Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[crazy canuck]

Talk about basing a world view based on a false belief.

That's what I've noted several times about the religious, so, yeah, that is what we are talking about.  Glad to see you are only a couple of pages behind; for you, that's excellent work.

I have asked you to name one non religious source for the concept which predated the religious concept.  You have failed to do that.  Not surprisingly given the antiquity of the religious sources in the Hindu and ancient Egyptian religions to name but two religious sources.

But as usual you slither in your grumblerisms.   

[grumbler]

I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle.

Sure - you could just weigh your left testicle and establish it is less than 800lb. 

Unless it's being held by an invisible platypus that weighs -800lbs.

Or the scales could simply be reading wrong.  If miracles can occur, then surely an 800 pound ape inside a testicle can show a weight of zero pounds on a scale, without necessitating such silly concepts as -800-pound platypi.

[grumbler]

I have asked you to name one non religious source for the concept which predated the religious concept.  You have failed to do that.  Not surprisingly given the antiquity of the religious sources in the Hindu and ancient Egyptian religions to name but two religious sources.

But as usual you slither in your grumblerisms. 

I mentioned Confucius quite some time ago (who is generally considered to have first formulated the rule in its complete form).  By tomorrow, you may start to get that.  Also check out Laozi and others.  None claim to have originated this concept; they simply repeat it as known wisdom.  None of these were religious writers.

There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India.  But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.

Why are you even arguing about this if you don't actually know anything?

[Razgovory]

Observing that the same BS crops up when I'm not in the argument.

Berkut's Invisible 800lb Gorilla is a variant of the Russel's teapot or The Invisible Pink Unicorn or Sagan's Dragon

The golden rule was used in it's superior masochim negating negative version "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." by Confucius during the Axial age and famously by Rabbi Hillel hopping on one leg during the Hellenistic Age

Russel's teapot was absurd when he stated it, it's absurd when Berkut says it as well.

[crazy canuck]

There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India.  But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.

the concept is well forumulated in the concept of Maat in ancient Egypt.  And at the bolded part  .  You need to downplay that because it proves you are wrong in your assertion that a secular thinker was the first to forumulate the concept.

"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "  from oral traditions thought to be from the 9th or 8th centuries BCE.

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written.  This of course is the most important reference because the thinking of the ancient Egyptians influenced those around them.

I am not sure why you think Confucious is "considered" the originator of the idea or more importantly why you think that might be so.   Whatever you might think it is interesting that you completely discard the debate of whether his teachings are religious in nature given that you wish to make him a secular thinker for the purposes of winning the internet debate.  Sad really.

As for your snarkiness,  I am sure it will continue.  But it is fun nonetheless to watch you wriggle around.

[Barrister]

I don't 'get' this argument about whether or not the golden rule was at first a secular or religious idea.  As far as I understand it there was no such distinction between religious and secular.  Early societies infused what we now would call the supernatural into almost everything.  Ghosts, spirits, and gods were just a part of how they understood daily life.

[crazy canuck]

I don't 'get' this argument about whether or not the golden rule was at first a secular or religious idea.  As far as I understand it there was no such distinction between religious and secular.  Early societies infused what we now would call the supernatural into almost everything.  Ghosts, spirits, and gods were just a part of how they understood daily life.

That is why we are having the "discussion".  It arose from Berkut's claim that the only good things about religion are the things that can somehow be separated from the religious aspects which are based on a false premise (as he sees it) - ie the existence of a god.  He then used the golden rule as somethig which can be considered as something separate from religion and the taint (as he sees it) of the false premise of religion.  I am still not sure how he can make the claim that one can dissect religious belief in that way but in any event that is when Grumbler jumped in with the false claim that the first formulation of the golden rule had a secular source.

Aside from his dating error it is indeed odd that Grumbler would try to strip early philosophical thought from its religious influences.  But he is driven to that position given the conclusion he wishes to make.

[grumbler]

There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India.  But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.

the concept is well forumulated in the concept of Maat in ancient Egypt.  And at the bolded part  .  You need to downplay that because it proves you are wrong in your assertion that a secular thinker was the first to forumulate the concept.

"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "  from oral traditions thought to be from the 9th or 8th centuries BCE.

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written.  This of course is the most important reference because the thinking of the ancient Egyptians influenced those around them.

I am not sure why you think Confucious is "considered" the originator of the idea or more importantly why you think that might be so.   Whatever you might think it is interesting that you completely discard the debate of whether his teachings are religious in nature given that you wish to make him a secular thinker for the purposes of winning the internet debate.  Sad really.

As for your snarkiness,  I am sure it will continue.  But it is fun nonetheless to watch you wriggle around.

The Mahabharata was written around 400BCE, and thus post-dates Confucius.  The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a secular writing.  Personally, I don't think its idea means the same as the Golden Rule, but if you want to argue that the GR was articulated in secular writings in 1800 BCE, you just reinforce my point.

I don't really care if you understand why Confucius is considered the first to articulate the GR in its modern form, nor why he is a secular writer.  Your ignorance bothers me not at all.

And my snarkiness will last as long as yours does.  I don't snark first, but I will snark last.

[Barrister]

There is some older stuff that isn't articulated the same from Egypt and possibly some oral stuff in early Vedic India.  But Confucius is considered the originator of the idea, and it certainly was a secular idea for a long time before it started to be incorporated into religious texts.

the concept is well forumulated in the concept of Maat in ancient Egypt.  And at the bolded part  .  You need to downplay that because it proves you are wrong in your assertion that a secular thinker was the first to forumulate the concept.

"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "  from oral traditions thought to be from the 9th or 8th centuries BCE.

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written.  This of course is the most important reference because the thinking of the ancient Egyptians influenced those around them.

I am not sure why you think Confucious is "considered" the originator of the idea or more importantly why you think that might be so.   Whatever you might think it is interesting that you completely discard the debate of whether his teachings are religious in nature given that you wish to make him a secular thinker for the purposes of winning the internet debate.  Sad really.

As for your snarkiness,  I am sure it will continue.  But it is fun nonetheless to watch you wriggle around.

The Mahabharata was written around 400BCE, and thus post-dates Confucius.  The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a secular writing.  Personally, I don't think its idea means the same as the Golden Rule, but if you want to argue that the GR was articulated in secular writings in 1800 BCE, you just reinforce my point.

I don't really care if you understand why Confucius is considered the first to articulate the GR in its modern form, nor why he is a secular writer.  Your ignorance bothers me not at all.

And my snarkiness will last as long as yours does.  I don't snark first, but I will snark last.

Isn't it a matter of some debate whether or not confucious was a religious leader or not?  A quick google search of "is confuscianism a religion" gets over 2 million hits.

[Berkut]

I don't 'get' this argument about whether or not the golden rule was at first a secular or religious idea.  As far as I understand it there was no such distinction between religious and secular.  Early societies infused what we now would call the supernatural into almost everything.  Ghosts, spirits, and gods were just a part of how they understood daily life.

I don't think that is universally true.

The concept that there could be no god, and no supernatural was not typical, but it was not universal either.

I agree, however, that whether or not the GR was first stated in a religious or secular context is irrelevant to my point though.

The point is that it can (and of course has) been expressed as a secular concept, and does not require any religious basis to derive it's value. You can (and I would argue ought to) consider the value of the GR on its merits absent any religious context.

CC, I don't understand this:

"He then used the golden rule as somethig which can be considered as something separate from religion and the taint (as he sees it) of the false premise of religion.  I am still not sure how he can make the claim that one can dissect religious belief in that way"

How can you not understand how one could take a set of ideas, remove those ideas that are not dependent on the religious foundation of the set, and evaluate them on their own merits. How can this be anything that is remotely difficult to understand?

Take the Ten Commandments. Some of them are clearly religious in nature and have no real meaning absent the existence of the god (Thou shalt have no other god before me). Some of them are clearly secular, in that they are useful (or not) regardless of whether or not the god in question actually exists (Thou shalt not kill).

What is so difficult about the idea that one can extract singular ideas or concepts from the set?

[grumbler]

I don't 'get' this argument about whether or not the golden rule was at first a secular or religious idea.  As far as I understand it there was no such distinction between religious and secular.  Early societies infused what we now would call the supernatural into almost everything.  Ghosts, spirits, and gods were just a part of how they understood daily life.

I don't believe that this is true.  I think that it is pretty clear that ancient civilizations recognized that not everything was supernatural (though they certainly ascribed more to the supernatural than later civilizations did, because they understood less about the natural world than later societies did).

The GR is an example of what some people, like CC, cannot imagine as anything but a religious idea, but which, in fact, has been a secular idea from the start.  It represents an idea that many religions have considered important enough to adopt, but it could be (and was) extant without religion.

I am not, BTW, arguing that religion's costs exceeded its benefits to society, nor the opposite.  I have reached no conclusion on that issue.  My point here was just about the GR as an example of secular thinking.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't 'get' this argument

I don't get this thread. Seems we have CC vs. Grumblerkut vs. Tamas & Viking debating religion. 

[grumbler]

Isn't it a matter of some debate whether or not confucious was a religious leader or not?  A quick google search of "is confuscianism a religion" gets over 2 million hits.

I don't think that there is any real debate among scholars.  Certainly the Chinese (possibly bar some eccentric) do not (and have never) seen Confucius as a religious writer.  Confucianism is about how to live a virtuous life, but not because of any supernatural rewards.  He argued that the viruous life was worth living for its own sake, and the glory of the family.

[Barrister]

Isn't it a matter of some debate whether or not confucious was a religious leader or not?  A quick google search of "is confuscianism a religion" gets over 2 million hits.

I don't think that there is any real debate among scholars.  Certainly the Chinese (possibly bar some eccentric) do not (and have never) seen Confucius as a religious writer.  Confucianism is about how to live a virtuous life, but not because of any supernatural rewards.  He argued that the viruous life was worth living for its own sake, and the glory of the family.

Except there very clearly does seem to be a real debate:

https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=confucianism+is+it+a+religion#q=is+confucianism+a+religion

It comes down to how you define "religion" in the end.  I can certainly see how you'd make the argument that it is not a religion, but I don't think you can wave your hands and make the entire debate go away.

[grumbler]

Except there very clearly does seem to be a real debate:

https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=confucianism+is+it+a+religion#q=is+confucianism+a+religion

It comes down to how you define "religion" in the end.  I can certainly see how you'd make the argument that it is not a religion, but I don't think you can wave your hands and make the entire debate go away.

I don't think you can show that there are google results and conclude that there is a very real debate.  I could as easily argue that there is a very real debate about whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real because https://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=is+flying+spaghetti+monster+real