![[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index](http://www.activistchat.com/images/ActivistChatStandsLogo.jpg) |
[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
AmirN
![](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/darius_s.JPG)
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 297
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your point is well taken, Oppenheimer.
Quote: | Obviously Hitler twisted a great many things, philosophy was only one aspect of this. He twisted the law, he tristed the truth, he twisted treaties, and he twisted people's minds via a "new deal" in Gemany, using the same scapegoat methods Antar is using today. |
I couldn't agree with you more regarding this statement. _________________ I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess I should then add that Antar has gone a step beyond Hitler and has twisted religion as well. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AmirN
![](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/darius_s.JPG)
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 297
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
See now, that further step you took caused me to disagree. I don't think Monkey Nejad has twisted his religion, Islam. On the contrary, I think he is following it to the letter of Islam's intent.
But I think that I'm getting deja-vu, because it seems that we already had a protracted argument of how we each view Islam, and apparently have yet to change the other's mind ![Smile](images/smiles/icon_smile.gif) _________________ I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
.....chuckle.....Ok, we don't have to have that conversation again, but maybe you could clear up a question I have about Khomeni, and the "twelvers". Seems Khomeni banned the sect (and I'm having a bit of a brain-fart trying to remember the exact name of the group that Antar and his buddies subscribe to that was banned) shortly after the 79 revolution.
Seems there's a lot of different interpretations (ba'hai being one) of what you describe as "the letter of Islam" , and it would help me better understand the dynamics involved in the ongoing debate within the ranks of mullahs to know what the circumstances of Khomeni's decision was.
I would say in defense of my position on the matter in general, that if you were to read some of the quoted Jordanian reaction to this recent bombing, that this terrorism described by those as "jihad" is totally in violation of the precepts of Islam, and these recent quotes by both regular folk, as well as Immans and the government of Jordan would stand in total concurrence with my viewpoint.
Personally, I think one of the primary ways this regime can be cut off at the knees is if the world's Muslim population as "the Umma" delared jihad against terrorists and those regimes that support, foster, recruit, and encorage via idological means, a precept which is deemed by the majority of the world's Muslim population to be an "apostate" interpretation of Islam.
Regardless if , like Hitler, some have twisted words in a book to suit their political ends, as justification for the means to achieve them. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
here's something a little strange, though it proves my theory that there is no disagreement on the IRI's current political track....what's odd is the note that the repugnant one and Khamenei were side by side at prayer....does this then signal who the next grand ayattollah will be?
Iran denies high-level rift - analyst Sat. 12 Nov 2005
Iran Focus
London, Nov. 12 – Photos of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and defeated presidential contender and former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani standing side by side and shaking hands are causing a stir among Iran analysts who suspect it was a deliberate gesture of national unity among senior figures of the religious theocracy.
The photos were released by the office of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and published by the Mehr news agency, owned by the same office. They show election rivals Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani walking alongside the Supreme Leader as they head for the Eid al-Fitr prayers marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. One photo shows the pair smiling as they shake hands.
Ahmadinejad’s loyalty lies strictly with Khamenei, who is widely believed to have been behind the hard-line President’s election victory over Rafsanjani.
Though released this Friday, the photos were originally taken a week prior to their release on November 4.
The timing of the photos’ release by the Supreme Leader’s office coincides with growing domestic and international speculation that Khamenei and Rafsanjani may have grown further adrift.
“The ties between Khamenei and Rafsanjani are long-established and complex, and whatever their quarrels, they know they must stick together to assure the survival of clerical rule”, Arezou Shokrani, a London-based writer on Iranian affairs, said of the photos.
Khamenei and Rafsanjani were top aides to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the first years after the 1979 Islamic revolution.
“Last Friday, when Khamenei headed a prayers congregation at Tehran, Rafsanjani was invited to stand right next to him – something that went completely against the Islamic culture since worshippers must always stand inline behind the prayers leader”, Shokrani said.
Whatever the reasons for decision to release the photos, she said, the message to the international community was that Iran’s leaders were not divided if the West “upped the ante” and attempted to isolate the regime. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AmirN
![](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/darius_s.JPG)
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 297
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The three sub-sects of the “Twelve” branch of Shiite Islam that I am aware of are the Usuli, Akhbari, and Shayki. My knowledge on these sects is admittedly limited. In brief, the Usuli Shiism provided the religious legitimacy for Khomeini's Islamic revolution and the basis of theocracy. It is the major sect that most Shiites belong to. It provides for the interpretation of “jurisprudence.” That in the absence of the Twelfth Imam government is rightfully administered by Islamic jurists. Akhbari Shiism however, does not promote direct political control. It stipulates that clerics should only advise political leaders but should not be the direct governors.
I’m not sure which of these Monkey Boy subscribes to, and which one was banned by Khomeini. But since Khomeini’s basis for rule was based on Usuli, I would imagine that if he banned anyone, it must have been either the Akhbari or the Shayki.
Quote: | Personally, I think one of the primary ways this regime can be cut off at the knees is if the world's Muslim population as "the Umma" delared jihad against terrorists and those regimes that support, foster, recruit, and encorage via idological means, a precept which is deemed by the majority of the world's Muslim population to be an "apostate" interpretation of Islam. |
Perhaps. Which makes me think, why have they not done so already? I think that aside from what I have said previously regarding Islam, that there are actually multiple faces of Islam. A lot of moslems and their spiritual leaders may say one thing in public, ie “we love peace and harmony, blah blah blah,” and they think and sympathize otherwise. A lot of them say such things because of political pressures. A lot of them (though not all) have different hidden allegiances, to the likes of Osama and the mullahs. The general feeling among the Islamic masses in the Middle East is quite different than they would have you believe. There are an innumerable number of Moslems that view Osama as a hero.
The Moslem silence regarding terrorist atrocities, whether in words, or more importantly in actions, speaks volumes of most of their sympathies. And although publicly their governments condemn such actions as the Jordanian bombings of westerners hotels, many of the commoners in the Bazaars secretly giggle. _________________ I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
American Visitor
![](images/avatars/gallery/Fantasy RPG/wizard2.gif)
Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 224
|
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People often disagree about the meaning of Nietzsche's works. That is natural. I personally find him a brilliant writer who summed up the European skeptical philosophy quite well. However, ideas have consequences and in Germany Nietzsche's works were used to commit what we consider "crimes against humanity." Whether Nietzsche was a good man or a bad is not the point, the question is what were the effects of his words and are those consequences ones which we wish to embrace.
Quote: | Quote:
According to a letter sent to his sister Christmas 1887, Nietzsche was very upset by his sister's involvement with antisemitism and I would guess that you are correct that he would have opposed it.
Thank you for that concession. |
I'm not sure that is a concession. Hitler was a widely read man and didn't draw his ideas from one source. It was Nietzsche's attack on Christianity and traditional Judeo-Christian morality which Hitler promoted. It was necessary to break down those moral values before the Nazis could convince the German people to commit mass murder. When you deliberately destroy people's moral and social foundations, unless you have something clearly superior, the results can be catastrophic. I'm not convinced that this was Nietzsche's fault alone, it clearly wasn't, but he certainly did his part.
Quote: | We know that Hitler passed out copies of Nietzsche’s works to his troops as a “morale booster”…is that not propaganda? |
I think most people acknowledge that the Nazis were masters of propaganda. People who were so good at propaganda would not have handed out Nietzsche's works if they had thought for a moment that Nietzsche's works would have weakened rather than strengthened their cause. Unless we propose that the German army was composed completely of morons, we have to assume that the vast majority of Germans who read Nietzsche's works, in their native language, came to the same conclusion, that his works in general supported the Nazis. If the Nazis were trying to twist them, they would not have avoided allowing people reading him in context since that would tend to undermine the deception.
Whether we agree entirely on our interpretation of Nietzsche is ultimately irrelevant. The German people many of whom were his contemporaries, who were reading him in their own language written for people in their own culture understood him to support the Nazis. That is the reason Hitler was so fond of Nietzsche.
Quote:
"The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions.”
Quote: | I don't think this was overlooked by Hitler at all. I think the reason he thought it so urgent to destroy the Jews as soon as possible is because they were indeed a strong and successful people.
This precisely illustrates my point. That while Nietzsche was making one type of argument, in fact praising the Jews, someone like Hitler may have interjected his own perverted interpretation. One can easily take another’s statement with a particular intended meaning, and twist it in a way to illustrate his own point, as Hitler did with Nietzsche. |
I agree with you that Nietzsche was not particularly anti-Semitic. I don't find much in Nietzsche's works to indicate he held the Jews in high esteem but he didn't seem to obscess about them either. He criticized them frequently as the source of many of the ideas he found contemptible. I believe Hitler probably picked up the majority of his anti-Semitism from other sources. Nietzsche's influence was to break down the traditional German Judeo-Christian morality.
Quote: | Quote:
the reason Nietzsche praised the Moslems was precisely because of the reasons which causes many of the "little people" such as those who post here to dislike the Mullahs when they chop off the "little people's heads and stone the "weak people" to death.
I disagree. Again, this precisely illustrates Nietzsche’s “mobs.” The mob mentality (which has theistic religion as its roots, whether it be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or the “evil trinity” as I refer to them) is at work each and every time a punishment is implemented in the name of God. Quite similar to the barbaric events of torture and death in Europe under the Spanish Inquisition, “in the name of The Lord, Jesus Christ.” The Mullahs justify anything and everything by referring to “God’s will.” |
Nietzsche didn't mention anything about an "evil trinity," he praised Islam as "everything noble on earth" in contrast to Chritianity which he dispised. It certainly appears he was rejecting his own culture and it's morality.
[
Quote: | Quote:
Naziism was intended to remedy this failing of the socialists and shifted the emphasis back onto the strong and the elite and away from the unworthy masses who were supposedly championed by the socialists.
I disagree. I think Nazism was not pure socialism, but had at its foundation strong socialist ideals. A sort of “fascism meeting socialism.” The “unworthy masses” were indeed the power house of the Third Reich | .
Your point about socialism is well taken. Both the Nazis, Communists and European socialists share much in common. According to my understanding, the main difference is that Nazis recognized a heirarchy of human worth in which the elite, the powerful were recognized as valuable while the weak, the defective, the mentally ill were worthless to be eleminated. I understand Nietzsche specifically endorsed that concept. Communism and I believe to a greatt extent modern socialism is the opposite, holding the rich and powerful to be evil while all goodness resides in the masses the weak, the powerless. This was the "Jewish" which the Nazis rejected.
Quote: | Although Nietzsche is viewed by some as an immoralist, his true criticism is directed at the “universal morality.” He argues that the “universal morality” forces values on all members of society which may only be in the interests of one particular group, leaving the rest in denial. He holds that morality, as everything else, depends upon perspective. |
It is only natural to view him as an immoralist since he repeatedly applied that title to himself.
Your explanation of his morality is interesting. My own understanding of his morality at this point is that if one can shed the restraints of society, eveything you feel like doing is good. The more one reasons the behavior and the less spontaneous, the worse it is.
Quote: | My posts have no references to Darwin. Although I know that Nietzsche did take some influences from Darwin, I am only addressing my interpretation of Nietzsche, not Darwin. What I know of Darwin is that he was obviously very brilliant, and made one of the most profound contributions to science: the theory of evolution. A theory which has to this day stood the test of time. I am very familiar with his scientific theory. I am not, however, at great depth familiar with his personal ideologies, and I do not wish to render an opinion on a topic which I am not versed. |
You are under no obligation to respond about Darwin unless you want to. My original point was that science has little to offer in the realm of morality, that morality is the province of religion. Since almost all athiests and many agnostics make a pilgrimage to Darwin to support their beliefs, I have pointed out that Darwinism itself is not sufficient to form a good moral belief. Science itself is simply a took which people can use to benefit mankind or to destroy the world.
Darwin's book "Descent of Man" was just as much a scientific work as his book "Origin of Species." What we are dealing with is not a man who was a racist but did good sciene, but a man who is recognized as one of the best of scientists who clearly believed his theory supported racism up to and including exterminating "savage" races. If anyone is qualified to understand the implications of his theory, Darwin would certainly qualify since he was the one who invented it in the first place.
Quote: | By the same token, though different races have differences in their DNA, those differences are relatively minute. All humans share on the order of 99.99% of their DNA with all other humans. So, is the glass 0.01% empty, or 99.99% full? Shall we focus on the 0.01% difference, or on the 99.99% similarity? I think the details of DNA show us the precise opposite of your point. Not that various races are biologically and genetically different, but instead extremely similar. DNA actually rains on a racist’s parade. |
Where diid the number 99.99% come from? As you know, if a gene is the same at many levels and varies in just one base pair, it will often have an entirely different function. To point out to the many simiarities in the gene does not alter the fact that the phenotypical expression of the gene is greatly altered by that one difference. It is those phenotypical diifferences upon which evolution performs it's selective function.
Quote: | Let’s take the DNA argument further. We share about 95% of our DNA with chimps. I think that genetically, that makes us more similar than different. Somewhere in that 5% is the inherent human difference. Somewhere in that 5% of DNA difference, apparently a “spirit” has been encoded. Unless, …do chimps also have spirits? And if they do, is there a chimp heaven and hell where their spirits will go to when they die |
Your question supposes that human consciousness can be completely explained by DNA. So far no one has found a satisfactory explanation of consciousness. I believe it was Crick who just before his death proposed that consciousness resides in the claustrum. Whether that is the case will now be investigated. Until someone can explain consciousness, I believe we have to relegate it to one of the great mysteries of the universe. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AmirN
![](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/darius_s.JPG)
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 297
|
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | However, ideas have consequences and in Germany Nietzsche's works were used to commit what we consider "crimes against humanity." |
Crimes against humanity were committed indeed. But by whom? The Nazis. I’ve repeatedly tried to show (I think successfully) that the Nazis had their own hate agenda, and tried to erroneously apply Nietzsche’s philosophy to justify their thoughts. But in doing so, they did not stay true to Nietzsche’s ideas.
Quote: | Whether Nietzsche was a good man or a bad is not the point, the question is what were the effects of his words and are those consequences ones which we wish to embrace. |
Oh, but it is the point. But, I haven’t tried to portray Nietzsche himself as either a good or bad man. I have only tried to explain what I think his views were. It is important to realize the man’s true ideals in order to make conclusions regarding his works. And I do believe that his ideals were not at all in true agreement with the Nazi’s. It is fair to be critical of someone because of his direct work or ideology. It is not fair, however, to be critical of someone because of the actions of a third party (the Nazis). Anything that’s worth anything will have consequences. It is up to the third party to behave responsibly, and insure that those consequences are positive rather than negative. If the third party does not, and deviates from those original ideals and the spirit under which they were forged, the third party is to blame, not the initial person who created the work.
Quote: | When you deliberately destroy people's moral and social foundations, unless you have something clearly superior, the results can be catastrophic. |
This is not true. A particular sect may have social foundations that may be flawed. Why should they not be attacked? Why should those morals be followed until “Judgment Day,” even though they are wrong? Why should we settle for the status quo, when the status quo is flawed? No, all social foundations must always be open to criticism and attack, in order to continuously change society for the better.
Quote: | I think most people acknowledge that the Nazis were masters of propaganda. People who were so good at propaganda would not have handed out Nietzsche's works if they had thought for a moment that Nietzsche's works would have weakened rather than strengthened their cause. |
Yes, the Nazis were masters of propaganda. As such, they did not just hand out Nietzsche’s works and sit quietly on the sidelines, and allow their soldiers to draw their own conclusions. No, they supported it with vast more bits of information which gave them their own perverted twists. It is within this scenario that the German soldiers read Nietzsche. Also, try to put yourself for a minute in the mind frame of a WWII Nazi soldier. He has already seen the transformation of Germany by Nazism. He is already familiar with the Nazi ideology of hate and bigotry. He already knows what the Furor wishes. He already knows what they are fighting for. So, all these preconceptions are already in his mind. When he gets handed a propaganda leaflet, he is already expecting to find in there something that further justifies his cause. And he gets a piece by Nietzsche, conveniently accompanied by the Nazi “explanation and interpretation.” Do you honestly expect such a person to reach an unbiased understanding of Nietzsche? Has he been handed Nietzsche’s work unedited, and told to go home and read it leisurely, analyze it freely, and come back to the classroom tomorrow to engage in a debate of what he thinks? I think not.
Quote: | I believe Hitler probably picked up the majority of his anti-Semitism from other sources. Nietzsche's influence was to break down the traditional German Judeo-Christian morality. |
Yes, Nietzsche clearly attacked the traditional Judeo-Christian morality. Good for him. I attack it as well. Many others attack it as well. That does not make any of us bigots, anti-Semites, or Nazis. We are attacking an idea, not an ethnic group.
Quote: | Nietzsche didn't mention anything about an "evil trinity," he praised Islam as "everything noble on earth" in contrast to Chritianity which he dispised. It certainly appears he was rejecting his own culture and it's morality. |
I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. The statement I made in parentheses were my own comments, not Nietzsche’s. The “evil trinity” I mentioned had nothing to do with Nietzsche. That was my own interjection. As far as his feelings towards Eastern culture, I believe I already addressed that in a prior response. In regards to rejecting his culture, Nietzsche did no such thing. He rejected certain aspects of it which he thought were flawed. He definitely rejected the foundations by which his culture’s morality was based. I applaud him for that. It shows that he was not biased by his own culture, to uphold it whether right or wrong, but to criticize it appropriately. I too reject certain aspects of my own culture, namely Islam, because I find it flawed, while I embrace most other aspects of my culture.
Quote: | the powerful were recognized as valuable while the weak, the defective, the mentally ill were worthless to be eleminated. I understand Nietzsche specifically endorsed that concept. |
No, Nietzsche did not endorse that specific concept. Nietzsche’s “Superman” was not super because of his physical super strength. He was super because he had shed the traditional constraints which have been imposed by a pre-conceived set of ideals. He is super because he has freed himself from the mob, and moved up to a higher level of thought and existence. He is super because he has found his own path.
Quote: | My own understanding of his morality at this point is that if one can shed the restraints of society, eveything you feel like doing is good. The more one reasons the behavior and the less spontaneous, the worse it is. |
He did not exactly promote living with “no rules.” This is where a lot of people misunderstand him. He promoted not living under the “artificial rules” which someone else has imposed on us. He believed that we ought to reconsider what the rules should be, after an inner self-reflection. These new rules will not always necessarily be “what feels good,” but what fulfills and enriches us (which also include a lot of things that feel good, but not exclusively).
Now, moving on to the science…
Quote: | Where diid the number 99.99% come from? |
This number is common knowledge in the anthropologic and biochemical community. This has been demonstrated by the “Human Genome Project,” among other research. There are numerous references, but I’ll point you to one specifically, in a review article in Science entitled “The Sequence of the Human Genome.” Refer to:
Science 16 February 2001:
Vol. 291. no. 5507, pp. 1304 – 1351
I quote from this article: “A random pair of human haploid genomes differed at a rate of 1 bp (base pair) per 1250 on average.” If we do the math, this comes to a difference of 0.08%, or stated otherwise, 99.92% similarity. And this similarity is not within a specific race. Individuals from various races reveal the same frequency of difference. It has also been shown that if you look at the genetic profile of two individuals from the same race, the same minute difference will be seen as if you look at the profile of two individuals from different races. So, on a genetic level, race is an illusion.
Quote: | if a gene is the same at many levels and varies in just one base pair, it will often have an entirely different function. To point out to the many simiarities in the gene does not alter the fact that the phenotypical expression of the gene is greatly altered by that one difference. |
The human genome is comprised of 2.9 billion base pairs. Of that, the vast majority is non-functional; it does not code for anything. The fact that over 90% of it is non-functional, yet completely similar between humans, or even between different species, shows the common origins of all life.
Furthermore, although a single base pair change can potentially alter the entire expression of that gene, and change its phenotype, it does so to one particular gene and protein. Again, you may decide to focus on one particular mutation in a gene to demonstrate a difference. However, I would point to the countless other genes which have remained constant. There are tens of thousands of genes and therefore proteins that are completely equivalent even among different species. These genes and proteins are numerous, and constitute the “housekeeping” genes, which serve the basics of keeping us alive. The genes that have made our phenotypes different are few and far between. The genes we all share are by far more common, and demonstrate our common bond. The common bond that all humans share with each other, and even the common genetic bond we share with all other living beings.
So I ask again, is the glass 0.08% empty, or 99.92% full? Do you wish to focus on the 2.9 billion base pairs all humans share in common, or the 2.3 million base pairs that they do not? Do you wish to focus on the approximately 100,000 genes, and thus phenotypes, that humans have in common, or the approximately 100’s that are different from person to person? Do you wish to focus on a few characteristics like hair color, eye color, skin pigmentation, or the countless other characteristics that we all share, like the neurologic system, respiratory system, cardiovascular system, renal system, endocrine system, etc?
Quote: | Your question supposes that human consciousness can be completely explained by DNA. |
Can’t it?
We are made entirely of materials that at one point or another, were “instructed” to become what they are and function how they do by a blueprint: our DNA. You can create an entire person by just the DNA that is present in a single cell, which is exactly what the cloning process does. All functions of the body are explained by DNA. Why can’t consciousness?
I think that most agree that the key to consciousness lies somewhere in the brain. Which part of the brain exactly, and by what exact mechanism this occurs are still the mysteries. We also know that like every other organ in the body, the creation and development of the brain is entirely dictated by our DNA. It therefore follows that ultimately consciousness is completely explained by the brain, which is completely explained by DNA. The question is not WHAT explains consciousness (DNA does, of course), but the HOW. How the numerous neurons (which are entirely created by DNA) interact to form consciousness; that is the mystery.
Of course, this is the scientific and logical explanation. The problem that theologians have is that they somehow wish to interject the “spirit” factor in there with consciousness. Just because we don’t yet know the exact mechanisms and intricacies of consciousness doesn’t mean that we have to invent something to fill that void. And that’s what some do by explaining phenomena in terms of “spirits,” based on zero evidence. I guess that’s why the call it “faith.” Faith in something that has no basis on evidence or logic; something that does not exist.
I wonder, how much different is modern man from Homo Habilus, or Homo Erectus, or the Neanderthal? Did they not possess consciousness? From what evidence exists, I think one could make the case that they probably did. We know that Neanderthals, for example, practiced funeral rituals, and they cared for their sick and disabled. Does one practice such acts without consciousness?
If they did have consciousness, or “spirits,” what happened to their spirits? Is there a Neanderthal heaven and hell? _________________ I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | "The three sub-sects of the “Twelve” branch of Shiite Islam that I am aware of are the Usuli, Akhbari, and Shayki."
........
"I’m not sure which of these Monkey Boy subscribes to, and which one was banned by Khomeini...." | -------------------
Thanks for the info, Akhbari rings a bell, and I think that's monkey boy's alma mater.....Mullah Yazdi's little cult I believe. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
What's DNA got to do with enlightenment? Buddha sat under a tree until he became fully awake as a human....you take what you're given, and make the most of it through practice and dicipline, and that example was meant to prove to all that they are capable in the here and now of achieving grace. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AmirN
![](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/darius_s.JPG)
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 297
|
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ha Ha Ha....Very true, Oppenheimer.
It does seem like the discussion has digressed a bit. Yes, enlightenment is a state of mind, and joy to those who achieve it.
Though DNA is not at the core of theology, I must confess that I was not the one who opened up the discussion on DNA. But as a biochemist, it was also very difficult for me to pass it up either. So, forgive me if I’m trying to shed some of my own “enlightenment” on the matter.
Since we are on the discussion of religion, I would also confess that there are only two religions which I respect among the ones that I know. They are Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. I obviously do not subscribe to these religions entirely, or I would be a practicing member. But I respect them, because at their core is a philosophy, a way of life, not absolute dogma, not stringent rules. Although, I am aware that some acts that occurred in Sassanid Persia in the name of Zarathustra were not entirely kosher. They don’t claim to be “God’s representative on Earth.” Furthermore, it is my understanding that they are peaceful religions, and they never promoted the concept of “killing in the name of God.” So my hat is off to them. _________________ I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Too wierd! I mention Buddha sitting under a tree and today I read this....
but then, that's taking the premis of creating one's own reality just a bit off into the twilight zone.....(chuckle).....
Thousands celebrate teen as new BuddhaBy Thomas Bell
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH
November 22, 2005
BARA DISTRICT, Nepal -- Thousands of pilgrims are pouring into the dense jungle of southern Nepal to worship a 15-year-old boy who has been hailed as a new Buddha.
Devotees say that Ram Bomjon, who is meditating silently beneath a tree, has not eaten or had anything to drink since he sat down at his chosen spot six months ago.
Witnesses say they have seen light emanating from the teenager's forehead.
"It looks a bit like when you shine a [flashlight] through your hand," said Tek Bahadur Lama, a member of the committee responsible for dealing with the growing number of visitors from India and elsewhere in Nepal.
Photographs of Ram, available for about 10 cents from his makeshift shrine, have become ubiquitous across the region. "Far and wide, it's the only topic of conversation," said Upendra Lamichami, a local journalist.
He said no claim had emerged of Ram breaking his fast or moving, even to relieve himself.
Santa Raj Subedi, the chief government official in Bara District, appealed to the capital, Katmandu, for assistance in dealing with the influx of visitors, and for a team of scientists to examine the case.
Local doctors failed to reach a final conclusion, although they were allowed no closer than five yards from the boy mystic, declaring that they could confirm no more than that he was alive.
The phenomenon has gained popularity partly because it resembles an episode in the life of the historical Buddha, who was born 160 miles away about 543 B.C. The Buddha achieved enlightenment when he meditated beneath a sacred pipal tree for 49 days.
Ram also is sitting beneath a pipal tree, in the same posture as the Buddha is depicted, but his vigil has taken longer.
Ram's mother, who is called Maya Devi, like the Buddha's mother, acknowledges anxiety, particularly at mealtimes, but she tells herself: "God took him to the forest and I have faith that God will feed him."
"He's definitely got thinner," she said. "Early in the morning he looks sunken, like there's no blood in him, but as the sun rises he seems to get brighter and brighter."
The fervor increased last week when a snake is said to have bitten Ram, and a curtain was drawn around him.
After five days it was opened and he spoke. "Tell the people not to call me a Buddha. I don't have the Buddha's energy. I am at the level of rinpoche [lesser divinity]. A snake bit me but I do not need treatment. I need six years of deep meditation."
Despite his protestations, "Buddha boy" is famous.
A thriving market has grown in the once pristine forest, supplying pilgrims with everything from chewing tobacco and bicycle repairs to incense and religious amulets. The ground is covered with litter.
A fence was built around Ram's tree to prevent pilgrims from prodding him, then a second, and now a third is planned, as well as a bus park, leaving Ram at the center of an ever-growing circle of commerce.
------------ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AmirN
![](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/darius_s.JPG)
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 297
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fascinating, Oppenheimer ![Exclamation](images/smiles/icon_exclaim.gif) _________________ I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
American Visitor
![](images/avatars/gallery/Fantasy RPG/wizard2.gif)
Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 224
|
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Crimes against humanity were committed indeed. But by whom? The Nazis. I’ve repeatedly tried to show (I think successfully) that the Nazis had their own hate agenda, and tried to erroneously apply Nietzsche’s philosophy to justify their thoughts. But in doing so, they did not stay true to Nietzsche’s ideas. |
I believe most people acknowledge that the Nazis applied Nietzsche's philosophy to their movement. Whether their usage was "erroneous" is another question entirely, who is to say they "misused" Nietzsche? What does it mean to "misuse" a book? How do we know our understanding is correct and theirs wrong?
I think most people could agree, Nietzsche was completely against the moral contract found in Judeo-Christian culture. Although people who I know do not base their ideas only on one man, and the Nazis didn't either, his attack on Judeo-Christian morality was exactly what they needed to accomplish their goals. If you limit yourself to antiSemitism only, then clearly they didn't have his robust support.
Incidentally, Nietzsche's ideas also explain much of what is happening in Europe today.
Quote: | Oh, but it is the point. But, I haven’t tried to portray Nietzsche himself as either a good or bad man. I have only tried to explain what I think his views were. It is important to realize the man’s true ideals in order to make conclusions regarding his works. And I do believe that his ideals were not at all in true agreement with the Nazi’s. |
On this point I suppose we will just have to disagree. When I read his books and compare them with Hitler’s conversations in HITLER’S TABLE TALK the similarities are striking. If you are discussing only anti-Semitism then we will agree the Nazis were didn’t follow Nietzsche completely. However, they killed many other people besides Jews such as mentally deficient, physically impaired, Christians who didn’t support their program, and gypsies. The devaluation of human life is where they found support from Nietzsche.
Quote: | This is not true. A particular sect may have social foundations that may be flawed. Why should they not be attacked? Why should those morals be followed until “Judgment Day,” even though they are wrong? Why should we settle for the status quo, when the status quo is flawed? No, all social foundations must always be open to criticism and attack, in order to continuously change society for the better. |
What I said is that we shouldn't destroy people's religion or their culture unless we have something clearly superior with which to replace it. So far the European skeptics haven't been able to come up with a viable alternative to Western civilization and Judeo-Christian morality. They have tried very hard, Nazism, Communism, Socialism but the results haven't been good. Social theories just like scientific theories are tested out only in this case the laboratory is entire countries and large often unwilling populations who are forced to follow the leaders ideas. That's what is happening in Europe once again.
Quote: | Yes, the Nazis were masters of propaganda. As such, they did not just hand out Nietzsche’s works and sit quietly on the sidelines, and allow their soldiers to draw their own conclusions. No, they supported it with vast more bits of information which gave them their own perverted twists. |
I'm sure the Nazis didn't encourage the soldiers to read statements such as the Jesus saying, "love your enemies, do good to them who despitefully use you" or Moses' rule, "thou shalt not kill." In fact, Nietzsche was very useful for the Nazis to convince their soldiers those rules were null and void. This is where Nietzsche was so helpful for their propaganda.
Quote: | Yes, Nietzsche clearly attacked the traditional Judeo-Christian morality. Good for him. I attack it as well. Many others attack it as well. That does not make any of us bigots, anti-Semites, or Nazis. We are attacking an idea, not an ethnic group. |
It is one thing to establish a direct link between Nietzsche's teachings and the Nazis and an entirely different thing to accuse everyone who rejects Judeo-Christian morality of being anti-Semitic or a Nazi. So far as I can tell, the data dosn't allow broad generalizations like that. For one thing, there are a number of different major culture-religions which have been quite successful. You have not chosen to discuss the moral implications of Darwinism which is OK, there is no reason you should, however those who are completely materialists will have to deal with them eventually.
Quote: | In regards to rejecting his culture, Nietzsche did no such thing. He rejected certain aspects of it which he thought were flawed. He definitely rejected the foundations by which his culture’s morality was based. I applaud him for that. It shows that he was not biased by his own culture, to uphold it whether right or wrong, but to criticize it appropriately. I too reject certain aspects of my own culture, namely Islam, because I find it flawed, while I embrace most other aspects of my culture. |
To me it is clear that a culture should evolve, which of course entails criticism of the status quo. Judeo-Christian morality underwent a major revision during the Protestant reformation, but they still held onto the basic core of the religion-culture. Another great advance was when Christendom rejected slavery. However, to make progress, rather than just trash everything, you go back into the culture and find positive things upon which to build. As an American, I personally don't see much in Nietzsche's writings which will make me a better person or my country a better place to live. However, as a writer, I find him fascinating and love his books since he still explains what is happening in Europe so well.
As an Iranian, you will have to find your own way to revitalize your culture. What we have done in America won't necessarily work for you, although our experience will probably offer some helpful hints. Ultimately, I think those who wish to revive a culture have to account for people's spiritual needs and to find good ways to satisfy them.
Quote: | I’ll point you to one specifically, in a review article in Science entitled “The Sequence of the Human Genome.” Refer to:
Science 16 February 2001:
Vol. 291. no. 5507, pp. 1304 – 1351
I quote from this article: “A random pair of human haploid genomes differed at a rate of 1 bp (base pair) per 1250 on average.” If we do the math, this comes to a difference of 0.08%, or stated otherwise, 99.92% similarity |
Thanks for the reference.
Quote: | It has also been shown that if you look at the genetic profile of two individuals from the same race, the same minute difference will be seen as if you look at the profile of two individuals from different races. So, on a genetic level, race is an illusion. |
I don't think science is going that way. From what I'm reading, the genetic differences between races are real. Although most alleles are probably distributed widely if not universally among races, they vary drastically in frequence among the groups. A good example is the sickle cell trait which is found mostly in Africans. From a Darwinian perspective, if different groups have lived in radically different environments for long time intervals, it is almost assured that they will differ substantially genetically. The question is how many distinct alleles exist for almost every gene and how are they distributed? Also how many genes are identical in everyone?
The reason this matters philosophically was well stated by Nietzsche:
Quote: | "That everyone as an "immortal soul" has equal rank with everyone else, that in the totality of living beings the "salvation" of every single individual may claim eternal significance, that little prigs and three-quarter-madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes-....The "salvation of the soul"-in plain language: "the world revolves around me."
The poison of the doctrine of " equal rights for all"- it was Christianity that spread it most fundamentally...."THE ANTICHRIST p. 43.
"With this I am at the end and I pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity. I raise against the Christian Church the most terrible of all accusations...The worm of sin, for example: with this distress the church first enriched mankind. The "equality of souls before God," this falsehood, this pretext for the rancor of all the base-minded, this explosive of a concept which eventually became revolution, modern idea, and the principle of decline of the whole order of society-is Christian dynamite...." THE ANTICHRIST p. 62 |
As an American I am happy my ancestors didn’t follow Nietzsche’s ideas, devaluing the human individual, but held to the “corrupt” Christian viewpoint that all men are equal as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
Quote: | “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” |
The equality of mankind, just as Nietzsche pointed out, is not based on biological equality for all people but their value endowed by the Creator. To me as an American our declaration of independence is very precious and sums up what we are about as a country.
Quote: | Can’t it?
We are made entirely of materials that at one point or another, were “instructed” to become what they are and function how they do by a blueprint: our DNA. You can create an entire person by just the DNA that is present in a single cell, which is exactly what the cloning process does. All functions of the body are explained by DNA. Why can’t consciousness? |
I'm not saying it can't be explained by DNA but so far we haven't been able to come up with a good explanation. To guess exactly what human consciousness is at this point is speculation. Perhaps the materialists are correct but I'm going to withhold judgment until we know more. I think this is one area in which the materialists will have difficulty. It is my understanding that intelligence is probably partially inherited but that is not exactly the same as consciousness.
Quote: | I wonder, how much different is modern man from Homo Habilus, or Homo Erectus, or the Neanderthal? Did they not possess consciousness? From what evidence exists, I think one could make the case that they probably did. We know that Neanderthals, for example, practiced funeral rituals, and they cared for their sick and disabled. Does one practice such acts without consciousness?
If they did have consciousness, or “spirits,” what happened to their spirits? Is there a Neanderthal heaven and hell? |
It depends upon whether they were moral agents who could construct a moral system of thought. Unless I know the answer, I can't answer your question. So far as I can tell, the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" are stepping stones in human moral development to help us move onto a higher plane of understanding. Whether people believe these are literal places or are metaphors for the spiritual state of people who chose to live their lives in love or hatred and selfishness is up to each individual to decide. I personally see them as metaphors although I do believe in life beyond this one. I do not judge those who see them as literal although it does seem to present contradictions with the Christian edict, "God is love.” |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AmirN
![](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/darius_s.JPG)
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 297
|
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I believe most people acknowledge that the Nazis applied Nietzsche's philosophy to their movement. Whether their usage was "erroneous" is another question entirely, who is to say they "misused" Nietzsche? What does it mean to "misuse" a book? How do we know our understanding is correct and theirs wrong? |
The concept of “misusing” a book or idea is very simple. It means to change the original idea or message that the original author intended. If one changes that original idea, it becomes something else, and the original author then cannot be blamed (or take credit) for what develops.
Whether their usage was “erroneous” is not at all another question. It is what lies at the core of our arguments. If they had applied what Nietzsche truly intended, then you would be right, that Nietzsche was a proto-Nazi. If however, they applied what Nietzsche did not intend, then that would make me right, that he was indeed not a proto-Nazi, and that his philosophy was very different from that of the Nazis. This “correct” or “erroneous” interpretation is the key to the entire debate.
Now, as far as “knowing” for sure exactly what he intended and which interpretation is correct, well no one can know 100% without actually asking him. That is obviously impossible, since he is long dead. So, the next best thing is to look at the available facts and evidence. And that is exactly what this debate has involved. I have attempted to repeatedly show the sharp contrast between his beliefs based upon the things he said and how he thought as reflected by his works and that of the Nazis. Given the available facts, I believe that the weight of evidence falls heavily in favor of vindicating Nietzsche of any commonality with the Nazis.
Quote: | If you are discussing only anti-Semitism then we will agree the Nazis were didn’t follow Nietzsche completely. However, they killed many other people besides Jews |
Everything that I have said about Nietzsche still applies, whether you consider the Jews alone, or any other of the Nazi’s victims. Again, the way that the Nazis arose to power, and their entire ideology is quite contrary to what Nietzsche would have probably supported. The way they tried to brainwash everyone in order to achieve all their goals is exactly what Nietzsche despised and warned us against.
Quote: | What I said is that we shouldn't destroy people's religion or their culture unless we have something clearly superior with which to replace it. So far the European skeptics haven't been able to come up with a viable alternative to Western civilization and Judeo-Christian morality. They have tried very hard, Nazism, Communism, Socialism but the results haven't been good. |
I don’t agree that we should not destroy part of a social fabric unless we have something superior to present. Although usually, in the course of history, this has been the case: that someone tries to destroy another form of culture because they have something they think is superior they wish to implement. However, I don’t think that should at all be a requirement of anyone who wishes to criticize a social order. If something is flawed, we should speak out against it. The person who speaks out is not however, responsible for providing a better solution. A better solution may come along from another entirely different person. Each person could serve a different purpose. One may bring down a flawed system, while someone else may build a better one.
And Communism, Nazism, and Socialism are not the only alternatives to the traditional Judeo-Christian morality as a form of government. What about a democratic secularism? Or even a secular monarchy? I’m sure that as an American, you are aware that America falls under a democratic secular form of government, and it works very well. And no, I do not consider America to be a part of the “Judeo-Christian morality.” Although I realize that America is a part of western civilization, and that Judeo-Christianity is also a part of the same civilization, the American form of government and Judeo-Christianity are not the same. The rules and law of the land have been intentionally and blatantly created in a way that separates Church and State. That is the biggest genius that made America so great: separation of Church and State. Everything else could fall into place because of this simple concept.
Quote: | I'm sure the Nazis didn't encourage the soldiers to read statements such as the Jesus saying, "love your enemies, do good to them who despitefully use you" or Moses' rule, "thou shalt not kill." |
Of that I’m sure. But I’d like to know, what Christian government has ever said this? The Nazis at least have an excuse: they were not followers of Christ and Moses. But what about the ones who are supposed to be followers of Christ and Moses? What’s their excuse? And do we need a reminder of the Crusades, the Conquest of England, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch-hunts, etc?
Quote: | It is one thing to establish a direct link between Nietzsche's teachings and the Nazis and an entirely different thing to accuse everyone who rejects Judeo-Christian morality of being anti-Semitic or a Nazi. So far as I can tell, the data dosn't allow broad generalizations like that. |
And yet, it seems that this is what you have done. You have implied that because Nietzsche rejected the “Judeo-Christian morality,” that this fact (among a few other arguments) became the bridge which links Nietzsche and the Nazis. I am simply showing that as you yourself said, such a broad generalization cannot apply.
Quote: | great advance was when Christendom rejected slavery. |
Well about time!
Quote: | As an American, I personally don't see much in Nietzsche's writings which will make me a better person or my country a better place to live. |
I understand your message entirely, and partly agree with it. As I have previously stated, Nietzsche was an idealist, not a pragmatist. I think he knew it as well. The concepts he spoke of cannot be expected to truly materialize. That’s because they vary too much from the establishment, and people are as a rule very resistant to such a huge change.
I also did not become a “better person,” in the sense of changing my practices. However, the analytical process that his ideas brought about in me improved me in a different way. Like a few other philosophers I have read, he gave me a new perspective with which to view the world. It is this ability which such philosophers instilled in me that I think makes me a “better person.” They enriched my thinking process.
Quote: | From what I'm reading, the genetic differences between races are real. |
That’s not the theme that I have encountered. The bulk of the literature has pointed to the fact that on a genetic level, race is an illusion. I could refer you to some of this information, if you so desire.
Quote: | if different groups have lived in radically different environments for long time intervals, it is almost assured that they will differ substantially genetically. |
Yes, but on an “evolutionary” time scale, humans have not lived in different environments long enough for significant genetic differences to develop. And because of civilization and the ease of migration of humans, this will probably never happen.
Quote: | The question is how many distinct alleles exist for almost every gene and how are they distributed? |
The real question is not how many alleles there are, but the frequency in which they appear. If an allele occurs at a very rare frequency, it becomes almost insignificant.
Quote: | Also how many genes are identical in everyone? |
The answer would be about 99%. That is also information which came out of the Human Genome Project.
The Human Genome Project is a very interesting piece of work. Ever wonder, when they set out to map “the human genome,” which human’s genome were they mapping? This would be a very valid question, since everyone’s DNA profile is a little different. But, as the project itself revealed, it did not matter which particular human’s DNA was used as the map, because there was such a relatively insignificant difference (0.08%), that any human’s DNA would yield essentially the same result. Again, pointing to the colossal genetic similarity we all share, compared to the miniscule amount that we do not.
Quote: | but held to the “corrupt” Christian viewpoint that all men are equal |
I hate to burst any Christian’s bubble, but first of all, Christians are not the ones who coined this concept. From a historical perspective, as far as I know, the first time such a concept was documented was on the Cyrus Cylinder, in Acheamenid Persia, in the sixth century BC. Allow me to repeat this timing: Sixth Century BC. Second of all, from the way that Christianity and the Christian Church have conducted themselves over the last 2 millennia, I would say that a more correct representation of Christianity’s doctrine would be that “all men are created equal, but some, namely the Christians, are more equal than others.” This concept resonates in all three of the big monotheist religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This was a big recruiting tool of Islam (second only to the sword), that “all men are equal; all Moslem men, that is, of course.” Hence the concept of “brotherhood” of Islam. What a nice, equal, happy family. One large Brady Bunch.
Quote: | To me as an American our declaration of independence is very precious and sums up what we are about as a country. |
My friend, you are not alone in the love you have for America, or in the admiration you hold for this country’s roots. I am Iranian, first and foremost. But I immigrated to America at the young age of thirteen, and did a good portion of my growing up here. I am a product of the American educational system; in my opinion the finest in the world. This country received my family and me with open arms, and gave me the opportunity to live freely, think freely, and fulfill my full potential. For that, I will be eternally grateful. My love for America is a very close second to my love for Iran.
But a concept I learned here was the importance of my thinking independently for myself, and criticizing that which deserves criticism. Not unlike the main lesson that I took away from Nietzsche, by the way. So, even though I hold a special love for America, and give it my allegiance, I am not shy about criticizing certain points regarding its history or its current state of affairs.
On to the Declaration of Independence:
Quote: | “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” |
Let’s give the founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, due credit for this magnificent piece of work. When one views this document (as well as the US Constitution), one cannot help but feel inspiration and amazement. As a free standing document, the DI is beautiful. And in today’s context, it is still beautiful.
I am sad to say that at the time of its production, though, it was a hypocritical document. In the context of 1776, the basic premise of this document was just hot air. Though it served its intended political purpose of independence from the British, its words didn’t take meaning until the addition of the 13th Amendment to the US constitution in 1865. For 89 years, the DI was a piece of mockery. It took a civil war, the death of some half a million people, and a new constitutional amendment to finally turn the DI into the solid statement that it should have always been.
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…” What Jefferson and all the other slave owning signatories of the DI were thinking to justify this statement as the premise of this document is beyond me. It seems there was an elephant in the room, but everyone pretended not to see it. It only took 85 years before someone finally noticed this elephant, and escorted it out of the room.
So, again, it seems some men are created more equal than others, when it is to their convenience.
Quote: | I'm not saying it can't be explained by DNA but so far we haven't been able to come up with a good explanation. To guess exactly what human consciousness is at this point is speculation. |
Consciousness is entirely explained by DNA. It is simple logic, that if A lies entirely within the realm of B, and B lies entirely within the realm of C, that A lies entirely within the realm of C.
A (consciousness) lies entirely within the realm of B (the brain), which lies entirely within the realm of C (DNA). Therefore, consciousness lies entirely within the realm of DNA.
The beginning (DNA), and the end result (consciousness) are plainly visible. Where the mystery lies is the middle part, the process by which DNA ultimately leads to consciousness.
Quote: | So far as I can tell, the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" are stepping stones in human moral development to help us move onto a higher plane of understanding. Whether people believe these are literal places or are metaphors |
Do Jews, Christians, and Moslems not view the Old Testament, Bible, and Quran as “the words of God, conveyed to us by the messengers of God?” Are these texts to be viewed as metaphors, or the actual intended word of God? Because if memory serves me right, I recall these words appearing in all of these sacred texts. In fact, the literal “heaven and hell” are the major motivators of all three of these religions. Major rewards, or major punishments; the premise of all three.
Why would God give us a sacred text, a book of “his rules and recommendations,” yet fill it with metaphors instead of telling us exactly what he wants of us? Is he playing games with us? I have yet to encounter an instruction manual or a human legal document which has any metaphors in it. In fact, all good instruction manuals and legal documents take painstaking efforts to word themselves in an unambiguous way as possible.
If the sacred texts do have metaphors in them, that could create a lot of confusion. How are we to know which parts are literal, and which parts a metaphor? Are the ten commandments then also a metaphor? Are we to take them literally, or view them as “metaphorical rules of conduct.” Perhaps that is the case. When God says “Thou Shall Not Kill,” what he metaphorically means is “don’t kill most of the time; at least not nilly willy; wait till I tell you to kill; those who don’t believe in me obviously need to be killed; but, I can’t do it myself; I need you to do it for me; …so be a nice little believer and run along…and what were we talking about?..oh, yeah, remember, thou shall not kill.”
Quote: | I asked:
Quote:
Let’s take the DNA argument further. We share about 95% of our DNA with chimps. I think that genetically, that makes us more similar than different. Somewhere in that 5% is the inherent human difference. Somewhere in that 5% of DNA difference, apparently a “spirit” has been encoded. Unless, …do chimps also have spirits? And if they do, is there a chimp heaven and hell where their spirits will go to when they die
You replied:
Your question supposes that human consciousness can be completely explained by DNA |
This previous statement of yours made me conclude that it was consciousness that you believe provides the answer to “spirituality,” “afterlife,” and “heaven and hell.”
Quote: | I asked:
Quote:
I wonder, how much different is modern man from Homo Habilus, or Homo Erectus, or the Neanderthal? Did they not possess consciousness? From what evidence exists, I think one could make the case that they probably did. We know that Neanderthals, for example, practiced funeral rituals, and they cared for their sick and disabled. Does one practice such acts without consciousness?
If they did have consciousness, or “spirits,” what happened to their spirits? Is there a Neanderthal heaven and hell?
You replied:
It depends upon whether they were moral agents who could construct a moral system of thought. |
Very well, I’ll take this statement now to mean you believe “being able to construct a moral system of thought” to provide the answer to “spirituality,” the “afterlife,” and “heaven and hell” (either metaphorical or literal). I would like to explore this further, on a few fronts:
1. Most ethicists would agree that morality is a consequence of empathy. This makes complete sense. When one is able to empathize with others’ pain and suffering, the next logical step is to create a moral code which generally minimizes others’ pains. So morality has been created because we empathize with others. We understand their pain. We are able to imagine ourselves to be in their predicament. And thus, empathy leads to morality. Now, in the case of the Neanderthals, we know they were highly social beings, like modern humans. We also know that they cared for their members who were unable to care for themselves; their sick and injured. They also practiced funeral rituals. These facts lead most to conclude that they had consciousness. Another reasonable deduction would be that because they showed empathy to their fellow members, they had at least a very basic sense of morality. So I ask again, did they posses a “spirit,” and what happened to their spirits?
2. Even if you wish to elude the above question regarding Neanderthals, let’s consider a more recent time. Let’s consider modern man himself. A creature which is entirely the same as us. Only, think back to the caveman of over twenty thousand years ago. Socially and morally, he acted quite similar to the Neanderthal. Would you then say that he was perhaps devoid of “a moral system,” and thus had no soul, no spirit, no afterlife? He was the same as us. The only difference between us is the circumstance of the timing of his birth (20000 years ago versus today). So, even though he is the same creature, the same exact species as us, does he not have a soul, a spirit? And if he did have a spirit, what happened to it?
3. Let us consider now a couple of special cases for argument’s sake. Any neurologist will tell you that there are cases of people who had strokes in the frontal lobe of the brain, and depending on the extent of injury, lost their sense of morality and ethics. This is incidentally the reason why we believe that the sense of morality lies somewhere in the frontal lobe. Anyways, because of their stroke or injury, these people have now lost their ability to be “moral” creatures. Does this then mean that their spirit or soul suddenly disappeared? Where did it go? What happens when this stroke victim eventually dies? Did his spirit leave him at the time of his stroke, or the time of his death? Similarly, consider the case of a person who was born severely mentally retarded. Consider this person, who is unable to have any moral sense. Does this handicapped person not have a soul, a spirit?
If Christians define the presence of a spirit and its potential afterlife by the ability to “construct a moral system of thought,” then they are not far removed from the Nazis. If according to Christians, our spirits define us, and those who are unable to form a moral system of thought are devoid of spirit, it follows that certain stroke victims and certain mentally disabled individuals who are unable to have a moral sense are therefore devoid of spirits. And if our spirits define us, what does that say about someone who has no spirit, according to this Christian way of thinking?
Quote: | ..."heaven" and "hell"...I do not judge those who see them as literal although it does seem to present contradictions with the Christian edict, "God is love.” |
Contradictions indeed. Bingo, my friend, Bingo! _________________ I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|