God..YES Religion..NO. [Archive]

Hikaru Zero

09-10-2004, 11:07 PM

Hikaru Zero

Occam knows little of pantheism.

Please elucidate.

Occam believes there MAY BE a GOD.
That is .
A direction or controlling force behind reality.
There is empirical evidence [indicative] for such.

Occam sees no evidence of 'multiple gods'

Show occam the evidence..he will believe it.
He has no prejudice on information.
What IS, IS.
What people SAY, IS. is usually not.

This is why reason/science is so popular.
Their idea of what IS. Usually IS.

Occam

Occam

Pantheism, by the ... generally accepted definition ... is the belief that the universe -- including its physics, equations, phenomena, and other relevant perceptions -- IS god. I.e. God is not sentient, God is the universe itself, including everything about it.

This is pantheism.
This is NOT panentheism (note the extra 'en' in this word).

Panentheism is a bit different. Start with the definition of pantheism, but then make the universe sentient; that God is, essentially, both the universe and the "spirit" of the universe.

Panentheism almost always requires the belief of a latent sentient spirit that exists in all places throughout this universe, and that latent spirit is the spirit of God.

As if God is the pond,
We are the fish inside.
This is pantheism.

As if God is the pond AND the cold temperature of the water,
We are the fish inside AND the warm temperatures of our bodies.
This is panENtheism.
And panenthism offers the proposition that truth is found through Oneness with the universe; in the analogy above, through matching our fish-bodies' temperatures to the same temperature of the water.

Hikaru does not like the word 'God.' It often leads to many misconceptions and stereotypes, leading listeners away from the true concepts behind his sayings. Therefore, Hikaru has chosen a new name for this "universal spirit," which is "Gaia," named after the Greek Goddess of the Earth.

Please note, the other defintion of pantheism, "belief in all gods," is not meant to be implied here at all. Hikaru does not believe in multiple gods, though he does not rule out the possibility of the existance of such.

=====

Hikaru likes to think that Gaia works to correct imbalances in the universe through karma. He cannot prove it, nor asks that others believe in it, but chooses to believe it, even though there is a great lack of evidence proving the existance of karma.

=====

Your thoughts, Occam? Hikaru knows you are agnostic, he has read many of your other posts, and also knows why you speak in the third person. =) For the same reason, he has decided to do so when his ego is not speaking. He means no disrespect, nor does he mean to mock.

Hikaru Zero

09-10-2004, 11:20 PM

"Agnostocs DO NOT base their descriptions of reality or morals on any christian framework.
Good and bad existed long before christ.
Good and bad existed before religion of any sort.
Good and bad is a subjective position."

- Razorofoccam

Hikaru agrees.

Our world contains "good," and "bad."
Fish live in our world.
Therefore, fish experience "good," and "bad."
But fish do not know the concept of religion,
Nor do they know the concept of God.
Thus, "good," and "bad" exist as concepts,
Nothing more.
And they have no relevance to religion.
For religion to define "good," and "bad,"
When "good," and "bad" are merely perceptions,
Religion is incorrect in doing so,
Merely adding labels and contorting concepts
Of our perceptions,
So that we may agree with religion,
And thus follow it.

But,
Much in the way that interpreting a sentence, (I like fish. -> I enjoy watching fish.)
To mean something different than the actual proposition, (I enjoy consuming fish.)
Is incorrect, and strays from truth,
Such is religion incorrect and divergent of the truth,
To generalize perceptions among every person,
When such perceptions are different for each of us.

Razorofoccam

09-11-2004, 07:29 AM

-Hey Occam! -How ya doin!?! -Yea- About that religeon shit, -I dont think God likes it ONE BIT! -pist :)
Lumpy

No. I think a 'god' or whatever appreciates the stupid stories we tell about it.
We may be very amusing.
In fact.
What if we came to be because a 'god' needed a laugh ??

Occam

Razorofoccam

09-11-2004, 08:08 AM

Occam

Pantheism, by the ... generally accepted definition ... is the belief that the universe -- including its physics, equations, phenomena, and other relevant perceptions -- IS god. I.e. God is not sentient, God is the universe itself, including everything about it.

This is pantheism.
This is NOT panentheism (note the extra 'en' in this word).

Panentheism is a bit different. Start with the definition of pantheism, but then make the universe sentient; that God is, essentially, both the universe and the "spirit" of the universe.

Panentheism almost always requires the belief of a latent sentient spirit that exists in all places throughout this universe, and that latent spirit is the spirit of God.

As if God is the pond,
We are the fish inside.
This is pantheism.

As if God is the pond AND the cold temperature of the water,
We are the fish inside AND the warm temperatures of our bodies.
This is panENtheism.
And panenthism offers the proposition that truth is found through Oneness with the universe; in the analogy above, through matching our fish-bodies' temperatures to the same temperature of the water.

Hikaru does not like the word 'God.' It often leads to many misconceptions and stereotypes, leading listeners away from the true concepts behind his sayings. Therefore, Hikaru has chosen a new name for this "universal spirit," which is "Gaia," named after the Greek Goddess of the Earth.

Please note, the other defintion of pantheism, "belief in all gods," is not meant to be implied here at all. Hikaru does not believe in multiple gods, though he does not rule out the possibility of the existance of such.

=====

Hikaru likes to think that Gaia works to correct imbalances in the universe through karma. He cannot prove it, nor asks that others believe in it, but chooses to believe it, even though there is a great lack of evidence proving the existance of karma.

=====

Your thoughts, Occam? Hikaru knows you are agnostic, he has read many of your other posts, and also knows why you speak in the third person. =) For the same reason, he has decided to do so when his ego is not speaking. He means no disrespect, nor does he mean to mock. Hikaru

Wellmet my friend..

Firstly..Sorry for the 'typo' on Panenthiesm.

And thank you for the description/distinction on that word.
That 'god' or 'direction' as Occam labels it.
Is both the physicallity and 'spirit' of reality.
That reality IS god.
Is an interesting idea.

Occam sees direct supportive evidence [by his criteria]
Of direction.
The information systems [rules] that enable reality to exist are of titanic complexity and ballance. From the atomic world of
protons and neutrinos, to the macro world of stars and superclusters.
Such complexity requires organisation
Organisation requires rules
Rules require a 'director'

IF..Reality by panentheism.
IS the director
And the rules are imposed uppon the maker. By the maker.

So be it.

This is in fact, a far simpler explanation for a 'god' than occams diffuse
concept of 'direction'
Reality..that is..GOD.
Directs itself to be what it wishes to be.
If it wishes to be something that includes humanity.
It changes itself [the rules] to allow humanity to come about /using/
Evolution.

Thus evolution
IS GODS WAY OF CREATING

IF humanity were not so ego centered and short sighted
We would see it in a second.

Occam

[but remember, all occams propositions are based on his method.
His method may be faulty. Thus all the above is opinion only
He cannot SEE reality. he can only interpret it. Through logic and the senses]

Razorofoccam

09-11-2004, 08:25 AM

"
Therefore, fish experience "good," and "bad."
But fish do not know the concept of religion,
Nor do they know the concept of God.
Thus, "good," and "bad" exist as concepts,
Nothing more.

Hikaru

Good and bad are not concepts originating in religion
or god.

Religion and the concept of god came to be because our reason said there is
GOOD and BAD.
Good and BAD are PRIME subjective positions that preceed any rational
qualification of them. [qualification IS rational , and irrational assessment]

REASON

Is the qualifier.
Why dont sheep fight back.?
Form a revolt against us humans who EAT them..?

They have no reason.

Work it out from there.

Occam

Hikaru Zero

09-11-2004, 09:19 AM

Occam

It is an honour to speak with you as well.
Hikaru is pleased that you enjoy his idea of Panenthism. =)

He also wishes to point out how every time,
"Good" and "bad" were in quotes.
This is because "good" and "bad" are subjective perceptions,
As you stated.

"Thus evolution
IS GODS WAY OF CREATING" - Occam

This is also what Hikaru believes,
In a way.
Perhaps, Gaia wanted to give life to other beings,
So she ... shall we say, morphed into this universe,
And gave to this universe
Occam's perception,
"direction."
Starting by allowing this universe to give birth to protocells,
And creating more complex animals from there,
Filling protocells with her sentient energy,
But distinguishing it from her own,
Creating a new sentience,
Giving it the ability to reproduce,
And introducing natural selection,
So that these organisms might evolve for the better.
This is what Hikaru believes.
Take it for what you will.
Evolution is, in his opinion, your "direction."
Or more specifically,
The act of introducing evolution to this world,
That Gaia may likely have done,
Is such direction.

Hikaru.

mebesideme

09-11-2004, 11:54 AM

Religion, in one's opinion, is nothing more than a system, a dogma (i know its an oxymoron here) for people so that they can have hope in the unknown, that it will turn out to their advantage and support them, ideally for all eternity. Religion is a tool for people to create hope. It was invented by man, for man. First to have hope that we would survive through the winter, that our crops would live and harvest rich. Then, it evolved into giving us hope that we may continue to exist in some state similar to our present one eternally after death. I believe in a supreme being because I feel that is the only way this all could have been started, and I adhere to a set of rules and morals very similar to the Ten Commandments, but because it is respectable to myself and my fellow man. I respect all life and treat as I would like to be treated because I am part of it, not above it or separate from it. I do think religion for the most part is good for many people. It promotes good will, communion and fellowship, and respect for other people. I do not agree with many of the beliefs and goals of the larger Churches and Practices though, like Cathiolicism, I feel that the Cathlic Church tries too much to give itself power and influence in society and government. Religion should be a place for a man to walk to when he wants to go there, and leave if he wishes to do so. The church should not have power of that man, or any influence except in his mind. He may act toward others in the efforts of getting them to join him there, but never physically. Religion should ba choice and a path, not the people and their legs carrying them.

Hikaru Zero

09-11-2004, 07:19 PM

mebesideme:

You are absolutely correct.

Religion was designed with hope in mind.

And death.

Or was it?

Religion, whether Christian, or Islamic, or any other religion, causes death.

The Crusades. Today's attacks from the Middle East.

And the same could be said for perhaps hundreds of wars fought in the past 7000 years that humanity has existed.

Religion, though designed to give hope,

Causes death.

Religion is no better than death.

mebesideme

09-12-2004, 08:06 AM

Death is the only certainty, the one eventuality that may be counted on. When you have nothing left, you still have death. Is it so bad?

Hikaru Zero

09-12-2004, 04:50 PM

Is it so bad?
Death?

The way Hikaru sees things ...

There are two ultimatums: Existance and non-existance.

If there is non-existance, one feels nothing.
If there is existance, one feels both the good and the bad.

Both are merely two perspectives that, in the end, average out to a "middle line" between feeling good and feeling bad.

That is, if you do not believe in reincarnation, heaven, or everlasting life.

If so, death is merely another stage in your "life." And thus, death ought not to be called such.

Jatom

09-14-2004, 04:32 AM

LuMpYtRiChOmEy

09-15-2004, 11:04 PM

-How can ya build a religeon around GOD when He tells ya to do somethin differant every day?

SingflowerCat

09-17-2004, 08:28 AM

please help me. How can a religion be new? Is this to say God is new? No, you must be saying God is always God, but the new religion, is finally the true way of seeing it? Are you saying there is one absolute true religion? Or are they all true?

Just to let you know, you sound like a real jerk, man.

First of all, I think the use of the word "new" in "new religion" meant that it was a new way of thinking for Hikaru. Not that the religion was just created.

Of course a religion can be new. THere are always going to be new ways of trying to describe God and new systems to help offer solutions to the complexities of life and issues that face mankind.

God IS always God. We have NO WAY of knowing which way is the "true way of seeing it". Any belief in any god requires faith.

Religion is MANMADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Learn to seperate RELIGION from GOD. God is the higher power, or the creative force of the universe. Different religions are man's way of trying to explain it.

There can not be one absolutely correct religion, but there can and is absolute Truth, which we just don't know, and aren't capable of knowing [all of it] at this point. We can discover small truths in ourselves if we will listen.... and most organized religions have valuable lessons and teachings that we can all learn from...

So you are God, right? So then, you must know the answer. Please enlighten me. Am i God also?

I can't answer for Hikaru Zero but my reply to you would be that creation (from the very first atom to you and me) came from God and since something can't come from nothing, and the only thing that has always existed is God, we are all pieces of of God. God is the life giving, organizing, sustaining force (spirit) in each of us, we are a part of that ultimate truth, and as we seek more truth we know ourselves, ie God more.

Please enlighten me

You'll have to lose the attitude to become enlightened. True enlightenment comes from earnest seeking... you may not come to the same conclusions as I have, but you'll never hear me making snide remarks about your beliefs like you just did in your post, something about it really showed your true character.

Jatom

09-17-2004, 08:50 AM

Learn to seperate RELIGION from GOD. God is the higher power, or the creative force of the universe. Different religions are man's way of trying to explain it.SingflowerCat, I find this utterly impossible. How is one to seperate "religion" from God? Any atempt to speak or even conceive of God is one's way of trying to explain Him, and thus he or she would be following some sort of religion be it institutionalized or personal. But, perhaps you can clear this up?

There can not be one absolutely correct religion, I believe otherwise. I think it's posible, just not actual.
but there can and is absolute Truth, which we just don't know, and aren't capable of knowing [all of it] at this point.Absolute Truth, or Absolute truths?

SingflowerCat

09-17-2004, 09:41 AM

words, words, words...

isn't language fun!?

OK:

when I use the word religion, I use the dictionary definition of "any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy" (Websters) It's a system of belief, and GOD (or any worshipped thing/being) often is the object of the system of belief, worship, etc.

So GOD is different concepts to different people--- God is x to susie, and Y to mark, and q to me.

Religion is the system of describing or explaining x, y, or q. Or the way of worshipping x, y, or q. OR the reason behind someone's conduct due to a specific code of ethics (think 10 commandments) or philosophy (think existentialists.)

Absolute Truth, or Absolute truths?

Macro/Micro... One Absolute Truth with many truths within it? Maybe?
I lean towards Truth, singular.
I don't profess to have it all exactly figured out. I'm enjoying thinking about your questions.

I believe otherwise. I think it's posible, just not actual.

Perhaps I chose my words poorly here. I do think it's possible too, just so highly unlikely right now that it's not actual, therefore, there are no completely "true" religions. Or any that seem completely true to me yet.

SingflowerCat

09-17-2004, 09:54 AM

OK first of all,

what the hell was this:chinacatsunflowerboy

It's too bad you're an asshole, because I LOVE thought-provoking discussions and lively debate, but I won't usually debate a prick.

BUT what the hell, I'm having fun..........

also - why can't there be one absolute religion? Is it not possible to be wrong? In natural scince and math there is only one correct answer - also in history - why not religion? Why is it different? What if my religion centered around killing every 10 year boy on the third tuesday of each month and your religion told you it was wrong to kill in the first place? Are they both true? are they both false? is one true and one false or vice-versa? How do you reconcile this. More realistically, and i think Jatom will agree, What if i'm a jew and i say Jesus was not the messiah and you're a Chrsitain and you say he was? We both can't be right can we? Certainly either Jesus either was or he wasn't. Is there a third possibility? Oh, yeah, right - we're all God and i'll accept that to a certain extent - but that is either/or both/and theism/pantheism thing is a whole other dilema -

I DO think that there is one true answer and that we just don't understand it and are all trying to describe it differently. I think someone can know god through patterning his life after Jesus and I think Jews have their own way of worshipping God, which doesn't include Jesus. I think that both are valuable, important, meaningful --but different-- ways in which to worship
whatever God is. Knowing the one true answer and the existance of one true answer are two seperate deals.

SingflowerCat

09-17-2004, 10:07 AM

Lets try this:

Katie is in kindergarden. She sees an advanced algebraic equation. Just because she doesn't know the answer to it doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. Get me? She may understand bits and pieces of it... Hey, that's a 2!!! But she doesn't get the whole equation, or see the big picture, she has a limited understanding of part of the whole.

I'm gonna reply to some other of your stuff, too, but I'm trying to reply quickly since you're online.

Razorofoccam

09-17-2004, 01:44 PM

I believe everybody has a religion or a "personal or institutionalized system" grounded in certain beliefs. For example, I'd say occam's religion is empiricism, a system whose maxim fails by it's own criteria.
Jatom

Incorrect.. occam has no 'religion'
Do not call occams method a religion.
A religion is a set of beliefs based in precontemporary writing.
[literature or handed down beliefs]
Occam does not base his opinions on any ONE set of thouhts.
His thoughts on higher direction are WHOLEY based on BASE
information about reaity.
That information is empirical and also conceptual.

You say empirical information fails by it's own criteria
Yes . By certain standards it does.
But those standards are ALL we have to chose by.
One must say WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE MATRIX

If we do not. Then empirical observation is

VALID

Occam

Razorofoccam

09-17-2004, 02:07 PM

"also - why can't there be one absolute religion? Is it not possible to be wrong? In natural scince and math there is only one correct answer - also in history - why not religion? Why is it different? What if my religion centered around killing every 10 year boy on the third tuesday of each month and your religion told you it was wrong to kill in the first place? Are they both true? are they both false? is one true and one false or vice-versa? How do you reconcile this. More realistically, and i think Jatom will agree, What if i'm a jew and i say Jesus was not the messiah and you're a Chrsitain and you say he was? We both can't be right can we? Certainly either Jesus either was or he wasn't. Is there a third possibility? Oh, yeah, right - we're all God and i'll accept that to a certain extent - but that is either/or both/and theism/pantheism thing is a whole other dilema -"

Occam asks the exact same questions

Religion is RIFE with contradiction.
Contradiction means...LIES

Religion is ABSOLUTELY POPULATED WITH LIES.

The Bible is a book of contradictions. Lies

The first LIE IS.. That it is the word of god.

CRAP
The bible is the word of god because it says it is??????
Thus god wrote the bible because the bible said he did???

That is a circular logical position

HUMANS wrote the bible
We know they did.and only a fool would say we did not.

No human can show that god wrote it,
Thus it is a story for the foolish.
As is most religion.
Stories for those that cannot tell a story from reality

THAT, is the general level of human cognitive abillity

Occam

Hikaru Zero

09-17-2004, 05:59 PM

"How can a religion be new? Is this to say God is new? No, you must be saying God is always God, but the new religion, is finally the true way of seeing it? Are you saying there is one absolute true religion? Or are they all true?"

By 'new,' Hikaru meant that he now believes in this religion. Though Hikaru is hesitant to call it a religion ... as it is focused around spirituality, and it is likely that few other people believe as he does.

"Oh wait, you are a pantheist. So you are God, right? So then, you must know the answer. Please enlighten me. Am i God also?"

No. Hikaru is not a pantheist.

Pantheist, no.
PanENtheist, yes.

You claim that pantheists are God, as they believe that the entire universe is a/the manifestation of God. In this case, a pantheist would only be a very small, finite part of what may very well be an infinite God. Thus, this description of a pantheist *being* God is inaccurate.

A panentheist is similar to a pantheist; however, panentheists believe that while their bodies may very well be created from 'God' him/herself, there is a latent sentient spiritual presence that exists everywhere in this universe (an omnipotent spirit), and that presence is 'God,' whereas our spirits are separate from 'God.' Thus, we are NOT in fact 'God.'

Hikaru refuses to further call this entitiy 'God.' Calling the entity such leads to many misconceptions. Hikaru prefers to call this entity Gaia, named from the Greek goddess of the Earth.

"Of course a religion can be new. THere are always going to be new ways of trying to describe God and new systems to help offer solutions to the complexities of life and issues that face mankind."

SingflowerCat brings up a good point. Religions are ALWAYS new, as they are concoctions of mankind. No religion is exactly the same for two people; not even Christianity. Every person has their own interpretation. In this sense, a religion is "new" every time their interpretation of a "religion" changes.

"You'll have to lose the attitude to become enlightened. True enlightenment comes from earnest seeking... you may not come to the same conclusions as I have, but you'll never hear me making snide remarks about your beliefs like you just did in your post, something about it really showed your true character."

Enlightenment is not taught. Enlightenment is found. To ask for enlightenment from another person is like asking for money from a homeless person; it cannot be given, only found or perhaps bestowed by Gaia/God/what-have-you.

"SingflowerCat, I find this utterly impossible. How is one to seperate "religion" from God? Any atempt to speak or even conceive of God is one's way of trying to explain Him, and thus he or she would be following some sort of religion be it institutionalized or personal. But, perhaps you can clear this up?"

I shall clear this up, Jatom. Religion has a concoction called 'God. 'Spirituality without bias towards religion can ALSO lead to believe in a so-called 'God.' Thus, God is not partial to religion alone, and is separate; though religion and God are always found together. Religion is lower on the heirarchy; 'God' exists in all religion, but religion does not exist in all that we discuss about 'God.'

"Absolute Truth, or Absolute truths?"

Jatom, he is talking about collective truth, not just "a truth" in general. =)

"In natural scince and math there is only one correct answer - also in history - why not religion? Why is it different?"

In science and mathematics, there is only one correct answer. In history, there is only one correct answer. In religion, THERE IS ALSO ONLY ONE CORRECT ANSWER. =)

I could walk up to you and say that 2 + 2 equals 5. This is INCORRECT. However, for me to say this, when I truthfully know that 2 + 2 is equal to 4, that would make me a dogmatist.

However, nobody knows TRUTH, when religion is concerned.

It is "the never-ending math problem" that nobody has been able to solve.

Billions of people have said that x + y (religion) is 6, 7, 22, 1678, and even 0. However, we do not know what the correct answer to this problem is, as nobody has been able to solve it to find out what the correct answer.

This is why religion seems not to have a single correct answer.

Sera Michele

09-17-2004, 06:22 PM

what religion claims God wrote the bible and not humans? Judaism and Christiainty do not - i agreewith you, as do all properly informed jews and christians, the Bible is written by humans........what's your point here?

PS - why the hell do you two insits on referring to yourselves in the third perons - you sound like a pair of nimrodsThats funny, because I think that a person who believes that a man died and three days later rose from the dead and ascended from earth up into heaven sounds like a nimrod. (Of course I don't run around telling every christian that. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs)

Also, insulting people because they are different than you makes you sound like a nimrod.

To me, both Razorofoccamand Hikaru Zero have been carrying on interesting conversation, and have made some thought-provoking statements. Far from sounding like nimrods.

And I think his point about the Bible is...it was written by humans 3,000+ years ago, who had far less knoweldge of science and the universe/earth as a whole. It is bound to be fallible. It is also so vague and filled with so many contradictions that it can be interpreted however one would like, allowing it to minupulate socities, regardless of their place in time. (but please, occam, correct me if this was not your point.)

But all that is slowly fading as science moves further.

SingflowerCat

09-17-2004, 06:37 PM

chinacatsunflowerboy,
i agree with jatom - how the hell do you separate religion from God - you've yet to convince either of us?

You said to proceed, does this mean that I convinced one or both of you to seperate God and religion and that they are not one and the same?

I sort of need a yes here to proceed with my arguments. But I'll offer them anyway....

what religion claims God wrote the bible and not humans? Judaism and Christiainty do not - i agreewith you, as do all properly informed jews and christians, the Bible is written by humans........what's your point here?

Most Christians (or at least the fine print in their particular denomination's systems of belief, or religion) believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired, infallable, word of God. That is, that it was written by men, but under direct inspiration from God, he told them in some way what to say and therefore the Word of God is perfect and can not possibly contain any contradictions or untruths.

I don't really get into the Bible debate of whether is was written through divine inspiration or not. I think it could have been... maybe these men were men who thought so much about god and spiritual matters, that they had a burning need and desire to write it down for others, and God (my definition-- the loving and creative force of the universe that is a part of us all) was with them as they listened to their own spirit/heart/innervoice and were thus inspired as they wrote. I've definately written before and felt "inspired." Who knows. anyway this particular debate over who wrote the bible, god or god-inspired men doesn't really even matter to me. It's one of those things that seems relatively unimportant to me.

Regardless, I think that Jesus was definately a man who came into the world to show us all by example a wonderful way of life that included love for everyone, even the outcasts of society...

why can't there be one absolute religion

I'm going to touch on this one again just to make sure I've gotten it out of the way.... Please also see previous post

It is possible and one true religion must exist if God does exist (one true religion = the right way of describing and worshipping God) but mankind as a whole hasn't yet stumbled upon it, in my opinion. We are just putting together the puzzle, and someday all of the pieces may fit and we'll be able to see the whole picture.

Peace out, my crazy homies............................................ .......
CSF

Sera Michele

09-17-2004, 08:58 PM

I've gotten it out of the way.... Please also see previous post

It is possible and one true religion must exist if God does exist (one true religion = the right way of describing and worshipping God) but mankind as a whole hasn't yet stumbled upon it, in my opinion. We are just putting together the puzzle, and someday all of the pieces may fit and we'll be able to see the whole picture.

Peace out, my crazy homies............................................ .......
CSFNot sure if I agree. Who's to say that if some sort of "god" exists, that it even cares about religion. You don't see other forms of life around us practicing anything like religion. What makes you think that the "god" made us more important to him, or that we have the obligation other life doesn't.

I think you are getting the very basic christian belief that Humans are made in the image of god, or basically that humans are some sort of stand-out in the universe mixed into the idea of a universal god.

Basically, why worship?

SingflowerCat

09-17-2004, 09:32 PM

Who's to say that if some sort of "god" exists, that it even cares about religion.

I didn't say that god cared about religion, which I define once again according to Websters as
any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy" ,
we are just talking about the existance of religion. For example, we can try to accurately describe and scientifically discern facts about the wind, but I'm sure the wind doesn't care. Just because it doesn't care doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that I can't try to understand or describe it. By the same token, perhaps God doesn't care and perhaps he/she/it does, but whether or not God cares can't stop us from trying to understand and describe the phenomenon.

Sera Michele

09-17-2004, 09:50 PM

But by your own definition then, one true religion cannot exist.

My point is, religion and god are two completely seperate things. Scientifically discerning facts about the wind isn't religion.

SingflowerCat

09-17-2004, 11:52 PM

It's very frustrating sometimes trying to put my thoughts into words,.

I'm gonna try to anyway:

You said that by my own definition one true religion cannot exist.

I still hold that if God exists then there must be one "true" way to describe him, her, it, whatever. Right:? Do you agree with this?

And if there is one true way to describe God, then by very definiition there must be one true religion.

My thoughts are that most religions today are simply attempts to grapple with the issue of what God is. Many hold iimportant lessons for people, but the one "true" religion, at least to me cannot be kjnown because we CANT know at this point what God is.

Does this make sense? Do you still think I'm contradicting myself, because I honestly don't think that I am.

Peace.

NaykidApe

09-17-2004, 11:55 PM

Religion is a cop-out for ppl who are too lazy or too scared to talk to God themselves.

SingflowerCat

09-18-2004, 02:51 AM

:p Religion is a cop-out for ppl who are too lazy or too scared to talk to God themselves.

I sho 'nuf tend to believe that too! I think we should outlaw all churches and make it illegal to talk to any about God and force the people who have a yearing to know God figure him/it/her out for themselves!!!!!!

'course I'm only kidding about outlawing churches and taking away free speech.

:sunglasse

iamaretardface

09-18-2004, 02:54 AM

yeah i really dont like the idea of .. like churches and stuff. They piss me off , because I used to go to them, and they were just messed up. I do believe in god though.. just not in the way that churches do..

Hikaru Zero

09-18-2004, 04:46 AM

"PS - why the hell do you two insits on referring to yourselves in the third perons - you sound like a pair of nimrods" - Karl Hungus
and
"Also, insulting people because they are different than you makes you sound like a nimrod." - Sera Michele

Karl: If you wish to know why Hikaru and Occam refer to themselves in the third person, send Hikaru a private message and he will explain all.

Hikaru also wants to point out that arguments, statements, and questions all have the same meaning whether or not they are put into a particular point of view. If you are having trouble distinguishing the meanings behind this "nimrod" speech, perhaps you are not meant to be on this particular thread.

Hikaru also suggests that you do not discriminate based on the point of view that people refer to themselves in. There is a good reason for such a point of view, and before dismissing it as nimrodic (if that is a word ...), perhaps you ought to find out the answer. For Hikaru believes that discrimination based on point of view is equally nimrodic.

"Regardless, I think that Jesus was definately a man who came into the world to show us all by example a wonderful way of life that included love for everyone, even the outcasts of society..." - SingflowerCat

Jesus existed. This is very probable.

In fact, may other faiths that do not worship him as the Saviour even agree that he did exist; just not that he was the Saviour. They also agree that he did many miraculous things.

Hikaru believes similarly that Jesus is not a "Saviour," but is more of a Buddha-figure, in that he was a wise man with a strong will to do good things. Hikaru has much respect for Jesus due to this, despite the fact that he is not Christian.

Jatom

09-18-2004, 08:52 AM

when I use the word religion, I use the dictionary definition of "any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy" (Websters) It's a system of belief, and GOD (or any worshipped thing/being) often is the object of the system of belief, worship, etc.SingflowerCat, I was merely using your definition of religion. You said:

"Learn to seperate RELIGION from GOD. God is the higher power, or the creative force of the universe. Different religions are man's way of trying to explain it."

I was pointing out that what you ask is imposible. Let me put it this way:

1. All attempts to explain God in any way are a form of religion (see your quote above)
2. The concept that God can be seperated from religion is an explaination of God (namely, that He can be seperated from religion)
3. Therefore the concept that God can be seperated from religion, is itself a form of religion.

Of course going off of this, it can be taken deeper:

1. All religions are manmade
2. Any concept of God is a form of religion
2. Therefore any concept of God is manmade.

So any talk of God becomes a form of religion, including the sentences "Learn to seperate RELIGION from GOD" and "God is the higher power, or the creative force of the universe." since they are both explaining something about God.

So GOD is different concepts to different people--- God is x to susie, and Y to mark, and q to me.

Religion is the system of describing or explaining x, y, or q. Or the way of worshipping x, y, or q. OR the reason behind someone's conduct due to a specific code of ethics (think 10 commandments) or philosophy (think existentialists.)Samething here SingflowerCat, any talk about God, or about x, y, or q, becomes a form of religion and it becomes impossible to seperate God from religion.

Macro/Micro... One Absolute Truth with many truths within it? Maybe?
I lean towards Truth, singular.
I don't profess to have it all exactly figured out. I'm enjoying thinking about your questions.You'll have the explain this one further.

SingflowerCat

09-18-2004, 04:45 PM

that's great - this guy is quoting the dictionary as if all true authority rests with webster - yes i too used to quote the dictionary - it was great and my 10th grade english teacher loved it - but then i grew up

I don't think all authority rests with webster, but it helps to have definitions for words because words are all we have. If we can't agree on the meaning of words, then debates have a hard time moving forward. It just seemed easier to go to the dictionary for the definition, then move on.

Once again I say (lovingly ) that you're a prick.

You must really have some issues with loving yourself because usually only people with poor self esteem continually lash out at others. And with that, I am done responding to you. If there is anyone else out there that wants to carry on civil debate, I would love to.

P.S. and I'm no guy, I'm 100% woman. Just to let you know.

Hikaru Zero

09-18-2004, 05:45 PM

"how is Jesus more like a Buddha-figure?" - Karl Hungus

This is merely Hikaru's opinion. Not in that Buddha and Jesus preached the same thing, but in that both were and still are inspirations to humanity because of the things they both said and did. And both ought to be respected for such.

"great - i'd love to email hikaru - do you have his email address?" - Karl Hungus

You may reach Hikaru at hikaruzero@snine.net. He will be much obliged to answer any questions. =) You may also send him a private message on the forums, if that is easier for you.

"Quote:
Macro/Micro... One Absolute Truth with many truths within it? Maybe?
I lean towards Truth, singular.
I don't profess to have it all exactly figured out. I'm enjoying thinking about your questions.

You'll have the explain this one further." - Jatom

What is being asked here is whether this is a reference to Truth, or to a few truths. That is, whether the reference is towards one or more truths, or the collective body of all truths that is "Truth."

Jatom

09-19-2004, 07:30 AM

If there is anyone else out there that wants to carry on civil debate, I would love to.Look the post I made right above yours.

P.S. I'm glad to see you're 100% woman, and not 50/50 or something like that...

SingflowerCat

09-19-2004, 07:52 PM

Jatom,

I stillsay that God and religion are 2 seperate entities that are closely related, but not one and the same.

In my very first response to this thread I wrote:

Religion is MANMADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Learn to seperate RELIGION from GOD. God is the higher power, or the creative force of the universe. Different religions are man's way of trying to explain it.

Just because 2 things usually go together doesn't mean that they are the same thing. (Love and marriage for example) Religion is definately created by man, do you agree with this? TO take it a step further, Do you believe that we created God? You may, if you believe he exixts as only our perception of him (I use the "he" here just out of habit and from my very strict fundamentalist upbringing, I could just as well use she or it, 'cause we really don't know do we?). I believe a higher force exists outside of our perception of it. And if we did not create god as we created religion, they are 2 separate things. (The word separate is driving me crazy, I don't know if I've been spelling it right....!!!!!!!)

I like the idea of thinking that some sort of energy of perfect love is the sustaining force of everything... the controlling glue that makes things tick and evolve.

I don't know how actively involved in our lives this force is... but I think that if we try to quietly listen and attune ourselves with it and try to become sincerely, genuinely altruistic, then we begin to see the 'oneness' of things. At least things for me began to click when I began thinking this way. Jesus and Buddha were both people who we so in tune with this energy of perfect love that they sparked major religions. I'm sure both would be so grieved to know the religions of man based on their lives had caused so many wars and deaths.

I believe in tolerance for ALL religions... OK, OK, I know someone will say what if my religion says to kill, blah,blah,blah... you know what I mean. Some things we have to know are wrong. And I guess knowing exactly where to draw the line would be troublesome.

1. All attempts to explain God in any way are a form of religion (see your quote above)
2. The concept that God can be separated from religion is an explaination of God (namely, that He can be seperated from religion)
3. Therefore the concept that God can be separated from religion, is itself a form of religion.

Of course going off of this, it can be taken deeper:

1. All religions are manmade
2. Any concept of God is a form of religion
2. Therefore any concept of God is manmade.

I really do see what you're getting at here. I guess my original statement about separating God and religion was to say that many people automatically discount or despise God based on the things modern religions have done-- or specifically, religious people. It's not god's fault that people have done some crazy things in his name. So hate organized religion if you want, but don't hate god. 'cause I think they are separate. One god, soooooooooooooooooooooo many different religions.

OOhh since I'm talking about god, I guess that's my new religion! I like it.

Samething here SingflowerCat, any talk about God, or about x, y, or q, becomes a form of religion and it becomes impossible to seperate God from religion.

You're saying that you can't seperate them because they invariably always end up together, and I'm saying that you can separate them because even thought they always end up together, they are still two separate things, Something, and A Way To Describe Something.

Peace. I really enjoy reading everyone's ideas, and sorry I got so frustrated with Karl Hungus.

And Sorry this is the longest thread ever!

Y'all have a good day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hikaru Zero

09-19-2004, 11:17 PM

SingflowerCat's point:

For those of you who know anything about programming.

A program consists of 2 "codes."

Source code,
and,
Object code.

Source code is the crap that programmers type into their computers.
Object code is a translation of that crap, so that the computer can understand it (object code = 00111011010, that sort of thing).

In this case,

Source code = God
Object code = Religion.

Even though they are ALWAYS found together (as you cannot find object code without it having a source code, and usually cannot find the vice-versa unless the program is incomplete), they are STILL separate entities, just as God and religion are separate.

Hikaru hopes this explaination satisfies. =)

Jatom

09-20-2004, 07:14 AM

Jatom,

I stillsay that God and religion are 2 seperate entities that are closely related, but not one and the same.SingflowerCat, I'm not, nor was I ever arguing against the posibility of the above being true (afterall it is completely possible that one manmade religion does actually corresponse to reality - in which case I would argue that the religion was discovered and not "made" ) and this actually isn't what the discussion is about. You originally commanded that we "Learn to seperate RELIGION from GOD" a command that is imposible, given your definition of "religion". This was actually what I was getting at in my last post. I guess I could have put it clearer though.

Just because 2 things usually go together doesn't mean that they are the same thing.Of course. But this isn't what's in question is it? You see, if God exist, and religion is any attempted explaination of God, than one cannot hear, speak, or think anything 'God' without it being a form of religion. In other words SingflowerCat, once one managed to seperate religion from God, any ideas he held about God would still be an explaination of such, and thus, still a religion.

I really do see what you're getting at here. I guess my original statement about separating God and religion was to say that many people automatically discount or despise God based on the things modern religions have done-- or specifically, religious people. It's not god's fault that people have done some crazy things in his name. So hate organized religion if you want, but don't hate god. 'cause I think they are separate. One god, soooooooooooooooooooooo many different religions.I agree, and if that's what you meant by learning to seperate God from religion, than it actually makes more sense.

You're saying that you can't seperate them because they invariably always end up together, and I'm saying that you can separate them because even thought they always end up together, they are still two separate things, Something, and A Way To Describe Something.Notice I agree that they are two seperate things, and the fact that they are two seperate things means that they are, by very implication, seperate. What I'm questioning, however, is the ability of one to seperate the two. In other words, I not questioning the metaphysical state of the two, "what is," rather how one could know anything about God without religion. That is, religion (by your definition) is the precondition for ALL knowledge about God, so in this regard, the two become inseparable

...and don't worry, the length and grammer of your post was just fine. I'm sure I make enough grammtical errors for the both of us ;)

SingflowerCat

09-20-2004, 08:34 AM

I'm not completely sure.

Karl H:
My question, how does one, or we, or you, determine and absolute moral like you are advocating for. I agree with you, something's are just wrong - there are absolute morals that transcend context (time & space). but what is the standard for that? How do we, as you say, just know some things are wrong?

For me personally, I think the inner voice/conscience that we've been created with would help us know "rights" from "wrongs"... if we would really listen to it. It can get warped when people ignore it. I think the more we listen and meditate, the more clearly we can hear this "voice" (for lack of a better word, since I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into vocabulary). But then it raises the question of who's "voice" is right in complex issues like abortion, and assisted suicides, for example.

Any ideas from anyone on this one?

Hikaru Zero, I'd never heard the computer code analogy... but it works so well, thanks...

Jatom:
I agree, and if that's what you meant by learning to seperate God from religion, than it actually makes more sense.
ooooooooops, looks like we agreed on this all along. And I definately see what you're saying about how any thoughts or talk about god would be classified by definition as religion.

You originally commanded

Eeek! I guess an imperative sentence like I wrote was a command. I sure wish you could put tone of voice and facial expressions in these posts! Next time I'll say, "I'd like to encourage you to try and separate in your thoughts the organized religion of man which has done some crazy-ass stuff, from god who I don't think likes any of the aforementioned crazy-ass stuff.

In other words SingflowerCat, once one managed to seperate religion from God, any ideas he held about God would still be an explaination of such, and thus, still a religion.

Gotcha. Wow.

P.S. I'm glad to see you're 100% woman, and not 50/50 or something like that...

Ok, and that just made me laugh. Thanks!

BlackGuardXIII

09-26-2004, 11:49 AM

And it harm none, do what thou wilt.

I believe that an atheist and a believer such as myself are both right, since I am not living your reality, and you cannot know mine, so who is to say we both cant be right?

Razorofoccam

10-07-2004, 10:44 AM

Hikaru Zero

Wellmet my friend
Occam has returned from his hiatus.

Hopefully we can talk of things of interest and import

Occam

Razorofoccam

10-07-2004, 11:16 AM

Singflowercat...

you raise good points.

my quesiton is - you say we need to draw the line somewhere with religion and know that some things are wrong (i.e. murder) - you bring morality into the discussion which, i think, is good and important. My question, how does one, or we, or you, determine and absolute moral like you are advocating for. I agree with you, something's are just wrong - there are absolute morals that transcend context (time & space). but what is the standard for that? How do we, as you say, just know some things are wrong?

-H to the UNGUS
Hungus...

Easy..Murder is wrong because it wastes the incredible potential of a human being.
It wastes one of the rarest things in reality.
Self aware consciousness.

Nowhere in reality do we see any waste.
reality does not see such a concept...
Only self aware beings do.

Waste..murder. killing, right and wrong.
Are human interpretation of phenomena.

So occam dissagrees that there is absolute morality of any kind.
Nature itself kills 99% of many newborn crops of species so the other 1%Survive to propagate.
And nature must follow any absolute law...
No?

Occam calls himself a good man.. His morality is a consolidation of his heart and his reason.
He will NOT take anothers life because he has a code he lives by.
That code is justified by reason and compassion. [there are exceptions]
Not by any silly human religious arguement.
In the bible ..god kills for no good reason at all.
And good men such as occam. Who's code is their own.
WILL go to hell..because occam does not give credence to the
copyright laws on GOOD that god apparently enforces.

Good and evil existed way before any religion we know of.
They existed first.. in the minds of self awre beings.

They were our rational choice of how best to survive with other humans..

Religion [organisation] hijacked morality and called it the word of god..

What a laugh. And how many religions are there?
Which religious morality is truth?
Will i cut of my sons foreskin?
Will i cut off my daughters clitoris?
Will i go to heaven if i kill a nonbeliever?
Should occam, as the church suggests.. be the master of the family even though the female is 50points higher on the IQ scale?

Occam states no facts...
He asks you questions..
That is the process of.....
Gaining understanding. [and without undestanding, there is no wisdom]
[and without information..there is no understanding]

These are the three steps
Inforamtion, Understanding, Wisdom.
And the process from information to understanding is one of the most important processes in human reality.

Occam

Hikaru Zero

10-08-2004, 01:06 AM

i'm in cuba and from the phillipines

Cuba, eh? Perhaps that is where your belligerence and conceited, egotistical, condescending attitude comes from ...

Hikaru Zero

Wellmet my friend
Occam has returned from his hiatus.

Hopefully we can talk of things of interest and import

Occam

Aye, that might be enjoyable. =) Just send me a forum PM, or if you look at my profile, you should be able to find my AIM, MSN, and Yahoo! names. I am on often; and even if I have an away message up, I am almost positively there, so feel free to IM me regardless of any away messages. =)

Easy..Murder is wrong because it wastes the incredible potential of a human being.
and
you say murder is obvioulsy wrong and then you say there is no absolute morality - you contradict yourself in the most obvious way

I'm sorry, Karl, did Occam say anywhere that "Murder is wrong for EVERYONE?" I personally don't see it implied anywhere; this observation only pertains to Occam.

Perhaps instead of focusing on putting implied words into Occam's mouth, you should concentrate on the actual words being written, and the propositions behind them.

You make a jest of yourself in the most obvious way. =P

Razorofoccam

10-08-2004, 07:51 PM

You say murder is obvioulsy wrong and then you say there is no absolute morality - you contradict yourself in the most obvious way .you've just made an absolute statement about murder by deeming it always wrong -

Occam said HE said the killing of other humans was wrong...
he did not say it was an absolute.
Nothing...occam says is an absolute.

This is because there are no human absolutes except that human reason can say that it exists because it can say just that.

occam razror head - you smoke your own pipe too much - wake up

Actually it's 'blow my own horn' but that would cop some serious comment.

i'm in cuba and from the phillipines

Occam is from earth

SingflowerCat

10-09-2004, 06:34 AM

Hung-ass-mother-fucking-goddamn idiot-:

and singflowerboy:

"conscience" "inner feeling" for a moral compass - are you shittin me? What about the islamic fundamentaist who sincerly belive they are doing the will of God through murder - there consciones tells them this

Well, you got me there. Touche.

Peace.

Razorofoccam

10-09-2004, 12:58 PM

Cuba, eh? Perhaps that is where your belligerence and conceited, egotistical, condescending attitude comes from ...
Hikaru

Give him some slack,, ever since the farce called communism rolled over and died...
Cuba stopped getting 10 million US$ a day to prop up its centralised disaster called an ecconomy. [from the USSR]

This pattern was repeated in vietnam, but they got smart. The nation suffered a 1,5 million ton shortfall of rice. [in '93 occam thinks]
So the government..those wonderfull pragmatic bastards..
Made food a free market unregulated from above.

2 years later thay had a 2 million ton surplus...

Vietnam is now functionally a capatalist dictatorship,, as is the behemoth called China.

So what was the vietnam war about???
Nothing.
And what of Cuba, and it;s asian cousin N Korea...
They will either suicide. [or start a war..same thing]

Or slide into impoverishment [and both under communism are already starving to death. In NKorea the ARMY comes to collect the crops each year...it leaves very little behind for the farmer to survive on..
Young men join the army to have food...and for no other reason.
this is peoples paradice..commumism///it was a good idea at the time.;
Human ego destroyed it]

Occam

BlackGuardXIII

10-09-2004, 01:26 PM

Hungus...

Easy..Murder is wrong because it wastes the incredible potential of a human being.
It wastes one of the rarest things in reality.
Self aware consciousness.

Nowhere in reality do we see any waste.
reality does not see such a concept...
Only self aware beings do.

Waste..murder. killing, right and wrong.
Are human interpretation of phenomena.

So occam dissagrees that there is absolute morality of any kind.
Nature itself kills 99% of many newborn crops of species so the other 1%Survive to propagate.
And nature must follow any absolute law...
No?

Occam calls himself a good man.. His morality is a consolidation of his heart and his reason.
He will NOT take anothers life because he has a code he lives by.
That code is justified by reason and compassion. [there are exceptions]
Not by any silly human religious arguement.
In the bible ..god kills for no good reason at all.
And good men such as occam. Who's code is their own.
WILL go to hell..because occam does not give credence to the
copyright laws on GOOD that god apparently enforces.

Good and evil existed way before any religion we know of.
They existed first.. in the minds of self awre beings.

They were our rational choice of how best to survive with other humans..

Religion [organisation] hijacked morality and called it the word of god..

What a laugh. And how many religions are there?
Which religious morality is truth?
Will i cut of my sons foreskin?
Will i cut off my daughters clitoris?
Will i go to heaven if i kill a nonbeliever?
Should occam, as the church suggests.. be the master of the family even though the female is 50points higher on the IQ scale?

Occam states no facts...
He asks you questions..
That is the process of.....
Gaining understanding. [and without undestanding, there is no wisdom]
[and without information..there is no understanding]

These are the three steps
Inforamtion, Understanding, Wisdom.
And the process from information to understanding is one of the most important processes in human reality.

Occam
I have lots of questions, and no facts too, well precious few facts. I feel that there is a line between good and evil, so to me, ethics are trans-cultural as opposed to morality which differs markedly one culture to the next.

If it harms someone, it is evil, if it helps it is good, in a nutshell.
I believe in Spirit, and feel pretty solid that jesus is not a fictional character, though most of his story is symbolic, I feel. Yet I will not get to go to Christian heaven either, cuz i dont accept the died on the cross for me thing.
Oh well, hell is probably like vegas, and heaven is like the library at Oxford, i bet.

Sera Michele

10-09-2004, 04:32 PM

BlackGuardXIII

10-09-2004, 04:38 PM

I don't support human sacrifice, at all, but if I volunteered to be sacrificed it would not necessarily be evil to do me in. I want to kill the Green River serial killer. Given the chance, I would. Not out of vengeance, I would do it as humanely as able, I just want him gone. So, maybe I am evil, I just believe there is an absolute ethical code that applies to all peoples.

Kharakov

10-09-2004, 05:08 PM

If it harms someone, it is evil, if it helps it is good, in a nutshell.Help requires evil, does it not? If there is no evil to correct, the need to help (do good) does not exist. It's the whole 'overly dramatic' thing that screws up the whole good/evil issue. I mean, you could just be hungry and someone could plop you down a synthesized steak. But NooOOooOooOooO.... people need to have odrama bin laden to get fired up about. You know God is just sitting up there thinking about the best (most dramatic) way to be evil, the way that will benefit people the most (and get God the most attention). Hmm, maybe a plague....... ohh yeah, I forgot... we got that whole apocalypse thing cooking up right now. Uhhohhh......

Razorofoccam

10-12-2004, 12:37 PM

I have lots of questions, and no facts too, well precious few facts. I feel that there is a line between good and evil, so to me, ethics are trans-cultural as opposed to morality which differs markedly one culture to the next.

If it harms someone, it is evil, if it helps it is good, in a nutshell.
I believe in Spirit, and feel pretty solid that jesus is not a fictional character, though most of his story is symbolic, I feel. Yet I will not get to go to Christian heaven either, cuz i dont accept the died on the cross for me thing.
Oh well, hell is probably like vegas, and heaven is like the library at Oxford, i bet.
BlackGuard

Occam also has lots of questions...And VERY few facts....
[But a whole lot of probabillity..a result of information]

****
Lets say we are in chad or sudan or whatever...
We visit a small village and the friendly locals offer to feed us in exchange for tales of our travels. We share our western treats and they share their local foods....
Suddenly a young girl of 8 or so runs screaming from a house and falls in your lap.
Several of the local woman come from the house to retrieve the child
who is frantic and in tears....
You ask what it about... and manage after some translation to discover they are just about to remove a large portion of that childs vulva with a knife [excision]
If a rage we all storm to the house and find the girl spread eagled on a bed
screaming for us to save her...

What do you do?

****************

Indeed ,,what do we do?
Occam holds that a child [under 16] should not be mutilated by anyone.
NO MATTER WHAT THE MOTIVATION.
To do so is to commit a crime against the inherent rights of a human being.
The child is to young to have responsibillity..For herself or others...
If she is not old enough to be responsible for herself...
It is the job of her parents/elders to protect her untill SHE can decide if she wants her Vulva mutilated and her clitoris hacked off...

Imposing circumcision and excision on children we are ethically and morally
bound to protect untill they can live as responsible humans is our job as rational thinking/feeing beings.

To cut of bits of children because of mindless laws promoted by ignorance and religion..Is AN EVIL.

He broke up with his last partner OVER THIS ISSUE.
She supported circumcision..Occam called her in not so harsh words ..
An ignorant butcher and follower of any social conformity...

There are no half measures in this....We mutilate children or we do not..
It is NOT like the appendix and such
The male foreskin results in NO health issues if the man keeps himself clean
And the female clitoris is cut off because ignorant men dont want their 'child' wives to experience ANY pleasure....

Such moral and ethical crimes happen all the time..we say we put up with it because that is their country, their culture....
WRONG.

Each life is ITS LIFE.Without country or culture...
WE ARE ALL HUMAN AND NOTHING ELSE....WE ARE ALL PEOPLE with inherent rights.

Country and Culture is CRAP.

They are words we use and no more..From space..There are no countries
our cultures...just earth..nature,,and us.

We are the half civilised irrational savages we ARE..Because things like this happen in the world.
Thats right..the next time someone says humanity is civillised...
Ask them if the little girl thinks so... pointing to the infected WOUND that was her private parts...

REASON would NEVER allow it.

To cut of the clitoris of that child is one thing.. and one thing only..EVIL
[the gratuitous harming of another to satisfy personal needs]

Occam

And yet this happens all the trime..why is occam still in his chair
doing nothing to stop it?

There can be no reason other than he is lazy , laking in resolve and embedded in the comfort of his present life..
That is the Horror he has to live with..
His own lack of resolve to action...Knowing some little girl IS be excised right now...
He asks however. How may 'adults would he have to kill' to stop it..
There seems only one path will stop it [without slaughter]...education.
Removal of ignorance.
This is a terrible conundrum for a reasoning being...
act, or wait for reason to be the norm.