing cult recognized by atheist and theist alike, and the 3rd video shows that having a superstition about opening umbrellas indoors may be debilitating to your personal life - not that it is dangerous.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
That depends on the religion. If the religion, when sincerely believed is one that advocates violence and hate, then yes, it is dangerous. When, on the other hand, you have a religion that actually tries to teach you something about your relationship to the world and your relationship to one another, but you use it to advocate violence and hate, then it's not the religion which is dangerous, it's the twisting of that religion that is the danger.
gambleor 2 years ago
by your own argument, since Hitler used "survival of the fittest" as propaganda as well as a mix of occultism and Christianity, then we can say that Darwin's ideas about survival of the fittest should be done away with because they are dangerous. Of course, you'll disagree (or at least I hope you will). Rather we should encourage proper understanding of survival of the fittest and not it's application after it's being twisted and deformed into something foreign to what it's intended to be.
gambleor 2 years ago
my mistake - we DO believe that the consensus of the saints is the authority, not any single bishop.
gambleor 2 years ago
Your protestant religion is a splinter off the the first Christian religion. Religions keep splintering and fracturing because they all contain lies and some people can't tolerate the lies, but they can't stand the thought od dying either. Human fraility and denial is holding our entire species back, just like it does in an individual.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
You don't know anything about the history of Christendom it seems. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism retained their Apostolic roots through succession. The Orthodox do not deny this and neither do the Catholics. BOTH have a simultaneous birth in history because BOTH were one and the same. The Orthodox disagreed about the authority of the Pope to change ecumenical decisions without the consensus of the balance of the Church and so the schism occurred.
gambleor 2 years ago
Why separate at all if there is only one God?
stevenweir76 2 years ago
If God has His own ways which was delivered to the saints through Jesus, who are supposed to preserve those ways as traditions (the traditions of the Apostles), then contradicting those traditions sets you outside the bounds of those traditions separating you from them. If there is one God and one tradition, then there is one way to adhere to it. This is why there is a separation.
gambleor 2 years ago
So omnipotent God still hasn't formed a consensus. Maybe he should get directly involved instead of doing everything half-assed.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
I never said God has to have a consensus. Please take the time to read my statements. I said that God's decision is held by the "consensus of the saints." If there is a saint which deviates from the consensus of the saints, that saint is wrong and subject to correction but until correct is separate from the consensus. The consensus does not change, the saint does.
gambleor 2 years ago
Re: I never said God..... Resitance is futile, you will be assimilated. Free thought not permitted.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
HAHA that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. If God told us the truth, then anyone who does not accept that truth is not part of that community which holds to that truth. If I turned it around and said that the sun revolves around the earth despite the evidential truth to the contrary, is my position scientifically valid, or am I contrary to the scientific community?
gambleor 2 years ago
Tell that to all the Vatholic priests who were executed in WW2. The elimination of the Jews was phase 1 of a two part plan.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
...because they were inferior and therefore too weak for survival without the help of the strong. A simple twisting of survival of the fittest.
gambleor 2 years ago
Carl Sagan did a better job of all of this in "Billions and Billions". Karen Armstrong should read that book and take notes.
milkboneunderwear 2 years ago
She's not talking about religion, but about Compation.
Religious people happen to be the most uncompassionate because they are "simply right".
SpirouZorglub 2 years ago
I love it. Orange rationality (as manifested in the dogmas of game theory and rational choice models) leaves out the important blue aspects of just to trust our own goodness.
Dennett, Dawkins, Wilson et al. are leaving out the experience of the golden rule in their studies and are doing harm when going up against the beneficial traits of faith.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
What a load of crap. Maybe you should try reading Dawkins and Dennett before making incorrect assertions. Dawkins, Dennett and Harris all talk about the golden rule in their books and its origins and the Darwinian origins of human morality.
BipedalHumanoid 2 years ago
Yes, yes. I was talking "experience" 1st person of the golden rule, which is as a complement of reality, as the 3rd person perspective is.
Natural evolution is part of the grander holon of expanding consciousness and we are grateful to Darwin to throw the evolution meme in the idea pool.
To explain all based on natural selection fails, this goes without saying.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
Sorry I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say there. There are darwinian explanations for the origins of human morality as hilighted by Dawkins in The God Delusion.
Sam Harris goes on to explain, that the golden rule predates christianity in Letter to a Christian Nation.
Dawkins frequently sites the golden rule in interviews when people ask where we get our morality from. The golden rule exists in every culture and civilisations couldn't exist without it.
BipedalHumanoid 2 years ago
I think the very thing that most people and Karen fail to realize is that has made great strides in the area of morality. We treat each other with respect and kindness. But if you want me to respect and treat you as an equal when you think the idea of God is better than everything else, guess what, you're in for being laughed at. If I were wearing the proverbial spinach in my teeth I would hope someone would tell me.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
*Sigh*
Are people still taking religion seriously?
Its embarrassing for the intelligent members of our species.
YouKnowWhereThisEnds 2 years ago
sure they are.
couldn't find a burning bush, so they voted for a talking one...
liquidminds 2 years ago
It's not just sophistry. The point you're missing is that love is hard work. You can't just say it and make it so. You need to take it seriously (hence rituals), but also be gentle about it... and that itself is hard work. You have to constantly check yourself, whether you are religious or not... and from time to time you're going to fail at love. That's what religion is about.
As she said, quoting Hillel, "all the rest is commentary."
CathodeRay00 2 years ago
cathode - i'm not missing armstrong's point. i'm suggesting that it's deeply flawed & ultimately unworkable. reducing all the world's religious texts to 'the golden rule' is verifiably untrue & suggesting 'god' is the sum total of humanity's quest for the 'ineffable' is just shifting the goal posts.
one doesn't have to rely on the supernatural & ritual to be of good & caring character. one doesn't need simple catchphrases to be what comes naturally to most humans.
notspeedy0314 2 years ago
Negativity has no value. Fuck off with this close-minded, logocentric bullshit.
CathodeRay00 2 years ago