is the best rule to follow based on personal responsibility before any belief? Is the best belief based on compassion? Is there any 'god' that could represent otherwise?
yep. the golden rule (basically do unto others as you would have them do to you, or a variation of such) is based on compassion, and is pretty universal.
I wouldn't say that the best belief would be *based* on compassion. It needs to allow compassion, and going against compassion would be a reasonable indication of problems with a belief, but I see no reason why it has to be based on it. Then again, as usual, it depends on what your ultimate goal of existence is. My personal one is maximization of happiness (with some alterations) and while I think there is a strong correlation between maximization of happiness and compassion, if I based one on maximization of happiness, it wouldn't be based on compassion but compassion would still have a role in it.
While it's true that beliefs based on misinformation rarely is good in any way, they aren't beliefs if they are based on facts. A lot of the time, facts will be presented with heavy bias. Just because something is accurate doesn't mean it isn't modified to sway hearts by emotion. Many things Hitler said about Jews were true, but he presented it in a biased way, making the audience draw not-so-true conclusions about their correlation.
Compassion on an individual/community level is good. Compassion on a national level is nothing but a road to socialist hell paved by good intentions.
is the better word 'empathy'? Meaning: a belief that enables a consciousness to be aware, in empathy does that work? the goal? 'to live' and if a live, gives a portion of itself to other lives, then it lives in that life So to be of compassion (empathy), a life can comprehend its purpose/goal based on awareness of itself and its surrounding environment. As long as the understanding is true to nature (life), versus belief. That is why the claim is so encumbering. The scope involves each person with personal responsibility to itself and others, innerty!
I'm willing to accept that it might be a necessary part of an ultimate belief, but there are beliefs that are based on empathy of different descriptions that didn't work at all. Sometimes because it's empathy only for some, sometimes because in their eagerness to include empathy, they forgot to include intellectual honesty and factual accuracy. Surely, to live is at best a decent-sized part of your ultimate goal? For instance, I suppose you mean "to live" as a general thing, not just for yourself to live (as that wouldn't be very empathic), which, when taken to an extreme, would be filling the whole world with as much people as possible regardless of their situation. Millions of starving people in Africa would be a higher goal than working communities. I get the feeling that there are corrections to your goal and I'd like to know exactly what you mean by "to live", what part of living it is that is your goal, and if there are any caveats which would trump that goal. I know there are issues with maximization of happiness as well, I am no fan of putting all of humanity in a blissful drug-induced coma, and genetic engineering could theoretically create a "moster" who's happiness increases when he kills people and does so more than the unhappiness he causes. These and probably others are problems that I'd have to include caveats for.
i can see your point. For example: a professor of science may be teaching in empathy for the student to understand, but he of himself, not pursuing the truth of the 'laws': lacking intellectual honesty and factual accuracy. great point the process of life, has an 'instinctive' nature to 'continue' (to live). ie.... you breath autonomously for the whole of your body (the life) I see the scope of mankind 'comprehending itself' as being a universal quest of the 'lives' of the conscious. Likewise each life, sustains the natural 'instinct' to survive. SO in a sence i see how your angle reflects that the self, seeking to sustain life (itself) could eventually clash with the universal quest of 'conscious' pursuits; the life of conscious beings, evolving to know itself and live longer (the empathy), in knowing itself.
I'm not sure I see your point here, so I'll just give an example. The church of Sweden is a very fluffy version of Protestantism. Its problem isn't in the application of love, it does that quite well, the problem is the fact that they keep contradicting itself. As much as empathy is nice, I can't accept falsehood to justify it, at least not when there are better justifications around. So then the question becomes why you want things to live. What about terminally ill people who want to die? As you say, your belief that people should live is (I presume) based on the fact that most people want to live. What if that will no longer exists?
and was like my example but of science. The professor may mean well but contradict themselves while making a monster (the student) who will submit to the same 'beliefs'. There is empathy from the teachings but often without responsibility and the objective approach to conveying 'either' discipline of our examples, there will exist deep rooted 'false' information that can practically ruin a mind to understand. nature does it 'naturally' (instinct) then tell them to stop breathing. it's an instinctive nature of 'life' itself no wanting to live is the 'stupid' of a choosing mind. then roll over. Giving someone a purpose can assist but giving them a will, is their choice. If they dont wanna, that's a choice, i cant fix.
