Does Bad Karma Have an Expiration Date?

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:56:03 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 22. juli 2019 kl. 18.49.01 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:38:57 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 7/21/19 5:50 PM, Rick C wrote:
Just wondering. Saw that line in a TV show, the Mentalist.


Sure--today, if you like. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Grin, Hey Phil, (speaking of religion) I've been sorta interested
in this idea that religion might be in some ways an evolutionary
adaption in humans, to the problem of how to get along and live together.
(I don't have a good link or paper to recommend.)
I'm wondering if you've heard of this idea, and what you think of it?
and if I trust you find the question offensive.


I agree. Religion is one of the things that a tribe or culture can
rally around, and creats a common morality that makes civilization
work better. The Ten Commandments, and Jesus's approach to life, make
for a pretty good legal and moral structure.

And it is easier to get the unwashed masses to obey the rules of you
convince them that God made the rules and God will see if they break
them even if they think no one else does, rather than try to explain
why and how sticking to the rules are best for everyone

Many well-washed people have been religious too.

Even a non-religious morality, a sense of honesty and fairless and
courage, is arguably a handicap for an individual but an asset to a
group. Since most of us have such standards, group evolution probably
gave it to us.

If you explain proper social behavior to people, they will cheat when
no-one is looking. Innate standards work 24/7.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:34:20 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 7:12:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 23/7/19 2:38 am, George Herold wrote:
On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 7/21/19 5:50 PM, Rick C wrote:
Just wondering. Saw that line in a TV show, the Mentalist.
Sure--today, if you like. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
Grin, Hey Phil, (speaking of religion) I've been sorta interested
in this idea that religion might be in some ways an evolutionary
adaption in humans, to the problem of how to get along and live together.

The evolution of gods is less to do with need (though we do need ethical
frameworks) but more to do with the external expression of abstract
thought, i.e. writing. Pre-literate societies tend to be animistic, but
as writing allows the development of abstract categories, we create
them. So for example we see horses, and we see animals with horns, and
we can cross over the two ideas to suppose the existence of unicorns.

In the exact same way we cross over ideas of creation, of person-hood,
of justice and mercy, and you come up with a supposition of the Alpha
and Omega. It's intrinsic in the increase of sentience, and would happen
in a similar way on any alien planetary species (I find this a bit
depressing!).

The existence of writing allows these suppositions to take on a life of
their own and to be promulgated beyond the individual. The absence of
any positive confirmation doesn't stop folk wishing for certainty from
wasting their lives believing such nonsense, and of course it creates a
culture that cushions them from the absence of evidence.

Clifford Heath.

OK, I guess this idea*.. is that God is more about just doing
good. On the individual level, if I first do good when I meet
you, (cooperate first in the simplistic tit for tat exchange.)
That's best... can you select for that?

George H.
*I'm at least 1/2 making this up, but aren't we a people
that help others first? Maybe God is so baked in now
that we take doing good for granted.

So you define "good" as doing for others? Isn't it important to do good for yourself?

Do you really think "doing good" is a result of "God" or religion? That's a huge assumption.

Oh, you've got it completely backwards. God is the result, part of,
selecting for 'doing good'. (that's my understanding)
Do you think God is a bad concept?
Have you ever gone to a church you liked?

George H.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 23/7/19 10:34 am, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 7:12:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 23/7/19 2:38 am, George Herold wrote:
On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 7/21/19 5:50 PM, Rick C wrote:
Just wondering. Saw that line in a TV show, the Mentalist.
Sure--today, if you like. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
Grin, Hey Phil, (speaking of religion) I've been sorta interested
in this idea that religion might be in some ways an evolutionary
adaption in humans, to the problem of how to get along and live together.

The evolution of gods is less to do with need (though we do need ethical
frameworks) but more to do with the external expression of abstract
thought, i.e. writing. Pre-literate societies tend to be animistic, but
as writing allows the development of abstract categories, we create
them. So for example we see horses, and we see animals with horns, and
we can cross over the two ideas to suppose the existence of unicorns.

In the exact same way we cross over ideas of creation, of person-hood,
of justice and mercy, and you come up with a supposition of the Alpha
and Omega. It's intrinsic in the increase of sentience, and would happen
in a similar way on any alien planetary species (I find this a bit
depressing!).

The existence of writing allows these suppositions to take on a life of
their own and to be promulgated beyond the individual. The absence of
any positive confirmation doesn't stop folk wishing for certainty from
wasting their lives believing such nonsense, and of course it creates a
culture that cushions them from the absence of evidence.

Clifford Heath.

OK, I guess this idea*.. is that God is more about just doing
good. On the individual level, if I first do good when I meet
you, (cooperate first in the simplistic tit for tat exchange.)
That's best... can you select for that?

George H.
*I'm at least 1/2 making this up, but aren't we a people
that help others first? Maybe God is so baked in now
that we take doing good for granted.

So you define "good" as doing for others? Isn't it important to do good for yourself?

Do you really think "doing good" is a result of "God" or religion? That's a huge assumption.

No. God and religion is a result of trying to make other people do good.

Clifford Heath

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 10:28:42 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

Doesn't everyone want to 'do good'? Where does that idea
of good come from? (the deep roots all look to be from some
religion and/or another.)

No, there are plenty of people who care not a whit of "doing good".

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:43:21 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 23/7/19 10:20 am, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 7:12:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
The evolution of gods is less to do with need (though we do need ethical
frameworks) but more to do with the external expression of abstract
thought, i.e. writing. Pre-literate societies tend to be animistic, but
as writing allows the development of abstract categories, we create
them. So for example we see horses, and we see animals with horns, and
we can cross over the two ideas to suppose the existence of unicorns.

In the exact same way we cross over ideas of creation, of person-hood,
of justice and mercy, and you come up with a supposition of the Alpha
and Omega. It's intrinsic in the increase of sentience, and would happen
in a similar way on any alien planetary species (I find this a bit
depressing!).

The existence of writing allows these suppositions to take on a life of
their own and to be promulgated beyond the individual. The absence of
any positive confirmation doesn't stop folk wishing for certainty from
wasting their lives believing such nonsense, and of course it creates a
culture that cushions them from the absence of evidence.

Clifford Heath.

OK, I guess this idea*.. is that God is more about just doing
good. On the individual level, if I first do good when I meet
you, (cooperate first in the simplistic tit for tat exchange.)
That's best... can you select for that?

We had no reason not to kill each other on first sight until we started
to benefit from the enlargement of our society beyond the family, tribe,
village, etc. Some people still subvert ethical norms, so we extended
the idea of just "doing good" to include omniscience and eternal
consequences. It's all pure invention and manipulative bullying.

... aren't we a people that help others first?

We've learned to do that, but it's not innate.

Hmm OK, nature and nurture, so some of both maybe.
Still our morals come from religion.
Where else? Nature is brutal!
Eat or be eaten.

Maybe God is so baked in now
that we take doing good for granted.

It's perhaps still baked-in where you live in the USA, but in more
intellectually advanced countries it's rapidly being baked out. Fewer
that 50% of the UK now professes any religion, for example, and the flow
in Australia is even more advanced than that, I believe. It works
because we now understand that social ethics does not require religion,
and in fact cannot continue to advance beyond a certain point in the
presence of religion, which creates too many opportunities for abuse (as
has been amply demonstrated!)

Huh, OK I'm saying the idea of 'doing good first' is baked in and not
the idea of God.

Doesn't everyone want to 'do good'? Where does that idea
of good come from? (the deep roots all look to be from some
religion and/or another.)

George H.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 9:22:39 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:34:20 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

George H.
*I'm at least 1/2 making this up, but aren't we a people
that help others first? Maybe God is so baked in now
that we take doing good for granted.

So you define "good" as doing for others? Isn't it important to do good for yourself?

Do you really think "doing good" is a result of "God" or religion? That's a huge assumption.
Oh, you've got it completely backwards. God is the result, part of,
selecting for 'doing good'. (that's my understanding)
Do you think God is a bad concept?
Have you ever gone to a church you liked?

I don't follow your reasoning. We have evolved for the benefit of the species by "doing good" for others. How does God come into the equation?

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:43:21 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:

We had no reason not to kill each other on first sight until...

Your starting premise is faulty. As is true for most organisms, fighting is risky behavior. Unless there is something important to gain it is best avoided which is what most animals do. Humans are from a group of animals not typically aggressive unless threatened. Defending territory is one reason to fight, but for primitive humans this can end badly.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 10:53:46 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:56:03 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 22. juli 2019 kl. 18.49.01 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:38:57 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 7/21/19 5:50 PM, Rick C wrote:
Just wondering. Saw that line in a TV show, the Mentalist.


Sure--today, if you like. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Grin, Hey Phil, (speaking of religion) I've been sorta interested
in this idea that religion might be in some ways an evolutionary
adaption in humans, to the problem of how to get along and live together.
(I don't have a good link or paper to recommend.)
I'm wondering if you've heard of this idea, and what you think of it?
and if I trust you find the question offensive.


I agree. Religion is one of the things that a tribe or culture can
rally around, and creats a common morality that makes civilization
work better. The Ten Commandments, and Jesus's approach to life, make
for a pretty good legal and moral structure.

And it is easier to get the unwashed masses to obey the rules of you
convince them that God made the rules and God will see if they break
them even if they think no one else does, rather than try to explain
why and how sticking to the rules are best for everyone

Many well-washed people have been religious too.

If pretty much everybody else is religious, it's the path of least resistance.
You have to be particularly dedicated to thinking logically to be willing to take on the social odium of not taking religion seriously. Read Jonathon Israel on the Radical Enlightenment.

https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprofso/9780198206088.001..0001/acprof-9780198206088

Spinoza got a lot of stick for working through the issues logically. Once he had done it, the idea caught on.

Even a non-religious morality, a sense of honesty and fairness and
courage, is arguably a handicap for an individual but an asset to a
group. Since most of us have such standards, group evolution probably
gave it to us.

Most of the great apes seem to have the same standards, so it looks as if it is advantageous for smaller groups of individual than the 150 (Dunbar's number) humans seem to settle into.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

If you explain proper social behavior to people, they will cheat when
no-one is looking. Innate standards work 24/7.

But free-loading psychopaths do seem to show up rather frequently - Trump looks very like one. Gossip provides an obvious route to detecting them and warning other people about them. Innate standards are all very well, but as long as recessive mutations throw up the occasional standard-free cheat who can do well out of cheating they aren't going to get selected out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 7/22/19 4:38 PM, Bob Engelhardt wrote:

On 7/22/2019 1:01 PM, George Herold wrote:
...
Yeah you can see the influence in some civilizations.  But I think if
it's
an evolutionary thing... like we have some genes/ adaptions that make us
(.. I don't know the right words here... ) 'more likely' to adopt a
'religious' outlook.. then that may have made those humans more
successful,
they got along and trusted each other more.
(In times beofre we had civilizations.)


Well, pre-civil-izations didn't have religions with a personal god.
I.e., a god that cared what they did.  Their "religions" deified things
in nature (the god of wind, rain, etc).  See "The Evolution of God".
Humans may have evolved since then to prefer a personal god, but
civilization is not that old and evolution is slow.

I think there's a difference between a "personal God" and a personal God
who one believes talks to them regularly.

When some pastors claim God spoke to them the natural question is Oh
does God speak to you on the regular? I would've thought a God would
have better things to do with God's time.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 23/7/19 12:28 pm, George Herold wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:43:21 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 23/7/19 10:20 am, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 7:12:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
The evolution of gods is less to do with need (though we do need ethical
frameworks) but more to do with the external expression of abstract
thought, i.e. writing. Pre-literate societies tend to be animistic, but
as writing allows the development of abstract categories, we create
them. So for example we see horses, and we see animals with horns, and
we can cross over the two ideas to suppose the existence of unicorns.

In the exact same way we cross over ideas of creation, of person-hood,
of justice and mercy, and you come up with a supposition of the Alpha
and Omega. It's intrinsic in the increase of sentience, and would happen
in a similar way on any alien planetary species (I find this a bit
depressing!).

The existence of writing allows these suppositions to take on a life of
their own and to be promulgated beyond the individual. The absence of
any positive confirmation doesn't stop folk wishing for certainty from
wasting their lives believing such nonsense, and of course it creates a
culture that cushions them from the absence of evidence.

Clifford Heath.

OK, I guess this idea*.. is that God is more about just doing
good. On the individual level, if I first do good when I meet
you, (cooperate first in the simplistic tit for tat exchange.)
That's best... can you select for that?

We had no reason not to kill each other on first sight until we started
to benefit from the enlargement of our society beyond the family, tribe,
village, etc. Some people still subvert ethical norms, so we extended
the idea of just "doing good" to include omniscience and eternal
consequences. It's all pure invention and manipulative bullying.

... aren't we a people that help others first?

We've learned to do that, but it's not innate.
Hmm OK, nature and nurture, so some of both maybe.
Still our morals come from religion.

No, they don't. Each person benefits from other people doing well at
things they now don't need to do for themselves. I wish others well, I'm
willing to put myself out to help them, and I'm glad we have a system
that mostly prevents them from doing me harm. It's based on mutual benefit.

Where else? Nature is brutal!
Eat or be eaten.

Maybe God is so baked in now
that we take doing good for granted.

It's perhaps still baked-in where you live in the USA, but in more
intellectually advanced countries it's rapidly being baked out. Fewer
that 50% of the UK now professes any religion, for example, and the flow
in Australia is even more advanced than that, I believe. It works
because we now understand that social ethics does not require religion,
and in fact cannot continue to advance beyond a certain point in the
presence of religion, which creates too many opportunities for abuse (as
has been amply demonstrated!)
Huh, OK I'm saying the idea of 'doing good first' is baked in and not
the idea of God.

Even that is not baked in. The notion of 'receiving good first' is baked
in. The possibility of assisting in 'receiving good' by doing good comes
from the social contract.

> Doesn't everyone want to 'do good'?

No. Everyone wants things to be good for them and the ones they care
about. Only the progressively enlightened realise that they receive net
benefits from helping (progressively further) distant folk to prosper.

> Where does that idea of good come from?

As the opposite of personal harm, I suspect.

> (the deep roots all look to be from some religion and/or another.)

No, religion is a rationalisation created with coercive intent, because
even in a functioning society, most people do all the evil they can
secretly get away with. So you have to scare them into believing that
all will be revealed and paid for eventually. The coercive institutions
thus created have been shown to act as cover for the leaders to get away
with quite a lot! Which shows that their 'morality' is intended for
other people to practise, not for themselves. It's coercive, not personal.

Clifford Heath.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/23/19 12:53 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:37:40 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think there's a difference between a "personal God" and a personal God
who one believes talks to them regularly.

When some pastors claim God spoke to them the natural question is Oh
does God speak to you on the regular? I would've thought a God would
have better things to do with God's time.

Just the opposite. God is everywhere, everything and all powerful. Why can't she talk to everyone as she wishes?

I never said God _couldn't_ do it

If God is a woman, is she like *really* hot? I mean like Charisma Carpenter hot?

Do lots of *really* hot earthly women call you up to chat with you
regularly, too?

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:37:40 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think there's a difference between a "personal God" and a personal God
who one believes talks to them regularly.

When some pastors claim God spoke to them the natural question is Oh
does God speak to you on the regular? I would've thought a God would
have better things to do with God's time.

I've always felt that if God wants me to believe in Her, She will let me know in no uncertain terms. Why would She play games and expect me to figure out how to play the game? Oh, right, She's a woman!

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:37:40 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think there's a difference between a "personal God" and a personal God
who one believes talks to them regularly.

When some pastors claim God spoke to them the natural question is Oh
does God speak to you on the regular? I would've thought a God would
have better things to do with God's time.

Just the opposite. God is everywhere, everything and all powerful. Why can't she talk to everyone as she wishes?

If God is a woman, is she like *really* hot? I mean like Charisma Carpenter hot?

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 7/23/19 12:55 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:37:40 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think there's a difference between a "personal God" and a personal God
who one believes talks to them regularly.

When some pastors claim God spoke to them the natural question is Oh
does God speak to you on the regular? I would've thought a God would
have better things to do with God's time.

I've always felt that if God wants me to believe in Her, She will let me know in no uncertain terms. Why would She play games and expect me to figure out how to play the game? Oh, right, She's a woman!

Sounds like you're onto something...

 

[bitrex]

On 7/23/19 12:53 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:37:40 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I think there's a difference between a "personal God" and a personal God
who one believes talks to them regularly.

When some pastors claim God spoke to them the natural question is Oh
does God speak to you on the regular? I would've thought a God would
have better things to do with God's time.

Just the opposite. God is everywhere, everything and all powerful. Why can't she talk to everyone as she wishes?

An important thing to know about being happy with women in your life is
that often what's unsaid is just as important, or more, than what is
said explicitly.

Think - contract law.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 6:02:35 PM UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 03:28:42 UTC+1, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:43:21 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 23/7/19 10:20 am, George Herold wrote:

... aren't we a people that help others first?

We've learned to do that, but it's not innate.
Hmm OK, nature and nurture, so some of both maybe.
Still our morals come from religion.
Where else? Nature is brutal!
Eat or be eaten.

I'm pretty sure morality existed before religion

Since at least some of the great apes seem to understand fairness and get cross when it's violated, this seems to be fairly obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney