eagle Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 Sure they all have Huge books representing them but aren't they all saying basically the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 Yes they are of course saying the same things curb your greed curb your lust conquer your fears...etc Values that are both important and unless you are a complete ******* moron pretty bleeding obvious. The question is whether it is really necessary in life to need to follow these guys to accept values that are, in the modern age, simply a matter of common sense. If you need religous teachings to show you how to lead a decent life so be it, but in my view it should be axiomatic to the modern world that the average non-neanderthal man should be able to tell right from wrong. It is called progress, civilisation.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 in my view it should be axiomatic to the modern world that the average non-neanderthal man should be able to tell right from wrong. actually...there ius a strong theory that states we are inbred with the neaderthals.....and even further stronger evidence that implies the neaderthals had a highly developed sense of ethics... (its annoying when people out of context ..choose to wank out their own areas of study and interest...isn't it?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 damm all like minded liberals wheres the controversy :roll: well I tried Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 in my view it should be axiomatic to the modern world that the average non-neanderthal man should be able to tell right from wrong. actually...there ius a strong theory that states we are inbred with the neaderthals.....and even further stronger evidence that implies the neaderthals had a highly developed sense of ethics... (its annoying when people out of context ..choose to wank out their own areas of study and interest...isn't it?) you study neanderthals? what bar, and were they watching football or rugby? <<actually i agree that neanderthals got a bad rap, and the common usage of 'neanderthal' is usually based on the assumption that they were vastly inferior to the greatness of homo sapiens, which in turn was brought about by the self-serving notion that evolution not only progressed toward complexity, but toward just plain greatness--homo sapiens, of course being the pinnacle of that evolution. judged, of course, by--you guessed it--homo sapiens! wank on slurmsie it's better than having another whiff of 'emotional moment'>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 All hypocrites...The more organized it becomes, the dirtier it gets Its mans legacy. we will eventually be currupted as our heads swell from our growing egos and the money ends up in bags big enough to tempt us to steal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 wank on slurmsie it's better than having another whiff of 'emotional moment'>> it was indigestion!! god...i will never live this down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 wank on slurmsie it's better than having another whiff of 'emotional moment'>> it was indigestion!! god...i will never live this down! how dare you flatulate in a religious thread :shock: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 how dare you flatulate in a religious thread sorry...just thought it more polite than anything that would come out my mouth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 how dare you flatulate in a religious thread sorry...just thought it more polite than anything that would come out my mouth... well I guess a good honest intentioned should be embraced by any religion. but how would one embrace that :shock: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 All hypocrites...The more organized it becomes, the dirtier it gets Its mans legacy. we will eventually be currupted as our heads swell from our growing egos and the money ends up in bags big enough to tempt us to steal. exactly! So does that mean greed and hunger for power is human nature? I have held that cynical view for years that greed is human nature. I think as we are disconnected from our animal nature and we call ourself civilized as we kill each other in wars and are generally hypocritical in our day to day. If we really accepted we are animals too and not think of ourselfs as soooo Superior to everything we might try to live with it instead of own it and sell it so we can buy a BIG car. Native people have lived with the Planet for thousands of years and they are called savages. I think modern man is the savage grinding the world up in his Mill of greed and selfishness. of course thats my opinion :shock: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerflix Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 if we are nothing but animals, should we be abide by laws of evolution, i.e.: i can kill you, mate with your ***** and eat your offspring if I am the stronger one? Also, do you mean that some groups (races) of homo sapiens are more evolved, then others? I think this theory was already floated in the 20's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 if we are nothing but animals, should we be abide by laws of evolution, i.e.: i can kill you, mate with your b*tch and eat your offspring if I am the stronger one? Also, do you mean that some groups (races) of homo sapiens are more evolved, then others? I think this theory was already floated in the 20's... Not all animals are carnivorous dude but we can take care of the planet that feeds us by not polluting the air so we can make big bucks and destroy our water flushing **** down the toilet . And Cutting down trees so we can make paper and graze cattle. Animals live with the planet naturally, eating to survive and adapting and yes evolving So since we don't live with the planet who is really more advanced ??? Common sense would go for the survival of the system that supports us all not destroying it all so we can buy a big screen TV We can and should evolve to that and we can and I think we eventually will because we have too 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerflix Posted October 12, 2005 Report Share Posted October 12, 2005 so what you are saying is that we should just leave our **** behind and drag our asses on the ground instead of flushing and using paper...and then go back to the mud-hut and let the old, the weak and the sick just die, like in nature....lovely we are predators by the way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominique355 Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 There are 3 religions with a common origin: Judaism, Christianism and Islam. All monotheistic and all form the Middle East. The common point is also that these 3 religions impose on people to accept their concept without thinking, without asking questions, without challenging the authority. Furtheron, at least Christianism and Islam are intolerant and contstantly on a missionary trip. (You MUST believe in me or you will burn in hell! Let me save you, even against your will!). Buddhism is quite different, mainly because it puts the responsability for how to behave into each single person. I think Buddha once said that if someone demands you to "believe" without question, go away and look for your own truth. For this reason (and many others) Buddhism is tolerant and never on a missionary trip. I therefore think that there is a big difference between Buddhism and the other religions. PS: A sad note: What happens in the South of Thailand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inamorato25 Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 Native people have lived with the Planet for thousands of years and they are called savages. I think modern man is the savage grinding the world up in his Mill of greed and selfishness.) Not that I'd ever disagree with you Eagle :wink: -- particularly since I'm from the west coast of Vancouver Island -- ground zero for pot-smoking, hippy-dippy weathermen tree huggers. I'm all about conservation and preservation. But comparing modern man to natives is kind of a moot point. The antropologists tell us that the natives in Canada used to kill waaaay more than they needed, driving whole herds of bison over cliffs in one go. Not to mention that the west coast natives of today are the undisputed champions of overfishing and netting on spawning rivers. My point? (Yes, I have one). My point is that native peoples are not always as in tune with nature as we'd like to give them credit for. If anything, they were just as abusive to nature, but with less technology, and on a _much_ smaller scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 Native people have lived with the Planet for thousands of years and they are called savages. I think modern man is the savage grinding the world up in his Mill of greed and selfishness.) Not that I'd ever disagree with you Eagle :wink: -- particularly since I'm from the west coast of Vancouver Island -- ground zero for pot-smoking, hippy-dippy weathermen tree huggers. I'm all about conservation and preservation. But comparing modern man to natives is kind of a moot point. The antropologists tell us that the natives in Canada used to kill waaaay more than they needed, driving whole herds of bison over cliffs in one go. Not to mention that the west coast natives of today are the undisputed champions of overfishing and netting on spawning rivers. My point? (Yes, I have one). My point is that native peoples are not always as in tune with nature as we'd like to give them credit for. If anything, they were just as abusive to nature, but with less technology, and on a _much_ smaller scale. some were but a shared vision of living with nature is there. Not all were gluttomous. I am reffering to an Ideal. Not all of modern man are being gluttons either but modern man has been moving away from the Natural world instead of imbracing it. I lived with batives and I know that they are not out a story book but alot did live with nature and left little wasted and some still live this way. Even Modern man has some who are movig towards living this way...that is respecting the world that feeds us................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inamorato25 Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 I lived with (n)atives and I know that they are not out a story book but alot did live with nature and left little wasted and some still live this way. Even Modern man has some who are movig towards living this way...that is respecting the world that feeds us................... Agreed. I grew up in a logging town on the west coast -- one side of the river is a native reservation, and the other side is, well, modern Canadian society. We had a lot of "broken arrows" (Natives who left the reservation life) who used to take us in for beers and just to hang. As you say, there are some natives who want to incorporate traditional lifestyle ideas and religion into a more modern education system in order to help people stay in touch with the environment and non-material world. But there are also those who want the big car, the big house, the bucks, and so on. I suspect that this dichotomy has existed since John Cabot ran aground back in 1497, and continues to exist and change in form, as you point out, even in "modern man". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 There are 3 religions with a common origin: Judaism, Christianism and Islam. All monotheistic and all form the Middle East. The common point is also that these 3 religions impose on people to accept their concept without thinking, without asking questions, without challenging the authority. Furtheron, at least Christianism and Islam are intolerant and contstantly on a missionary trip. (You MUST believe in me or you will burn in hell! Let me save you, even against your will!).Buddhism is quite different, mainly because it puts the responsability for how to behave into each single person. I think Buddha once said that if someone demands you to "believe" without question, go away and look for your own truth. For this reason (and many others) Buddhism is tolerant and never on a missionary trip. I therefore think that there is a big difference between Buddhism and the other religions. PS: A sad note: What happens in the South of Thailand? I'm not sure I can completely agree with this. Some relgious texts, such as the Talmud in Judaism, is all about debate and questioning. Although all three religions basically rely on faith as a central tenet. Buddhism is different in that it doesn't purport to have the answer as far as creation is concerned. It leaves that and other questions for other religions to try and answer. The quote you offered from the Buddha about questioning and belief is true. But in practice, as Buddhism is practiced today by most people here in southeast asia, people don't question. they follow whatever the monks say wihtout thinking. and they often go to the monks to have their fortunes told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 So ethics is now just a simple matter of common sense? When did that happen?Such 'Natural Law' arguments have been manipulated by everybody from Augustine to John Locke to George Bush --- I doubt we could all agree with their interpretations of common sense. The problem is everybody thinks they are smart while everybody who thinks differently is stupid. So I doubt common ethical ground could be found by simply asking people to be less stoopid. Believe it or not, killerflix finally makes a good point. If we really did the smart thing, we would stop caring for the weak and the old, and we would only allow the strong to reproduce. Although it makes sense, the Brave New World is not very ethical. I wish it were true that issues like war, stem-cell research, abortion, drug-use, and sex-tourist hedonism were intuitive; that would sure make life easier, if not more boring. If Killerflix is right and we should kill off the weak and the old then there goes half his posts and this one of yours too. Survival of the planets eco system is the ethical responsability of a species who can understand its concept. Survival is instinctual but if we understand ethics its also our duty. And thats just good common sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 so what you are saying is that we should just leave our sh*t behind and drag our asses on the ground instead of flushing and using paper...and then go back to the mud-hut and let the old, the weak and the sick just die, like in nature....lovelywe are predators by the way.... your so busy trying to twist words you never seem to understand anything you respond too. your obviously a predator as your killing this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted October 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 Survival of the planets eco system is the ethical responsability of a species who can understand its concept. Survival is instinctual but if we understand ethics its also our duty. And thats just good common sense Agreed Eagle. Now if only everybody could agree that long-term ethical responsibilities to future generations should trump our love for gas-guzzling SUV's, urban lifestyles, and a new wardrobe for everyday of the year. Some feel providing a comfortable/enjoyable lifestyle for their immediate and present family is more ethical than providing a clean liveable world for those who come along later. I agree with you, but it isn't so obvious to many. (btw...nobody was arguing that we should kill off the weak, just pointing out that although it makes evoltionary sense -- many species do it -- it is not ethical). Many species do kill the old and weak but we don't because we have ethics, animals do not as it is a concept not an instinct. Although some human animals do abuse the old and weak and that is ignorant. So we had our ethics lesson for the day. BUt my point was that in moving away from the natural world with our amusement with our invention capabilities we are destroying our Ecosystem which in time means we don't survive. George Bush didn't get rich on oil trying to heat the world and run our cars on a cheap fuel he got rich selling poison that a greedy power base put in motion years ago to make them very rich and powerful. Its amazing that he claims to be a chrsitian since he is so deviod of a moral base in the survival of the Environment. He does need guidence and Buddha Or Christ or Mohammed if he would listen could help his pathetic sold out soul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 George Bush my friend got rich from the Jews,and if you have a look at his administration you would know who exactly are and aren't. George Bush like his dear old dad didn't do enough for the Rockafella's so had to repeat,some one needs to use Amunitions and bombs(don't they?) some one makes money other than the Arabs,of course the oil giants,Shell,BP etc all owned by who,KMart,Wal Mart,Aust Coles Myer,Target,aaahhh and now set up business with chinese.Rulers of the world by money and slave labour. If u talk of nutrition and humanity a dog that has a litter that can't feed them all,will kill off the weakest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 George Bush my friend got rich from the Jews,and if you have a look at his administration you would know who exactly are and aren't.George Bush like his dear old dad didn't do enough for the Rockafella's so had to repeat,some one needs to use Amunitions and bombs(don't they?) some one makes money other than the Arabs,of course the oil giants,Shell,BP etc all owned by who,KMart,Wal Mart,Aust Coles Myer,Target,aaahhh and now set up business with chinese.Rulers of the world by money and slave labour. If u talk of nutrition and humanity a dog that has a litter that can't feed them all,will kill off the weakest. Which Jews, exactly, did George Bush get rich from? Seems from what I've read, he got rich from the Saudis and his Dad's good old boy network, which did not include many, if any, Jews. If you want to start slinging racist, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, you should have some facts to back up what you're saying. Otherwise it's just garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japhrodisiac Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 George Bush my friend got rich from the Jews,and if you have a look at his administration you would know who exactly are and aren't.George Bush like his dear old dad didn't do enough for the Rockafella's so had to repeat,some one needs to use Amunitions and bombs(don't they?) some one makes money other than the Arabs,of course the oil giants,Shell,BP etc all owned by who,KMart,Wal Mart,Aust Coles Myer,Target,aaahhh and now set up business with chinese.Rulers of the world by money and slave labour. If u talk of nutrition and humanity a dog that has a litter that can't feed them all,will kill off the weakest. Do all Koala Bears think like this? I think that this lil bear has been reading too many right wing survivalist pamphlets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.