on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.
she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.
i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.
The Diamond Rule also has its own set of shortcomings. For example, what if someone's wish is detrimental to his own well-being? Should we treat that person as he/she wants to be treated despite said treatment poses an unquestionable threat to her well-being? it may be a difficult call sometimes.
One rule doesn't fit all, I'd say.
Eden
on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.
she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.
i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.
In another thread, Vivian defended her blunt confrontational tactics in this forum by saying:
"Some of the people that have been the most brutal to my own ideas have been my best friends because I asked them to be. I mean, if my friends can't tell me my idea sucks because they want to be nice, how do I expect anyone else to respond when I put it out there?" - Viviane
Accordingly, it's an observable fact that Vivian applies the Golden Rule by doing to others what she values others (her friends) do unto her. She verbally brutalizes others and their differentiated opinions and ideas in this forum because, well, that's what she expects that her friends do to her as a litmus test if her ideas are valid or not. Viviane doesn't treat others in this forum as they wish to be treated (a.k.a. the Diamond Rule): with respect, politeness, compassion. Instead, she treats them as per her opinion that they deserve to be treated. And, clearly, she doesn't think much of them.
But, according to Viviane's own opinion, the Golden Rule is:
arrogant and presumptive
and
taking a dump on how they feel and acting according to how you feel
and
it's a horrible, selfish idea
and
It's the opposite of politeness and empathy.
And yet, the Golden Rule is what Viviane pursuits when she debates here. But she doesn't take into account that, at least in my personal case (and I bet I'm not alone in this):
a) I don't count her as my friend; and
b) I don't wish and didn't ask to be treated with disrespect and contempt.
So, it's a veritable paradox that she advocates:
Viviane: Far better to simply ask how people would like to be treated.
^^ Talk about famous last words ...
[And, btw, before someone asks, I too agree that the Diamond Rule surpasses the Golden Rule. But at least, in the real world, the Golden Rule is better than "doing to others what I don't wish others do to me".]
Eden
on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.
she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.
i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.
Twitch: I look forward to seeing you [Viviane] asking people here how they would like to be treated and you acting accordingly.
Don't hold your breath.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
Came in just to thank you VI. Will check.
Eden
i have finished writing the novel.
it is now being edited.
if everything goes according to plan, it should be released sometime this summer.. the book's title is sparlock of the multiverse, book one: the great apocalypse.
Make sure you include some scary subliminar pictures. Many people love to hunt for easter eggs ...
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
^^ you just proved all the points I've made.
Bye.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
I feel sad that these threads inevitably end up derailed and people end up fighting about tangent triffles, ending up being cats fighting inside a bag. Some take upon themselves the task of being this forum's thought police and they sure take delight in pounding on others for transgressing their flavor of atheism. This is supposed to be a place for support of ex and current JW's who don't believe this organization has anything to do with God. People have been battered badly enough inside the Org, they don't expect to come here to be abused again.
Personally, I'm worn out from this agressiveness and decided to give up starting threads and will take a back seat from posting in threads dealing with theism / atheism / agnosticism or science. Let the pack of wolves roam free and pat their own backs. There's life beyond these polemics. Despite each one's orientation in what concerns belief, clearly this forum has taken a turn towards an agressive strain of atheism, and I don't see myself taking part on it.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
Like I said, the point of debate of this thread isn't about the claim that supernatural thinking increases with age - with which I'm not personally inclined to agree with, at least not in literate populations of western industrialized nations; I merely offered the study on which the original NYT article based that claim on - but about the different thought processes that the human brain probably uses to process statements of fact and statements of faith.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
Nic: See how easily you dismissed miracles when pressed on it?
Surprisingly, you were the first one to have the decency to ask the question directly, so you had a straightforward answer. My experience here lately is that, from the moment I question any atheist / rationalist claim or tenet, I'm targeted as if I were some sort of religious "mole" planted in the atheist tribe. It's both ridiculous and entertaining, but also tiresome and sometimes makes me question why I even bother to ask questions or spark some open debate.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
I would hope the actual study would make these distinctions explicit clear.
You can find it here, in the May/June 2012 edition of Child Development, volume 83, Number 3, Pages 779-793. 48-hour rent-to-read costs only $6.
I'm backing up a claim that I didn't make to start with but was challenged to show evidence for. The very title of the study already indicates multiple cultures and multiple developmental stages. Mind to show me how do you back your claim of the opposite now?
Eden
