It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Primary Deity: Luminara, the Goddess of Eternal Love
Lesser Spirits: Luminae, spirits of love that illuminate the path of the devoted
Creation Story: In the beginning, there was only darkness and void. From this emptiness emerged Luminara, a radiant being of pure love and light. She felt a deep loneliness and, from her heart, birthed the Luminae spirits, expressions of different kinds of love. Together, they wove the tapestry of existence, creating stars, planets, and life forms.
The Descent: Despite the beauty of the universe, Luminara noticed that some life forms felt loneliness and despair. She decided to descend to their realms, transforming into various avatars to teach them about love. During each descent, she faced trials, where she overcame hatred, jealousy, and fear with love, demonstrating its transformative power.
Luminae Spirits: These are lesser spirits representing different forms of love—romantic love, familial love, platonic love, self-love, and love for nature and the universe. They act as guardians and guides, helping devotees navigate their life journeys.
Love as the Highest Virtue: Above all, love is the most powerful force and the ultimate virtue. It binds everything in the universe and drives evolution and progress.
Sacred Reciprocity: Just as Luminara gave birth to the Luminae out of love, so too should followers reciprocate love to the world around them. This means caring for nature, other beings, and oneself.
Embrace All Forms of Love: Every expression of love, from romantic to platonic to self-love, is divine. Discrimination based on the type or form of love is seen as a deviation from Luminara's teachings.
Love's Challenges: Love is not always easy. It can come with pain, loss, and hardship. But these challenges are essential for growth and understanding the depth of love.
Seeking the Luminae: Devotees are encouraged to form connections with the Luminae spirits. These connections can be cultivated through rituals, meditation, and acts of love.
Universal Love: Love is not confined to one's community, race, or species. True devotees recognize the spirit of Luminara in every being and offer love unconditionally.
Luminara's Descent: A major festival celebrating Luminara's descents into the world. It's a time of joy, dancing, and forming new bonds.
Feast of the Luminae: A day dedicated to honoring the various spirits of love. Devotees create altars for each Luminae spirit they feel particularly connected to.
Rite of Passage: When a young follower reaches adulthood, they undertake a pilgrimage to a sacred site where they meditate and seek a connection with a Luminae spirit that will guide them through life.
Day of Reflection: A quiet day for personal meditation, contemplating one's journey of love, understanding past mistakes, and setting intentions for the future.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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".
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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:
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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..
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think I get what you mean. Religion in the end is just a institution made up a round spiritual beliefs.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Do you honestly believe this is true? Do you think that in your majority Christian nation that these Christians adhere to its principles?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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:
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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:
This seems to perfectly align with my prior responses to your criticisms. The most relevant parts to your general attitude are:
Finally, ChatGPT never called Amorism "the perfect religion". Please do not put words in an AI's mouth:
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Please be so kind as to answer my related question first:
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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 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
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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:
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra