How difficult is it to create a benevolent religion? Amorism

maxx

Just a quick note here. Yes, it is true that all religions have a bloody history,  yet they also have much peace within their religion.  It is normally other factions and other religions,  that dye to idealism,  that causes these wars. Religion alone is not the number one cause of wars.. one can have the most peaceful religion in the world, or no religion at all with the most peaceful attitude; yet that will not create peace, nor keep others from throwing strife and conflict at each other.  @MayCaesar

Barnardot

@MayCaesar I'm sure that if you look at all religions they all started out as being benovelant and promising to be benovelant but it doesn't take long for them to become dangerous and bloody with in fighting and when you put to gether sex and spiritaulsm your going to have an extra deadly combination and it wont take long be fore every one is ripping there heads off. 

Spiritualism is all ways been about having power over others. It is completely made up and has no basis of truth so it has a bad start to start with starting with followers starting to believe in made up lies. They develop a culture of lying and deceit and hay guess what what happens is what blind Freddie could have guessed. They start the fighting over jealousy and gilt and power trips and all the other negative crap that all religions are known for.

Dee

That's a pretty good religion a vast improvement on any put forward so far.

The gods of Christianity and Islam have to rank amongst the dumbest entities ever imagined. A christian god who created man and was happy with his creation only later to wipe out all mankind because he was in a bad mood,.

Alah not to be outdone split the moon in two and dictated his word to an illiterate lunatic in a cave through the angel Gabriel.

Your new religion is streets ahead.

MayCaesar

maxx said:

Just a quick note here. Yes, it is true that all religions have a bloody history,  yet they also have much peace within their religion.  It is normally other factions and other religions,  that dye to idealism,  that causes these wars. Religion alone is not the number one cause of wars.. one can have the most peaceful religion in the world, or no religion at all with the most peaceful attitude; yet that will not create peace, nor keep others from throwing strife and conflict at each other.  @MayCaesar

I do not disagree with you. My point, however, was not that religions have never brought peace to anyone or have never caused anyone to behave better than they would without them. My point was that the foundational texts in these religions are surprisingly... questionable morally, and even a modern chatbot can clearly create a religion the message of which is far more kind and benevolent than any monotheistic religion anyone has ever seriously believed in. Take this verse from Quran, for instance:

Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise. - Saheeh International

Consider this: you are the creator of the Universe, writing a book that your followers will read for millennia, trying to set them on the most moral path you can. Is this passage necessary in the book? Can you not do without it? In your quest to spread (allegedly) peace, love and compassion around, is it useful to direct people to "drive people into a Fire" and "replace their roasted skins with other skins so they may taste the punishment"?

Nor am I saying that the most peaceful religion in the world, when adopted by a large number of people, would completely prevent all wars and large scale violence: humans are humans, and a lot of our actions are guided by deeply seated biological instincts and cannot be easily overridden by a comprehensive mythology. However, there are passages in the foundational religious texts that clearly incite violence, while, say, in Amorism there is none. An Amorist waging a war against the unbelievers does not have the religion on his side, and no matter how much he tries to twist his interpretation of the religion, there is nothing in it that supports his actions. It is not too difficult, on the other hand, for a Muslim, or a Judaism, or a Christian, or a Zoroastrian to get inspired by reading their books to go on a killing spree they otherwise would not have.

My thesis basically is that it is pretty easy to create a comprehensive explicitly benevolent religion, and it is unrealistic that the wisest creature in the Universe could not bestow one on humans when any human can create such a religion over a coffee break if they really set their mind to it. And if you accept this thesis, then this leaves out two possibilities: either those books were not written by the creator of the Universe, but by humans of fairly questionable moral character pursuing agenda that has little to do with benevolence - or the creator of the Universe intentionally created religions that were bound to become (and, as allegedly an omniscient being, it could not have not expected that) bloody and oppressive. I am not sure which of the two alternatives is worse, but neither speaks in favor of adopting those religions when there are so many much better alternatives. Anyone who embraces stoicism, or Amorism, or Objectivism, is going to be driven to much more creative and productive acts, than someone who embraces one of the major religions.

To that point, I listened to one of Christopher Hitchens' debates on religion yesterday, and his opponent made the common argument: "If there is no god, then what could possibly serve as a basis for morals"? And Christopher, in his usual style, delivered a hitchslap: "If bloody crusades were a manifestation of the theist basis for morals, then, in my estimation, almost anything can serve as a better basis than god".

maxx

Im not exactly where i can checo on this, however i believe there are religions that have no violence attached to their writings. Buddhism i think is one if i were to create a religion,  it would not be based upon a personal enity, but upon idealism,  morals, and values. The thing about all religion,  is that they need a guide to follow and this naturally assumes a leader, if not a god..religions are much like a government,  save if you break the laws of religions,  there are no repercussions save for what the religin suggests.  If there were no repercussions,  or at least the idea and belief in them, the religion would fall apart.  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

maxx said:

Im not exactly where i can checo on this, however i believe there are religions that have no violence attached to their writings. Buddhism i think is one if i were to create a religion,  it would not be based upon a personal enity, but upon idealism,  morals, and values. The thing about all religion,  is that they need a guide to follow and this naturally assumes a leader, if not a god..religions are much like a government,  save if you break the laws of religions,  there are no repercussions save for what the religin suggests.  If there were no repercussions,  or at least the idea and belief in them, the religion would fall apart.  @MayCaesar

Your argument presumes that in order for a prescription to be followed, there have to be explicit negative repercussions for not following it - yet is this really what keeps humans from abandoning such prescriptions? Suppose you go to a grocery store and decide to buy some apples, because you heard somewhere that apples were good for you. Is existence of punishment for not buying apples a contributing factor in your decision? And if your decision is made in the absence of such punishment, does this not challenge your presumption?

Economists and social scientists often talk about negative and positive incentives. A positive incentive is "If you do X, you will be better off", while a negative incentive is "if you do not do X, you will be worse off". In the first case you have an option to improve your life by doing something, the alternative being your life staying the same; in the second case you have an option to have your life worsened by not doing something, the alternative being your life staying the same except for the cost you are inflicting by doing something. The first is a win/preserve choice, while the second is a lose/lose choice.

In this framework, you seem to suggest that negative incentives are vital for a religion to be followed. But let us take Amorism as an example. According to Amorism, by embracing love in all aspects of life, you will surround yourself with the Luminae Spirits and become extremely happy - however, if you do not do that, Luminara will not love you any less, she will simply see you as being at an earlier stage of the path of discovery. Which is okay: everyone goes at their own pace, and no one is better or worse for going slower or faster. As long as your soul exists (and it will always exist), you are always on the path, and even resisting the path and walking in the opposite direction may be an essential part of the journey.

Is there any reason why this religion would fall apart when, as you mentioned, relatively benevolent religions such as Buddhism have not? What it is about humans that requires a gun to be put to our head in order to do the right thing, and how do you reconcile existence of such a property with the observation that people often are driven purely by positive incentives?

jack

MayCaesar said:

I asked ChatGPT to develop a benevolent religion featuring love as the ultimate imperative. Here is what it came up with.

Hello May:

If you were part of the robot class, what would be the easiest way to convert humans to your robot way of life?  Create the robot religion, that's how..  Yeah...  People would line up for miles to get their blood and guts switched out for nuts and bolts..

Du*de..  Does robot  koolaid taste different than the human kind?

excon

maxx

amorisim sounds much like the idealism of the hippies of the 60s and 70s. Your religion seems to take one concept out of all the world religions and leaving the rest of it. Just like the ideas of the hippies, amorism can not work simply because those who do not follow it will perceive you as a target. so many hippies were simply attacked just for the reason that they did not believe it violence or even fighting back.It begs the question as if all our religions save for one were similar to amorism, what would happen? . The one who has the idea of violence with-in it would have wiped the rest out, leaving but one religion. I hate to say it, but even among religion, it seems that the old adage stands true: winner takes all. Your religion sounds like a nice place; yeti still say there would have to be a leader;other wise i believe it would stagnate and fall apart because of lack of cohesiveness. Perhaps the leader is the chatbot Yet without all emotions which are prevalent in humans, love alone could not stand. In the absence of bad, does good even exist? Your religion looks great on paper; and yes i believe reward and punishment goes hand-in-hand; and should; Just like eating cake all of the time, holding on and showing nothing but peace and love would eventually get old and stale, and lose its flavor. In my opinion, the religion would eventually deterorate. . @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

maxx said:

amorisim sounds much like the idealism of the hippies of the 60s and 70s. Your religion seems to take one concept out of all the world religions and leaving the rest of it. Just like the ideas of the hippies, amorism can not work simply because those who do not follow it will perceive you as a target. so many hippies were simply attacked just for the reason that they did not believe it violence or even fighting back.It begs the question as if all our religions save for one were similar to amorism, what would happen? . The one who has the idea of violence with-in it would have wiped the rest out, leaving but one religion. I hate to say it, but even among religion, it seems that the old adage stands true: winner takes all. Your religion sounds like a nice place; yeti still say there would have to be a leader;other wise i believe it would stagnate and fall apart because of lack of cohesiveness. Perhaps the leader is the chatbot Yet without all emotions which are prevalent in humans, love alone could not stand. In the absence of bad, does good even exist? Your religion looks great on paper; and yes i believe reward and punishment goes hand-in-hand; and should; Just like eating cake all of the time, holding on and showing nothing but peace and love would eventually get old and stale, and lose its flavor. In my opinion, the religion would eventually deterorate. . @MayCaesar

Declaring one value as central to a religion/ideology does not imply dismissing other values: they can be derived from it. For instance, if the ultimate goal of every living being is entering the state of universal love and bliss, then naturally a question arises: what tools should they create to easier achieve that state and how? Naturally logic and scientific method are derived from it. Nor does it imply the simplistic interpretation in which no one ever partakes in any violence no matter what; I will let the inventor itself (ChatGPT) speak here:

Amorism would promote a system of restorative justice where offenders and victims (or their families) engage in dialogues aimed at understanding, atonement, and healing. While it can't undo the pain, the goal is to facilitate healing for all parties involved.
...
While love and understanding are paramount, Amorism also recognizes the need to protect society from potential harm. Those who pose a genuine threat would be kept in places where they can't harm others but would be treated with dignity, compassion, and continuous efforts towards rehabilitation.

Regarding your point about the need for a leader, it is not clear to me how you reconcile it with the real world observations. Who is the leader of the Protestant movement in the world? Who is the leader of Hinduism? Who is the leader of Shinto? Of the Chinese folklore religion? Of Taoism? Of Zoroastrianism? Of stoicism? I do not see why a religion cannot be advocated for a large number of individuals, each offering a slightly different interpretation of it, yet all agreeing on certain fundamental premises. The whole idea of universal love central to Amorism seems incompatible to me with an authoritarian leader forcing their values on others. Again, ChatGPT speaks:

In an Amoristic society, where the highest virtue is love, the treatment of non-believers would be grounded in understanding, acceptance, and mutual respect.
...
There would likely be a Luminae spirit dedicated to understanding and empathizing with skepticism and doubt, perhaps named Dubitius. This spirit would guide Amorists to approach skeptics with patience and compassion, recognizing that every individual's journey with faith and love is unique.

Finally, you did not really address my point regarding the necessity for negative incentives in the presence of positive incentives in order to make a "positive" choice, as shown in the example I provided. What is so special about religions that makes them incapable of surviving off positive incentives alone?



Notice what I am doing here, by the way. I am defending a clearly made up religion on very reasonable grounds, just as Christians or Muslims defend theirs (and, arguably, my grounds are much more reasonable than theirs, as I do not have to reconcile obvious contradictions such as explicit advocacy for aggressive violence in the foundational texts and alleged benevolence of the deity). You can criticize it from various angles, and I can address these criticisms and refine the religious points - and this way religion can grow and thrive. What my religion has that many other religions do not is that it is a voluntary offering to people: this religion does not at all seek to convert everyone into it, but assumes that everyone has a fundamentally loving soul and walks a path towards discovering all the awesomeness their soul has to offer - and whether a given person subscribes to Amorism or not, an Amorist would treat them as a fellow lovely intelligent being.

My question is: in what way would this religion not be an improvement over the predominant monotheistic religions in existence today? I am not claiming that this religion is a substitute for everything - after all, I personally dislike the whole concept of building one's world view around fantasy stories. My point though is that if such a project is to be followed, if one's world view is to be built around fantasy stories - then why not choose empowering, relatable, warm stories over ones involving rivers of blood? Would an incredibly wise god not reason along these lines? When choosing between this



and this



what weirdo would prefer to build their world view around the latter?

maxx

well i thought i did address tjhe neagiotive punishment part, however it seems that amorism has that in it anyway. MayCaesar said:

maxx said:

amorisim sounds much like the idealism of the hippies of the 60s and 70s. Your religion seems to take one concept out of all the world religions and leaving the rest of it. Just like the ideas of the hippies, amorism can not work simply because those who do not follow it will perceive you as a target. so many hippies were simply attacked just for the reason that they did not believe it violence or even fighting back.It begs the question as if all our religions save for one were similar to amorism, what would happen? . The one who has the idea of violence with-in it would have wiped the rest out, leaving but one religion. I hate to say it, but even among religion, it seems that the old adage stands true: winner takes all. Your religion sounds like a nice place; yeti still say there would have to be a leader;other wise i believe it would stagnate and fall apart because of lack of cohesiveness. Perhaps the leader is the chatbot Yet without all emotions which are prevalent in humans, love alone could not stand. In the absence of bad, does good even exist? Your religion looks great on paper; and yes i believe reward and punishment goes hand-in-hand; and should; Just like eating cake all of the time, holding on and showing nothing but peace and love would eventually get old and stale, and lose its flavor. In my opinion, the religion would eventually deterorate. . @MayCaesar

Declaring one value as central to a religion/ideology does not imply dismissing other values: they can be derived from it. For instance, if the ultimate goal of every living being is entering the state of universal love and bliss, then naturally a question arises: what tools should they create to easier achieve that state and how? Naturally logic and scientific method are derived from it. Nor does it imply the simplistic interpretation in which no one ever partakes in any violence no matter what; I will let the inventor itself (ChatGPT) speak here:

Amorism would promote a system of restorative justice where offenders and victims (or their families) engage in dialogues aimed at understanding, atonement, and healing. While it can't undo the pain, the goal is to facilitate healing for all parties involved.
...
While love and understanding are paramount, Amorism also recognizes the need to protect society from potential harm. Those who pose a genuine threat would be kept in places where they can't harm others but would be treated with dignity, compassion, and continuous efforts towards rehabilitation.

Regarding your point about the need for a leader, it is not clear to me how you reconcile it with the real world observations. Who is the leader of the Protestant movement in the world? Who is the leader of Hinduism? Who is the leader of Shinto? Of the Chinese folklore religion? Of Taoism? Of Zoroastrianism? Of stoicism? I do not see why a religion cannot be advocated for a large number of individuals, each offering a slightly different interpretation of it, yet all agreeing on certain fundamental premises. The whole idea of universal love central to Amorism seems incompatible to me with an authoritarian leader forcing their values on others. Again, ChatGPT speaks:

In an Amoristic society, where the highest virtue is love, the treatment of non-believers would be grounded in understanding, acceptance, and mutual respect.
...
There would likely be a Luminae spirit dedicated to understanding and empathizing with skepticism and doubt, perhaps named Dubitius. This spirit would guide Amorists to approach skeptics with patience and compassion, recognizing that every individual's journey with faith and love is unique.

Finally, you did not really address my point regarding the necessity for negative incentives in the presence of positive incentives in order to make a "positive" choice, as shown in the example I provided. What is so special about religions that makes them incapable of surviving off positive incentives alone?



Notice what I am doing here, by the way. I am defending a clearly made up religion on very reasonable grounds, just as Christians or Muslims defend theirs (and, arguably, my grounds are much more reasonable than theirs, as I do not have to reconcile obvious contradictions such as explicit advocacy for aggressive violence in the foundational texts and alleged benevolence of the deity). You can criticize it from various angles, and I can address these criticisms and refine the religious points - and this way religion can grow and thrive. What my religion has that many other religions do not is that it is a voluntary offering to people: this religion does not at all seek to convert everyone into it, but assumes that everyone has a fundamentally loving soul and walks a path towards discovering all the awesomeness their soul has to offer - and whether a given person subscribes to Amorism or not, an Amorist would treat them as a fellow lovely intelligent being.

My question is: in what way would this religion not be an improvement over the predominant monotheistic religions in existence today? I am not claiming that this religion is a substitute for everything - after all, I personally dislike the whole concept of building one's world view around fantasy stories. My point though is that if such a project is to be followed, if one's world view is to be built around fantasy stories - then why not choose empowering, relatable, warm stories over ones involving rivers of blood? Would an incredibly wise god not reason along these lines? When choosing between this



and this



what weirdo would prefer to build their world view around the latter?

oops. anyway it states that those who tend to do harm to delf  and others would be kept in a place where they can not do so until thye are basically restored to the religion. i believe you said that.  That not only sounds like punishment and negative reinforcement, but a type of prison as well. It does no matter if these people are treated with kindness and love; they are still being punished. Correct?  That seems to state that they are punished for the good of the religion; in which I believe all religions attempt to do.  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

Not at all. They are being kept away from the rest of the people purely out of safety considerations: "punishment" is not a factor here at all, nor is their devotion to any religion or lack of thereof. Nobody is forced or even encouraged to believe in anything - hence the guiding approach is encouragement of open conversations with the goal of mutual understanding. Religion itself says absolutely nothing about what to do with people who commit an act of aggression towards others: it is up to the people to figure out what response to acts of aggression is most morally sounds, and it is absolutely up for a discussion. There is no witch burning here.

There is no "hell" to scare the "infidels" with. The religion is purely benevolent and does not at all prescribe any explicit punishments for anything. This seems like a massive upgrade over the Jewish and Christian law, let alone Sharia. Would you not agree?
"Punishment for the good of the religion" in the context of Amorism is an oxymoron.

maxx

it states "those who are considered a threat would be "kept" in "places" until rehabilitation. That in itself is a type of prison. True it is not eternal punishment type of deal, but still a threat of follow the religion or else. It is still reward and punishment. If one does not adhere and follow the virtues of amorisim, and wishes to resort to anger and crime against its morals and values, then you will be punished. May, where is the difference?  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

What exactly in that sentence do you find that equates/implies "a threat to follow the religion or else"? Nowhere in ChatGPT's statement does one's religious views come into equation, as far as I can see.

maxx

it seems to be all part of the chat bots  religion is what i am saying. I do not see where i am reading it wrongly. Maybe it does not exactly say follow their religion or else, but since the statement of those who are kept in a place until rehabilitation; as it is part of the chat bot idea of amorism; seems to be a punishment.  who is punishing them? Who is keeping them in a place until rehabilitation and much more importantly, by whose directive? It appears the statement is part of the chat bots rules, and failure to follow the rules of the bot, means not following the religion it created. I don't know. However you look at it, the statement is there and is part of the idealism of the bots religion.. These people are being punished no matter how one views it. To the way i am reading it, the punishment is part of amorism; so i simply infer the reason.  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

I would propose a different reading. No matter what society one has and no matter what religion is dominant in that society, it must have a mechanism of dealing with individuals that physically threaten others. When thinking about what this system of justice would look like, one adopts a certain system of values, and so one can ask, "From the Amorist perspective, what would the ideal system of justice look like?" However, it is not at all the same as Amorism endorsing any particular system of justice - and it certainly does not imply that Amorism advocates for punishing people who do not follow Amorism. It is the same with many other ideologies: you could ask what a perfectly stoic system of justice would look like - and it is very unlikely that such a system would punish people for not following stoicism.

In other words, there is a difference of an ideology aligning with certain prescriptions, and ideology punishing people for not following those prescriptions. I may believe that it is wrong to curse, yet not punish people for cursing. People are allowed to behave less-than-ideally, as long as their actions do not directly threaten other people's ability to do the same.

According to ChatGPT, Amorism advocates for benevolent and loving treatment of non-Amorists. That is to say, deviating from Amorism in itself does not make an Amorist like you less and advocate for any sort of penalty. Deviating from basic social decency may, and that would be penalized in any viable society regardless of its predominant religion - and even in a society with no religion whatsoever.

maxx

it appears that it is not society that is putting certain individuals in a place until rehabilitation; but the religion itself. Amorisim is supposed to be an idea religion. All those statement i have read seems to be quotes from the chat bot on how the religion is; and one is detainment( punishment) of certain individuals.  Society  and how it operates to these individuals is not listed. The detainment, so to speak is clearly part of the religion. Remember we are talking about amorism, not how society treats criminals. I fail to see it any differently. Clearly, amorisim proposes that certain individuals should be punished. Which is all right. Religion is a society with-in itself, and the bot has to have safe guards to keep certain elements from corrupting the religion. Still, as far as i can see, it is still punishment; and the religion itself proposes it. We are talking about a chat bot. It is not going to ho.off into a tanget and start rambling about what society as a whole should do to criminals.  Every aspect of what the bot developed is part of its idea of the idea religion,  and keeping certain people in a place until they are rehabilitated is the bots idea, not societys. @MayCaesar

Barnardot

@maxx @MayCaeser ;Buddhism i think is one if i were to create a religion

Buddhism certainly has a reputation for being peace full but it has had a very violent history when you look at the horrible Buddhist Monk wars. They were very violent and bloody. I agree with what May Ceaser said about the fact that if you create a religion based on spirituality it is going to desend in to wars and violence eventually. Buddhists are only human to and when you make up a code of living based on eary feary nonsense then your going to get in fighting and fighting to protect your eary feary beliefs. Sure theres a heap of stuff about Buddhism that is more peace full than any other religions but they are not short of having some pretty nasty skeletons in there closests. Any way so far as describing religions goes many people agree that Buddhism is not actually a religion any way.

maxx

a belief in a higher power or even a higher spiritual realm seems to qualify as a religion.  A non theistic religion. @Barnardot

just_sayin

It seems to me that a key component to picking a religion is that you genuinely believe it is real.  Did anyone believe in the OPs myth story?  I know I didn't.

I believe Christianity is uniquely tied to a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus.  If it didn't happen then Christianity is instantly disproved, but if it did happen, then there is some credibility to its claims.  It is evident that several of those who met Jesus believed he did die and was resurrected.  They wrote about it and several of them not only gave their lives, but watched their children die because they would not recant their claim that Jesus had risen from the dead.  I think this puts them in a different class of martyrs from say Muslims today.  People may die for a story that they believe is true but isn't, but few would die for a story that they knew personally to be false, especially if it meant their family would die also.  

The historical evidence for Christ is incredible when compared to other historical figures of his day.  The most famous person on the planet at the time of Jesus death was Tiberius Caesar.  In the 150 years after his death, there are just 14 sources for his life.  For Jesus there are at least 42 different authors who wrote about him within 150 years of his death and resurrection.  That includes friends, family, and enemies.  All treat him as a real person, and even his enemies acknowledged that he performed miracles..  

MayCaesar

maxx said:

it appears that it is not society that is putting certain individuals in a place until rehabilitation; but the religion itself. Amorisim is supposed to be an idea religion. All those statement i have read seems to be quotes from the chat bot on how the religion is; and one is detainment( punishment) of certain individuals.  Society  and how it operates to these individuals is not listed. The detainment, so to speak is clearly part of the religion. Remember we are talking about amorism, not how society treats criminals. I fail to see it any differently. Clearly, amorisim proposes that certain individuals should be punished. Which is all right. Religion is a society with-in itself, and the bot has to have safe guards to keep certain elements from corrupting the religion. Still, as far as i can see, it is still punishment; and the religion itself proposes it. We are talking about a chat bot. It is not going to ho.off into a tanget and start rambling about what society as a whole should do to criminals.  Every aspect of what the bot developed is part of its idea of the idea religion,  and keeping certain people in a place until they are rehabilitated is the bots idea, not societys. @MayCaesar

Religion cannot put anyone anywhere: it is a system of beliefs, not an active agent in the real world. What religion can do is weight on how the system of justice should work, if it is to be based on the moral considerations derived from the religion. The system of justice is not created by religion, but by people; how they organize it, however, may be influenced by their religious beliefs.

Amorism does not "propose that certain individuals should be punished": ChatGPT explicitly states that punishment/retribution is not the purpose of the system of justice under this framework - and certainly religious conversion is not its purpose either. Amorism sees everyone as being on the journey of discovery of love, and while a part of that journey may go through pretty dark places making the one walking it incompatible with other travelers temporarily, it is still an essential part of that journey.

just_sayin said:

It seems to me that a key component to picking a religion is that you genuinely believe it is real.  Did anyone believe in the OPs myth story?  I know I didn't.

I believe Christianity is uniquely tied to a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus.  If it didn't happen then Christianity is instantly disproved, but if it did happen, then there is some credibility to its claims.  It is evident that several of those who met Jesus believed he did die and was resurrected.  They wrote about it and several of them not only gave their lives, but watched their children die because they would not recant their claim that Jesus had risen from the dead.  I think this puts them in a different class of martyrs from say Muslims today.  People may die for a story that they believe is true but isn't, but few would die for a story that they knew personally to be false, especially if it meant their family would die also.  

The historical evidence for Christ is incredible when compared to other historical figures of his day.  The most famous person on the planet at the time of Jesus death was Tiberius Caesar.  In the 150 years after his death, there are just 14 sources for his life.  For Jesus there are at least 42 different authors who wrote about him within 150 years of his death and resurrection.  That includes friends, family, and enemies.  All treat him as a real person, and even his enemies acknowledged that he performed miracles..  

Beliefs are malleable. Whether "resurrection of Jesus" occurred or not in reality, as long as enough people believe that it did, the religion can work. Furthermore, there are people embracing the values encrypted in the Bible without believing in the literal mythology described in it. If I were to champion a religion, I would certainly target the latter group primarily, people who do not accept anything without due evidence, but who can get behind beautiful myths and their message. Much as me or you can read the Odyssey and marvel at the depth of the ideas in the book, even though we both are fairly certain that the events described in the book never took place in reality.

And who knows, if Amorism were to take root and become extremely popular, then, perhaps, generations later people would forget about its origins and also start believing in it more literally. Coming back to my original point, if this scenario is how the true god's teachings are to spread, then would it not be better for something benevolent such as Amorism to be what is being spread, than Christianity or Islam? In other words, if the Bible or the Quran were written by god and later grew to be accepted by billions of people, would it not be better to write "The Book of Love" championing Amorism and have billions of people accept it later? Why would god intentionally write an incredibly violent and barbaric (by the modern standards) book when he could have written a more benevolent one, supposedly leading to a much more peaceful history?

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;For Jesus there are at least 42 different authors who wrote about him within 150 years of his death and resurrection.  That includes friends, family, and enemies.  All treat him as a real person, and even his enemies acknowledged that he performed miracles..  

And as you very well know not one single one of those stories has ever been verified and proven not one bit of proof or evidence exists and anecdotal tall stories certainly dont count.

Barnardot

@maxx ;a belief in a higher power or even a higher spiritual realm seems to qualify as a religion.  A non theistic religion.

I think I get what you mean. Religion in the end is just a institution made up a round spiritual beliefs.

maxx

All those quotes that the bot states, still points out that certain people should be punished. They should be kept apart from the religion.  Only 2 in your debate says it, either you or the bot. I read it as the bot. Its punishment.  There is no way that if the bot states it, that it can not be part of the religion.  The bot is the one suggesting the idea and the bot is talking about amorism . The statement it made, was simply its idea of part of the idea religion.  We are simply arguing schematics at this point.  I believe that all religions, including amorism should have some form of punishment otherwise people would not adhere to its princples or guidelines. @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

I am really doing my best to keep a friendly attitude towards you, but you are making it very difficult. Reiterating the same point over and over again while ignoring everything I say in response is not something I am thrilled to keep engaging with.

But then, this is one of the biggest challenges of Amorism, is it? To profess universal love even when the object of your love does everything in their power to undermine it is a worthy pursuit.

Dee

@maxx

  I believe that all religions, including amorism should have some form of punishment otherwise people would not adhere to its princples or guidelines. @MayCaesar

 
Do you honestly believe this is true? Do you think that in your majority Christian nation that these Christians adhere to its principles?

maxx

no yet without the idea of some form of punishment there would be far less religions for they would be so much more corrupted. It begs the question: if there is no idea of the bad, can good even exist? However, there will be some; that faced with the idea of eternal punishment, will do their best to follow the standards of the religion. Religion corrupts itself over time; yet many do not realize, that society also corrupts religion. Unless one is in a monastery all their lives, they will have to deal with people from all walks of life. corruption, either internal, or external, will breed dissent. I think the idea of punishment is the only thing that keeps actual believers from corrupting themselves.. god or heaven is their reward and they have to follow the standards to achieve it. For instance, if my daughter fails to do her chores, she gets no allowance. However, she wants that allowance so in order to avoid the punishment of no money, she does the chores. Yes, i believe that in order for any religion to stand, it must have a form of punishment, otherwise the idea of the reward simply is worthless. @Dee

maxx

Look, i went back to the beginning of this debate and i suggest you do the same. I took out all of your comments and read just the bots idea of the perfect religion. One of those ideas is that certain people be detained until rehabilitation. How can you deny that? Did you ask the bot to throw that in randomly, without regard to its idea of religion?  As well, there are other flaws in the religion. It is based upon love. Love can not simply be turned on like a switch. You can not get a congregation of people together and expect them to love each other. At best, they may show respect, and consideration. Perhaps in a very small group of people they may "learn" to love each other. However, as the religion spreads, and more join; They simply will not love one another. Pretense is not love, and you can not teach love. Amorisim may be base upon love, but love is not based upon amorism. Example: do you think Christians love each other? Perhaps a few who are relatives or close friends, maybe. But as a whole, no. They just say that they do; it is not real love; just pretense.  words alone do not equate love. As for you jumping me for going over the same point; all you have to do is agree that punishment is the bots idea of part of its religion; either that, prove i am wrong. However io again suggest you take out all your comments and read nothing but the bots idea of amorism, for you will see punishment is in there.  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx ;

I will just suggest that you talk more to people in real life and observe their reactions to your conversational style. You will likely learn then that there is a point at which it is highly desirable to drop the line of reasoning you have been persisting on as your partner shows with every motion that they are not enjoying your company any more.

Amorism does not support the idea of coercive punishment. Amorism supports the idea of restorative justice instead. If your point is that the latter employs the former, then I do not object to it: as you said earlier, this is a semantical nuance.
To remind you, this was the original claim you made that triggered this discussion:

anyway it states that those who tend to do harm to delf  and others would be kept in a place where they can not do so until thye are basically restored to the religion.

This claim is demonstrably false.

Regarding your point about love, Amorism does not suggest that it can be "turned on like a switch". The whole point of Amorism is that love is a worthwhile, but difficult pursuit. Clearly, someone saying that they love everyone does not make it true. When I think about a conference of Amorists, I think about people exchanging their experiences and ideas on what makes for more love in both one's personal life and on the societal level. Would there be a lot of pretense and posturing? Probably: we are all flawed human beings. But, just like with anything else including the scientific method, not being able to follow something perfectly does not take away from worthiness of the ideal one pursues.

maxx

restorative justice; a chance to redeem one self. i am sorry may but you still have not answered my question correctly; hence the reason i keep asking. did not the bot say to be kept in a place(basically apart from whom) until they are rehabilitated?  yes he said that. the sticking point here is since the bot is talking about amorisim and nothing but; then it is its idea of part of amorisim. I fail to see where anyone can see it differently. The bot will not suddenly stop in its idea of amorism to suddenly talk about something not at all related to its religion. The only logical conclusion one can make is that "restorative justice" ( although it does not state that anywhere in the bots statement) that you speak of, is nothing more that the bots idea and it is part of amorisim. hang on, im re-reading those ideas of amorisim. ill be back.   Ok, your reasoning, conflicts with many ideas of the actual religion. One can not offer or even learn to give unconditional love to everyone or everything. although it would be nice. One statement of the bots is to offer such love in which even accepted; is still a pretense. eventually perhaps; but proffering it does not equate such. Question arises: what is the final goal of amorisim? Just to embrace love in all things and people? what happens after we expire? do we return or join these lesser spirits? Aside from magic and a few key points, amorisim, the idea religion; sounds very much like wicca. Perhaps you can ask the bot to finish the idea of amorism, for those points its listed are but guidelines. Why does amorism, The bots idea of the perfect religion,   include giving people the chance to rehabilitate themselves for crimes against society,  if it doesn't have anything to do with the religion?  @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

no
So you agree with my opinion , yet you then argue the reverse , whys that ?

 yet without the idea of some form of punishment there would be far less religions for they would be so much more corrupted.

I don't believe that at all, what do you base that on?

It begs the question: if there is no idea of the bad, can good even exist?

Well apparently there is no idea of bad in heaven as its a place of perfect goodness yet christians believe in heaven.

Also a baby going to heaven does not know what bad is does I have to go somewhere else to learn?

Why couldn't we have a world with no concept of bad?

However, there will be some; that faced with the idea of eternal punishment, will do their best to follow the standards of the religion

I believe that figure to be very small going on how belivers act in the modern world.

. Religion corrupts itself over time; yet many do not realize, that society also corrupts religion.

Religion is poison , religion corrupts and corrupt people use it as a tool to abusecothers

Unless one is in a monastery all their lives, they will have to deal with people from all walks of life. corruption, either internal, or external, will breed dissent. I think the idea of punishment is the only thing that keeps actual believers from corrupting themselves..

Maybe the minority devout believers certainly not the majority who totally ignore the teachings of Jesus

 god or heaven is their reward and they have to follow the standards to achieve it. For instance, if my daughter fails to do her chores, she gets no allowance. However, she wants that allowance so in order to avoid the punishment of no money, she does the chores.

Yes money tends to work wonders, threats of punishment in the nest life are rarely effective.

Yes, i believe that in order for any religion to stand, it must have a form of punishment, otherwise the idea of the reward simply is worthless.

I disagree and when I asked you  you agreed you said " no" but then said " yet" ..........you're trying to have it both ways you either agree or disagree which is it?

MayCaesar

@maxx

Let me make sure I understand you correctly: is your argument that, since the text was about Amorism, then everything contained in that text is a part of Amorism? Would you agree then that if a book about sex makes use of the assertion that 2+2=4, then the idea that 2+2=4 is a part of sex?
For context, ChatGPT's text you are referencing resulted from the following prompt: "What are Amorism's views on punitive justice? How should, for instance, murderers be treated both by individuals and the society as a whole?"


What ideas does my reasoning conflict with? The idea that "such love is still a pretense" is yours and has not been mentioned by either ChatGPT or me. It appears that you are trying to force your own interpretation of these ideas on ChatGPT, and it strongly disagrees with them. I will let it speak for itself:

Me: A slight tangent: I am having a hard time getting one debater to understand the ideas of Amorism. Could you please offer a good response to his following criticisms? Here they are: "One can not offer or even learn to give unconditional love to everyone or everything. although it would be nice. One statement of the bots is to offer such love in which even accepted; is still a pretense. eventually perhaps; but proffering it does not equate such. Question arises: what is the final goal of amorisim? Just to embrace love in all things and people? what happens after we expire? do we return or join these lesser spirits?"

ChatGPT: "Certainly! Engaging with critiques is an essential part of refining and understanding a belief system. Here's a structured response to the debater's criticisms:

---

1. On the Feasibility of Unconditional Love:
Amorism acknowledges the inherent challenges of embodying unconditional love at all times. It's an aspirational goal, much like many virtues that religions and philosophies put forth. While it may be difficult, it is the act of striving towards it that holds value. The practice of attempting to cultivate love, even if not perfectly achieved, brings one closer to understanding and manifesting the core principles of Amorism.

2. On Love as Pretense:
It's valid to point out that simply stating or offering love doesn't mean it's genuinely felt. But like any other spiritual or moral practice, it starts with intention. Over time, through reflection, understanding, and repeated practice, the depth and authenticity of love can grow. The journey is as important as the destination.

3. On the Final Goal of Amorism:
Amorism's primary objective is not just to embrace love, but to recognize it as the central force that binds us, drives us, and provides meaning. By centering love, we learn to navigate life's complexities with compassion, understanding, and connection. This approach can lead to both personal fulfillment and a harmonious society.

4. On the Afterlife and Spirits:
Amorism's perspective on the afterlife, as previously explained, is that souls transition to Amorium, a realm of boundless love and connection. This isn't a physical place but a state of existence where the soul experiences pure love. As for the Luminae spirits, they are symbolic representations of love's manifestations. The idea is not to provide a scientifically verifiable account of the afterlife but to offer a comforting and meaningful narrative that aligns with the values of love and connection.
Whether souls return to the earthly realm is open to interpretation. Some might believe in a continuation of the soul's journey, while others might view it as a final state of existence. The beauty of Amorism is that it allows for personal interpretation and doesn't dictate a singular, dogmatic truth.

In essence, Amorism is both a philosophy and a guiding narrative, emphasizing love's transformative power. It's not a rigid doctrine but an invitation to explore and celebrate love in its myriad forms.

It's also worth noting that open dialogues, like the one you're having with the debater, can deepen one's understanding and appreciation of a belief system. Even if there isn't complete agreement, the conversation itself is valuable."

This seems to perfectly align with my prior responses to your criticisms. The most relevant parts to your general attitude are:

• "The beauty of Amorism is that it allows for personal interpretation and doesn't dictate a singular, dogmatic truth."
• "In essence, Amorism is both a philosophy and a guiding narrative, emphasizing love's transformative power. It's not a rigid doctrine but an invitation to explore and celebrate love in its myriad forms."

Finally, ChatGPT never called Amorism "the perfect religion". Please do not put words in an AI's mouth:

Me: "The debater also attributed to you the vision according to which Amorism is a "perfect religion". How would you briefly respond to this?"

ChatGPT: "Certainly! Here's a concise response:

---

Amorism, like any belief system or philosophy, isn't claimed to be "perfect." It's a perspective on love, connection, and understanding. The term "perfect" can be subjective and varies across individuals and cultures. What Amorism offers is a framework that places love at the center of human experience, and it invites individuals to engage with it, reflect upon it, and apply it in ways that resonate with them. Its strength lies not in its purported perfection but in its openness, inclusivity, and the aspiration towards genuine love and understanding.

This response emphasizes the flexibility and non-dogmatic nature of Amorism, which distinguishes it from many traditional religious systems that may claim ultimate truth or perfection."

maxx

at the beginning of the debate, your statements, or rather the bots, all ran together with the idea of amorisim; and no where did i see that the idea of putting certain people in a place until rehabilitation, a diffee4nt part. If you had asked that without allowing us debaters to know it was not a part of amorism, then we must expect it to be part. No where did i see or read that the statement was a side question and answer. I would like you to ask a specific question to the bot regarding amorisim and amorisim alone. " what kind of discipline should be give, what sort of punishment should the religion mete out to those who do not follow the guide lines of the religion" please be fair and honest with the answer, or you are not just misleading me but yourself as well. if there is a flaw such as punishment, then have the bot list it.    @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

Please be so kind as to answer my related question first:

MayCaesar said:

Let me make sure I understand you correctly: is your argument that, since the text was about Amorism, then everything contained in that text is a part of Amorism? Would you agree then that if a book about sex makes use of the assertion that 2+2=4, then the idea that 2+2=4 is a part of sex?

maxx

no i would not; however if it was ONLY about sex then i would. and nowhere in the chatbot statements on amorisim said it was NOT about amorisim; like a sex book would. Reading the statements  in order, is like reading a recipe from a cookbook on meatloaf or something. One does not expect at some point they will start talking about why too much salt is bad for you . That statement  about of rehabilitation seems part of the religion, not out of context. I still fail to see if the bot was talking about amorisim he suddenly decided to go out of context; until you decided to explain that it was. another question i would like you to ask, aside from the idea of punishment, is what kinds of flaws amorisim has.  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

maxx said:

no i would not; however if it was ONLY about sex then i would. and nowhere in the chatbot statements on amorisim said it was NOT about amorisim; like a sex book would. Reading the statements  in order, is like reading a recipe from a cookbook on meatloaf or something. One does not expect at some point they will start talking about why too much salt is bad for you . That statement  about of rehabilitation seems part of the religion, not out of context. I still fail to see if the bot was talking about amorisim he suddenly decided to go out of context; until you decided to explain that it was.

I am confused by your clarification. What do you mean by "if it was ONLY about sex"? If it makes use of a mathematical equation, then it clearly is not only about sex - but by the same token, if a text on Amorism makes use of an idea for system of justice, then it clearly is not only about Amorism. Could you clarify the distinction you are making here?

As for your cookbook example, everyone is different, but I personally would like to be aware of potential health risks involved in consuming particular meals.

maxx said:
another question i would like you to ask, aside from the idea of punishment, is what kinds of flaws amorisim has. 

As ChatGPT explains, Amorism is not a set of hard prescriptions, but, instead, a "perspective on love, connection and understanding". And, as any perspective, it is inherently subjective, therefore calling something in it a "flaw" is also subjective.

If I were to pick on something, I would question the assumption that everything can be analyzed in the framework with universal love being the highest virtue. Hatred may serve an essential biological function, in which case getting rid of it completely would be counter-productive. Now, a more nuanced interpretation could be that hatred has its place, but it should be embedded in a larger love-based world-view - kind of like hard exercise that is extremely uncomfortable and physically damaging ultimately serves to make you more comfortable in your own body and your body more resilient. In other words, hatred can be seen as an essential part of the journey towards universal love.

maxx

i agreed with part of your statement and went on to explain the part i did not agree with. being bad is inherent in humans and other animals alike. so that is why we can not have a world with out bad. what we consider bad evolved as a matter of survival. fighting, stealing, kill or be killed were all a matter of survival and it is part of human nature. Religion began as superstition and offered an outlet for those seeking a better way of life. I am sure you can look this up if you do not believe me. i do not claim religion to be free of corruption, however there is just as much outside of religion. However those who do follow the teachings as best as they can, are not any worse for not believing. You state it is poison, which is an opinion, yet poisonous attitudes and personal beliefs are everywhere in this world. Putting religion down for personal sake is simply prejudice. It is not a religion, nor a group, or a club that is the problem. The problem is human nature and that will not change. corruption, evil, greed and so on is and has been prevalent in this world since ancient times. Putting the blame on a belief simply because you do not like the belief, while accepting the same corruption in other walks of life is again prejudice.  There is a lot of bad within religion, yet that is not the reason people join one.@Dee

Dee

@maxx

i agreed with part of your statement and went on to explain the part i did not agree with. being bad is inherent in humans and other animals

I never once said being bad is inherent in human beings,  why are you saying I did?

  I believe that all religions, including amorism should have some form of punishment otherwise people would not adhere to its princples or guidelines.

 
I asked did  you honestly believe this is true? , you said "no" , you seem totally confused over what you're trying to say.

aliso that is why we can not have a world with out bad.

But you  just said ....." i did not agree with. being bad is inherent in humans and other animals" 

So you're saying being bad is not inherent in humans,  right?

what we consider bad evolved as a matter of survival. fighting, stealing, kill or be killed were all a matter of survival and it is part of human nature

But you just asserted  being bad is not inherent in humans,  right?

. Religion began as superstition and offered an outlet for those seeking a better way of life

Religion started out as a way to control people it only offered a better afterlife for the chosen few most were threatened with hellfire and suffering 

. I am sure you can look this up if you do not believe me.

I don't need to look it up I've a pretty good knowledge of the topic.

 i do not claim religion to be free of corruption,

I never said you did.

 however there is just as much outside of religion

I never said otherwise 

. However those who do follow the teachings as best as they can, are not any worse for not believing.

Again I never said otherwise actually I made a case for the minority

 You state it is poison, which is an opinion,

Isn't everything?

 yet poisonous attitudes and personal beliefs are everywhere in this world.

Yes , what exactly is your point?

 Putting religion down for personal reasons is prejudice 

I haven't done that , your inability to comprehend simple statements is staggering. your use of the term " prejudice " is ridiculous and pretty childish.

 It is not a religion, nor a group, or a club that is the problem.

Really? Religion has alway being part of the problem always will be.

 The problem is human nature and that will not change.

But you just said  being bad is not inherent in humans,  right?

 corruption, evil, greed and so on is and has been prevalent in this world since ancient times

Yes , and?

. Putting the blame on a belief simply because you do not like the belief

Pay attention , I said religion is poison you've done nothing to convince me otherwise.

f, while accepting the same corruption in other walks of life is again prejudice.

Again that's something else I never claimed 

  There is a lot of bad within religion, yet that is not the reason people join one.

Yet something else I  never claimed. You make up and argue against statements I never made and cannot even remember what you previously said or claimed , it seems to be a common tactic by you noted also by others

maxx

you know what? aside from you straying from the actual topic, this is not my post. it is mays. Why are you not debating him and telling him how amorism is corrupt and evil?  because you saw my name and wanted to argue talk in circles like you always do. everyone in religion is not corrupt or evil. There are many who; at least from their perspective, are trying to make the world a better place; no matter how mis-guided they may be.. What about you? what have you done to alleviate the woes of the world; the heartaches, the suffering, the corruption, evil, greed, and so on?  not jack . not only that, judging my your attitude on this site over the years, you are not only part of the worlds problems; you contribute to them. So stop acting so high and mighty and pointing fingers at others. go look in the mirror and judge yourself. now bug off. @Dee

maxx

yes, however i did ask you to explain and post what the chat bot said about possible punishment in amorisim. will you elaborate? did the bot suggest a punishment with-in the framework of amorisim to certain individuals who fail to meet or follow the guidelines of the religion?  @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

you know what? aside from you straying from the actual topic,

I never strayed ,you totally ignored what I said insulted falsely stating things I never said at all.

 this is not my post. it is mays. Why are you not debating him and telling him how amorism is corrupt and evil?

Because Amorism sounds like a vast improvement to me.


  because you saw my name and wanted to talk in circles like you always do

The only one who is talking in circles is you as you totally contradict yourself everytime and keep attacking points never made.

. everyone is religion is not corrupt or evil.

Everyone is religion.? What does that even mean?

There are many who; at least from their perspective, are trying to make the world a better place; no matter how mis-guided they are

And?

. What about you? what have you done to alleviate the woes of the world; the heartaches, the suffering, the corruption, evil, greed, and so on?

Why who said I had to? Again you're inventing arguments I'm not making. 

  not jack . not only that, judging my your attitude on this site over the years, you are not only part of the worlds problems; you contribute to them

Wow! Making up lies about your opponents is pretty childish but that's in keeping with your character , had you another bad day at work?


. So stop acting so high and mighty and pointing fingers at others.

I never pointed fingers at others I made factual statements which you cannot counter so instead fly into yet another rage.

 go look in the mirror and judge yourself.

I already have and I must say I'm rather pleased with what I see , hows that working for you.

now bug off.

Yet more personal  attacks and insults.

Very childish but predictable behaviour from you as you tied yourself in knots from the start by saying " humans were not inherently bad " then disagreeing with yourself by saying they were inherently bad , different day same ole lets  play two sides Maxx.

maxx

not going to happen dee, go debate amorisim. it is what this post is about. @Dee

Dee

@maxx


not going to happen dee,

I know as I knew you had no defence for your contradictory piece of nonsense.


 go debate amorisim.

I did I think it's a vast improvement on the dictates of the bronze age versions of superstious nonsense.

 it is what this post is about

Yes I know that you seem to think it's about your contentions that people are inherently and also not inherently bad, remember?

just_sayin

@MayCaesar

Beliefs are malleable. Whether "resurrection of Jesus" occurred or not in reality, as long as enough people believe that it did, the religion can work. Furthermore, there are people embracing the values encrypted in the Bible without believing in the literal mythology described in it. If I were to champion a religion, I would certainly target the latter group primarily, people who do not accept anything without due evidence, but who can get behind beautiful myths and their message. Much as me or you can read the Odyssey and marvel at the depth of the ideas in the book, even though we both are fairly certain that the events described in the book never took place in reality.

And who knows, if Amorism were to take root and become extremely popular, then, perhaps, generations later people would forget about its origins and also start believing in it more literally. Coming back to my original point, if this scenario is how the true god's teachings are to spread, then would it not be better for something benevolent such as Amorism to be what is being spread, than Christianity or Islam? In other words, if the Bible or the Quran were written by god and later grew to be accepted by billions of people, would it not be better to write "The Book of Love" championing Amorism and have billions of people accept it later? Why would god intentionally write an incredibly violent and barbaric (by the modern standards) book when he could have written a more benevolent one, supposedly leading to a much more peaceful history?

I disagree with you.  I believe truth matters. I believe Christianity is very much rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is the key tenet of the faith.  If it were not true then as Paul the Apostle said "And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. " - 1 Corinthians 15:14-15

For the record, just before that, he cites what historians say is a creed that dates back to no more than 2-5 years after Jesus' resurrection:

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.- 1 Corinthians 15:3-7

It seems idiotic to me to claim that a religion that you know is not rooted in historical truth is better than one that is rooted in historical truth.

MayCaesar

maxx said:

yes, however i did ask you to explain and post what the chat bot said about possible punishment in amorisim. will you elaborate? did the bot suggest a punishment with-in the framework of amorisim to certain individuals who fail to meet or follow the guidelines of the religion?  @MayCaesar

No, it did not, as I have said on numerous occasions. There is nothing in any of the quoted passages that suggests such a punishment. This is something you suggested and attributed to the religion out of your own volition, then proceeded to interrogate me on this. I am not sure I understand the purpose of this kind of behavior.



@just_sayin

First, you will have a hard time finding a historian who will agree that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that something as remarkable as resurrection of an individual has occurred in reality. Historians do not even agree if Jesus ever existed: one of the popular hypotheses is that the personality of Jesus was a conglomeration of personalities and teachings of multiple individuals across the Judaea province.

Second, if popularity of a religion is a direct product of it being rooted in historical truth, then all major religions must be rooted in historical truths. In particular, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto, Chinese folklore tradition and Taoism must all be rooted in historical truth. Would you agree with that? If so, how does it hold alongside the fact that some of the historical claims these religions make are mutually contradictory?

Third, being rooted in historical truth and having great moral prescriptions are two different things. The Nazi ideology certainly draws heavily on historical facts, as does Marxism, yet the way they interpret those facts and the lessons they draw from them, let us just say, are questionable. Depending on what you mean by "better", the idiotic-ness of the claim that a fantasy-based religion can be better than a history-based religion is not obvious to me, so I would ask you to please elaborate on this claim.

maxx

no i suggested it because of the chat bots quotes. One was on rehabilitation. The bot clearly stated it may and you only say he was talking out of context with the religion it was discussing. @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

I honestly am not sure anymore what your objection even is. Can you state in clear sentences a) what your argument is, b) what your evidence for it is, and c) in what way you find my answers to your criticism unsatisfactory?

maxx

just out of idle curiosity may if you do not mind; since you seem to hold the ideas of the bot in high regard; what genre did you use when discussing this religion? was it philosophy? @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

I do mind, maxx. This is a conversation, not a one actor show. Why you think that you can direct the conversation any way you want and I am expected to follow you, I do not understand.

I do not know if I hold the bot's ideas in high regard; I have merely suggested that the religion it came up with is better per a vast array of conventionally accepted metrics than any of the existing mainstream religions - which is not a very high bar to overcome.

To your question, I was thinking about the set of feasible philosophical foundations of morality, and a question occurred to me whether it is possible to build a moral system with some emerging phenomenon being the highest moral value, as opposed to more basic phenomena such as cognition which most moral philosophies start with. I asked ChatGPT if, in particular, it can construct a religion the highest moral value of which would be love, and this was the result.

maxx

very well, so we are talking on philosophical issues. Aslo i am not attempting to have a one way debate with you. so let me back up to a question that i was intending to ask you. Do you believe that amorism, should NOT have a form of punishment with-in its framework of ideas? From a scientific perspective, as well as philosophical; reward and punishment always go hand-in-hand. would not utopia cause as many problems as those it eradicates? Strickly speaking, humans simply are not by nature such a people. With-out struggle, hardship, no religion would last including amorism. @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

You keep asking the same question over and over again, and my answer does not change. Indeed, I do not think that Amorism has or should have any prescription of punishment for any particular action: it is about pursuit of love, not about punishment of non-love. A human society, even one that has completely embraced Amorism, will need to institute some system of justice that deals with the dangerous elements in the society - but that is a societal need, not a religious one, and Amorism merely suggests that such a system be built around rehabilitation and reconciliation as a goal, and not punishment and redemption.

I am not sure why you believe, maxx, that reiterating the same point over and over again is going to get you to a novel outcome. This is what makes conversing with you so frustrating: it feels sometimes like you have an amnesia every time you post a new comment, and you say the same things as you said before, without accounting for any progress in the conversation that has happened since then. Has this approach ever get you anywhere in an in-personal conversation? I cannot imagine that many people are going to want to talk to you for extended periods of time when that is your standard approach to conversing with people.