Post by: roo_ster on May 18, 2006, 07:05:03 AM
Quote from: S_O_Laban
I'm not sure what dmalland means by "nonbelievers"
I think dmalland is in the same boat.I have a particular dislike of both perversion of word's meanings and neologism used to pervert an already existing word's meaning.
What dmallind has described [rejection of personal god(s) but acknowledging impersonal god(s) or mystical experience(s)] sound a bit like what are popularly called voodoo atheists:
"If you're going to be an atheist when it comes to traditional religion, fine. But don't let me catch you playing with voodoo on the side if you want to be taken seriously."
As for Albert Einstein, AE's writings & quotations could be construed to palce him in the Deist camp. If AE did not mean "God" when he spoke/wrote, he could have easily used the perfectly respectable word, "nature" or some other word if he wanted to. English was not his first language, but he became fluent. Reading his words and doing a mental find/replace with God/something_else does not pass the sniff test.
Quote from: dmallind
By the way nonbeliever = atheist. It's pretty simple. Theism is the belief in personal god or gods. If you don't have a belief in any personal god or gods you are atheistic.
The idea (dictionaries give usages not definitions so don't try that either) that atheist only means one who claims any god is impossible is a VERY recent and very wrong one. Have belief in some kind of personal god? You are a theist. Don't? You're an atheist.
So sorry, but I am reminded of something said by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."The idea (dictionaries give usages not definitions so don't try that either) that atheist only means one who claims any god is impossible is a VERY recent and very wrong one. Have belief in some kind of personal god? You are a theist. Don't? You're an atheist.
When you and your buddies get together, you can call a bull a "five-legged-cow" all you want, but it does not make a bull a cow.
theism
Quote
One entry found for theism.
Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
- the·ist /-ist/ noun or adjective
- the·is·tic /thE-'is-tik/ also the·is·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
- the·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
atheistMain Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
- the·ist /-ist/ noun or adjective
- the·is·tic /thE-'is-tik/ also the·is·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
- the·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Quote
One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Atheism in WikipediaMain Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Quote
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
Among proponents of atheism and neutral parties, there are two major traditions in defining atheism and its subdivisions.
The first tradition understands atheism very broadly, as including both those who believe gods don't exist (strong atheism) and those who are simply not theists (weak atheism).
The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, as the conscious rejection of theism, and does not consider absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism.
Theism in WikipediaAmong proponents of atheism and neutral parties, there are two major traditions in defining atheism and its subdivisions.
The first tradition understands atheism very broadly, as including both those who believe gods don't exist (strong atheism) and those who are simply not theists (weak atheism).
The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, as the conscious rejection of theism, and does not consider absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism.
Quote
Theism is the belief in one or more deities. More specifically it may also mean the belief that God/god(s) is immanent in the world, yet transcends it.
Wikipedia then provides a handy outline of the most common views on the existence of deities.Quote
Views about the existence of deities are commonly divided into these categories:
Code:
1. Nontheism: The absence of clearly identified belief in any deity
* Atheism: It has two distinct, commonly used meanings:
o Strong atheism: The belief that no deity exists.
o Weak atheism: An absence of belief in the existence of deities.
* Agnosticism: The belief that the existence of God or gods is unknown and/or inherently unknowable.
o Strong agnosticism: The view that the question of the existence of deities is inherently unknowable or meaningless. "It is impossible to say whether or not there is a god"
o Weak agnosticism: The view that the question of the existence of deities is currently unknown, but not inherently unknowable. "For now, we cannot know. Maybe if we find evidence of god,T"
(B * Nontheistic religions:
o Taoism
o Zen buddhism
2. Deism: The doctrine that a deity created nature but does not interact with it. This view emphasizes the deity's transcendence.
3. Theism (second definition): The doctrine God(s) is immanent in the world, yet transcends it:
* Polytheism: The belief that there is more than one deity.
o Polytheism proper: The belief there is a distinct pantheon of distinct deities which all are to be worshipped
o Animism: The belief there are immense amount of deities and spirits, which are to be placated and worshipped.
o Monolatry: The belief that there is more than one deity, but only one should be worshipped.
o Henotheism: The belief that there is more than one deity, but one is supreme.
o Kathenotheism: The belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity at a time should be worshipped. Each is supreme in turn.
* Monotheism: The belief that there is only one deity.
o Inclusive monotheism: The belief that there is only one deity, and that all other claimed deities are just different names for it.
o Exclusive monotheism: The belief that there is only one deity, and that all other claimed deities are false and distinct from it, either invented, demonic, or simply incorrect.
4. Panentheism: The belief that the universe is entirely contained within a deity that is greater than just the universe.
5. Pantheism: The belief that the universe is identical to a deity.
* Atheism: It has two distinct, commonly used meanings:
o Strong atheism: The belief that no deity exists.
o Weak atheism: An absence of belief in the existence of deities.
* Agnosticism: The belief that the existence of God or gods is unknown and/or inherently unknowable.
o Strong agnosticism: The view that the question of the existence of deities is inherently unknowable or meaningless. "It is impossible to say whether or not there is a god"
o Weak agnosticism: The view that the question of the existence of deities is currently unknown, but not inherently unknowable. "For now, we cannot know. Maybe if we find evidence of god,T"
(B * Nontheistic religions:
o Taoism
o Zen buddhism
2. Deism: The doctrine that a deity created nature but does not interact with it. This view emphasizes the deity's transcendence.
3. Theism (second definition): The doctrine God(s) is immanent in the world, yet transcends it:
* Polytheism: The belief that there is more than one deity.
o Polytheism proper: The belief there is a distinct pantheon of distinct deities which all are to be worshipped
o Animism: The belief there are immense amount of deities and spirits, which are to be placated and worshipped.
o Monolatry: The belief that there is more than one deity, but only one should be worshipped.
o Henotheism: The belief that there is more than one deity, but one is supreme.
o Kathenotheism: The belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity at a time should be worshipped. Each is supreme in turn.
* Monotheism: The belief that there is only one deity.
o Inclusive monotheism: The belief that there is only one deity, and that all other claimed deities are just different names for it.
o Exclusive monotheism: The belief that there is only one deity, and that all other claimed deities are false and distinct from it, either invented, demonic, or simply incorrect.
4. Panentheism: The belief that the universe is entirely contained within a deity that is greater than just the universe.
5. Pantheism: The belief that the universe is identical to a deity.
Post by: roo_ster on May 18, 2006, 07:42:23 AM
Quote from: ebd10
dmallind:
So, eliminating the Creator in the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, and The Constitution, what is the atheistic view on how we were endowed with individual rights? It seems to me that failing to acknowledge a higher power than the state is a slippery slope that eventually leads to totalitarianism, as the state will assume the role of God, or at least paternal benefactor, to allow or disallow rights as it sees fit.
So, eliminating the Creator in the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, and The Constitution, what is the atheistic view on how we were endowed with individual rights? It seems to me that failing to acknowledge a higher power than the state is a slippery slope that eventually leads to totalitarianism, as the state will assume the role of God, or at least paternal benefactor, to allow or disallow rights as it sees fit.
Quote from: dmallind
Where do rights come from if not from a higher power? They come from humanity itself. They come from something that is truly and definitionally inalienable - the existence of a human being in human society. Without getting into a huge diatribe on moral philosophy and the development of ethical codes in human society (call me weird but it's a pet topic for me!), all of them developed remarkably similarly despite very different gods or religions.
You may have a point that there is some underlying survival advantage to particular ethical codes which come to the fore in some societies, but the sentence underlined by myself does not reflect reality.For just one example, the vast majority of animist religions in sub-saharan africa (SSA) have no ethical content whatsoever. The (animist belief-holding) SSA societies reflect this, with loyalty and decent treatment extending only to the tribe or in-crowd. There is no universal value for human life or ethical problems with stealing/raping/whatever, as long as the target is not of the tribe. That sort of survival "ethics" is described in your words:
Quote from: dmallind
Kill the guy who's the best hunter? Less meat for everyone. Rape the wife of the guy who knows which plants to use to treat illnesses? See what happens next time you need a poultice. Steal from the woman who knows where the best vegetables and fruits grow? That part of your diet is going to be lacking.
Kill the other tribe's best hunter, herbalist, or gatherer? No problem.Some SSA groups have, however, adopted universalist ethical codes. Namely, those groups that have become Muslim or been converted to Christianity or have been heavily imprinted by western civ.
Which brings me to my point:
All these claims to a non-theist, universally transcendant means of, ahh, divining individual rights as we know them come from folks who either live in Western Civilization or have been influenced by W. Civ. W Civ has been steeped in ethical monotheism (Christianity) for 2000 years. Even if some have thrown off the flesh of Christianity, the underlying ethical skeleton still exists and informs W Civ. For a while, at least, until we end our belief in univeral & trancendant rights just as we did Christianity. Some (marxists, fascists, others) have already cast them aside.
Post by: Guest on May 18, 2006, 10:36:49 AM
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that religion is necessarily bad - for societies or individuals - on the contrary, I think it can be good. But there has to be a balance between allowing religion to satisfy the curiosities that stem from consciousness and the practicality of living in a material universe.
I guess your point is still a little bit off to me... are you arguing that it is necessary for a society to have a Judeo-Christian belief system to sustain our western ideas of freedom and liberty? Or are you using universally transcendant rights as an argument for the existence of god and, probably more specifically, the Christian God?
Post by: zahc on May 18, 2006, 12:35:37 PM
Post by: S_O_Laban on May 18, 2006, 07:52:51 PM
We each interpert data through the lens of our own experence. Having read a little of Einstein, his belief in a higher power of great intellengence and design seems obvious..... but if one chooses to redefine atheism then I can see (although not agree) where one's coming from.
Post by: S_O_Laban on May 18, 2006, 08:07:53 PM
Quote from: zahc
I use 'atheist' to mean 'strong atheist' or 'someone who believes/asserts that there is no god'. I will continue to do so. There are other words for people who 'do not believe there is a god, or do not know if there is a god' such as agnosticism. Atheism has an -ism on it, I consider it like any other religious belief.
Yes. To have the faith of a strong atheist is most desireable if properly placed. Given the overwelming evidence found in the natural world around us, I can only aspire to a level of faith it must take to disreguard the mountain of evidence of Divine Providence. A strong atheist exercises a level of religious belief not often found in Christianity today.
Post by: Nightfall on May 19, 2006, 06:00:24 AM
Quote
Given the overwelming evidence found in the natural world around us, I can only aspire to a level of faith it must take to disreguard the mountain of evidence of Divine Providence. A strong atheist exercises a level of religious belief not often found in Christianity today.
Please, share this evidence. The phrase "mountain of evidence" makes me suddenly anxious about my observational skills pertaining to the world, which normally I'm fairly confident in. 
Post by: Guest on May 19, 2006, 10:39:22 AM
Whether they are atheistic or not, this is not necessarily a good example. Sweden places a huge tax burden on its citizens and has been on the verge of national bankruptcy for years. Sweden serves as a better example of the failure of even benevolent Socialism.
Also dmallind: "In short, rights come from recognition of humanity in a society of humans, and they develop in remarkably similar ways regardless of the religious belief of the majority of those societies."
That's true in as far as it goes. However, widely varying societies have also developed similar strains of decadence, oppression, tyranny, and genocide. Ironically, in the 20th century, 164,000,000 people were killed by secular, atheistic, dictatorships. The only method that has been successful in protecting the rights of the individual is when the origin of those rights has been removed from human hands. This is crucial in maintaining those rights in that, if something larger than man endowed those rights, than only something larger than man can remove them. Any human attempt to abridge or rescind those rights is recognized as tyranny and treated as such, or at least it used to be.
Moreover, human history reveals to us that, regardless of the intent, human institutions ultimately descend into a power struggle between factions. Indeed, this is what caused most of the bloodshed in the name of Jesus. Without the understanding that man is not the ultimate power in the universe, the fate of the individual is left to the whim of the human institution we recognize as 'the government' which, as we know, can turn from beneficial to terrifying within a matter of weeks.
Post by: roo_ster on May 19, 2006, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: Jason M.
I guess your point is still a little bit off to me... are you arguing that it is necessary for a society to have a Judeo-Christian belief system to sustain our western ideas of freedom and liberty? Or are you using universally transcendant rights as an argument for the existence of god and, probably more specifically, the Christian God?
My intent was more to disprove a secular, faith-less means of deriving transcendent, universal human rights (TUHR) than to prove anything.As to your specific questions, certainly not the latter. As to the former, I believe that J-C belief was a necessary (but not sufficient) ingredient to get to our current conception of TUHR.
If you want me to make a point, my point is that there are no secular, empirical examples of TUHR. That what we think of as such derive from Western Civilization, of which Christianity has played a huge part. To be blunt, no non-western culture has come to value TUHR without either being conquered by some subset of W Civ or otherwise heavily influenced by W Civ.
I would assert that the combination of Christian emphasis on the inherent value of every being made in God's image, combined with Greek & Roman ideas of democratic and republican rule, leavened with a heavy dose of Anglo-Saxon personal sovereignty, and given time for those to steep and contend with one another...lead us to our contemporary belief that there is such a thing as TUHR.
I would further assert that TUHR are quite the exception in human history and geogrgaphy. I would argue that the idea of TUHR is a fragile one that plants the seeds of its own destruction, as our philosophers try to abstract TUHR from its messy, disorderly roots and repackage it as a secular philosophy cut off from the necessary underpinnings and beliefs...because it can not be adequately explained in secular, darwinian terms without some spark of faith in...something*.
I do not expect that TUHR will ever hold sway over the majority of the globe, due to the rest of the world's lack of our history. I also expect one day that the concept of TUHR will not hold sway in the West or the USA. The secularists will have prevailed, and traded our inheritance for a mess of pottage**. The only question is, "When?" Sooner? Later? Will there be a re-birth/renewal of faith and liberty before TUHR are snuffed out?
Nothing earthly lasts forever.
Contemporary secular types who try to reason their way to TUHR get tripped up by words that are burdened by western/christian morality. Right/wrong, good/bad. Just why is it wrong to murder? The samurai had no problem with murdering a common peasant and was not brought up on charges or even considered a bad person (unless it was not HIS peasant he murdered, in which case it was damage done to the property of a fellow samurai/daimyo). No universality there.
There may be survival advantages to be gleaned from treating others with a modicum of respect, but this darwinian calculus says nothing about the intrinsic value of other humans, because it is a calculation: do not rape the herbalist if you want to get that headache cure in the future.
We may even be hard-wired to work well with others, but hard-wiring to be social does not imply any value to others outside of the social group an individual claims as their own. It just means that the other person has value...as it pertains to service they can perform for self or group. For example, the aged widows of Arapaho warriors who fell in battle not only were not looked after when their husbands died, all the property formerly owned by the warrior was divvied up and hauled off by the other women of the tribe. The old widow was left to die of exposure, starvation, wandering predators, or whatever. The Arapaho didn't ascribe to old widows any value.
* Faith in something: God, Justice, capital "H" Humanity, Non-Aggression Principle. It just does not work unless you make value-laden judgements. Just why is it wrong for the strong to exact tribute from the weak, for instance? TUHR is a faith-based concept.
** It doesn't have to be a secular ascendancy. Undermining our faith in ourselves so as to allow some other culture unsympathetic to the concept of TUHR will do the trick, too.
Post by: S_O_Laban on May 19, 2006, 08:34:11 PM
Quote from: Nightfall
Quote
Given the overwelming evidence found in the natural world around us, I can only aspire to a level of faith it must take to disreguard the mountain of evidence of Divine Providence. A strong atheist exercises a level of religious belief not often found in Christianity today.
Please, share this evidence. The phrase "mountain of evidence" makes me suddenly anxious about my observational skills pertaining to the world, which normally I'm fairly confident in. Perhaps your anxiety stems from the disconnect between what you have chosen to believe and what the mountain of evidence is telling you.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 20, 2006, 05:54:27 AM
I think the complexity of living things is FAR more convincing, though.
The mountain of evidence can be quite literal, in that something had to create the mountains (the rocks) and the trees, grasses, animals and people that inhabit them. Furthermore, someone had to create a world-wide, self-regulating system whereby breathable atmosphere and drinkable water is available, to say nothing of minerals and nutrients in the soil, which feeds the plants, which feed the animals, which feed the people. The obvious answer to the question of origins is design, which is why various cultures around the world had stories of how divine beings created the world.
The evolutionary answer takes an extremely long way around, and that answer gets more convoluted the more it stretches to fit the new complexities we discover. Had Darwin access to the scientific instruments and scientific knowledge we have today, there is some question whether he would have put his theory. To Darwin, simple life forms were apparently just that. Today, some will tell you that these simple life forms are like highly advanced computers, combined with highly efficient manufacturing plants, with distribution and transportation systems. Darwin could not see that, so it seemed probable to him that such life forms could emerge from chaos.
As in other threads, I will quote Hank Hanegraff: "Belief in evolution is no longer feasible in an age of scientific enlightenment."
Post by: Nightfall on May 20, 2006, 08:40:25 AM
Quote from: S_O_Laban
Quote from: Nightfall
Quote
Given the overwelming evidence found in the natural world around us, I can only aspire to a level of faith it must take to disreguard the mountain of evidence of Divine Providence. A strong atheist exercises a level of religious belief not often found in Christianity today.
Please, share this evidence. The phrase "mountain of evidence" makes me suddenly anxious about my observational skills pertaining to the world, which normally I'm fairly confident in. Perhaps your anxiety stems from the disconnect between what you have chosen to believe and what the mountain of evidence is telling you.
Perhaps my anxiety stems from how absolutely infuriating I find the concept of a deity. Something that cannot be observed, tested, or therefore proven or disproved. Even if we successfully find that grand unified theory of everything, and we understand every bit of the physical& all it takes is somebody standing up and saying God does it all . We could spend countless millennia repeatedly testing our theory of everything, and unfailing demonstrate an understanding of all actions that take place. To me it would prove that these events were not arbitrarily guided by any omniscient conscience, but happened within the confines of universal laws. Basic, irrefutable rules of physical existence. But somebody could simply say God makes it so consistent and due to the nature of God , nobody could offer definitive proof to the contrary.
But therein lies the double edged blade. Due His properties (he has no absolute, defining property, basically a blank variable able to be anything at any time), while I can never disprove Gods existence, neither can you prove it. Supposedly I cant really call you illogical for belief in God because it cant be scientifically disproved. But on the other side of the token, you cannot chastise me for not believing because you can offer no observable proof, no reason to believe. You can offer no evidence to the positive, as I can offer none to the negative. You cannot point to something and say there is God without me being able to offer a counter explanation that will be equally valid, because so long as God as an undefinable argument is accepted, any other undefinable argument (in this case in opposition) must hold the same value. Not to do so would amount to an unparalleled double standard. Its truly an impasse, to which no side can be definitively right or wrong.
So I guess for all eternity well just have to shrug our shoulders, shake hands and agree solely that we both deserve the freedom to disagree.
Post by: S_O_Laban on May 20, 2006, 08:40:34 PM
For the record: I do believe in a God. I believe he is observable and that evidence of His existence is overwhelming and irrefutable. That He reveals Himself to us in all that He has created and in the study of the physical world around us are many clues as to the type of being He is. If disagree we must, let it be as friends.
Post by: cosine on May 20, 2006, 09:07:26 PM
Quote from: Nightfall
Basic, irrefutable rules of physical existence.
One thing that always puzzled me is: What is the cause of the basic, irrefutable rules of physical existance? Where did they come from? How did they spring into existance?
Post by: Nightfall on May 20, 2006, 09:45:44 PM
Quote from: S_O_Laban
I appreciate you spending the time to better explain why you feel/believe the way you do. Am I right in understanding you basicly reject the concept of a God/higher life form?
Yep. Personally, Ive never experienced anything at all that would indicate a higher presence. Opposite, if anything. Furthermore, Ive never heard any argument to make me reconsider the possibility. I see no magic or divinity in the world. Ive never encountered anything Ive thought beyond the possibility of explanation. Work hard enough, long enough, and the answer is here, not up there(to me anyway). I guess its just a matter of the angle we perceive the world thru. You and I just choose different tools to make sense of our existence, if you will.
Post by: Nightfall on May 20, 2006, 09:55:06 PM
Post by: zahc on May 20, 2006, 10:53:32 PM
The modern world has come to worship science, because it has done so much for us. But science cannot answer all questions. I'm a physics student, and I still believe this. Science will never answer all questions. Science sucks at answering 'why', and it will never suceed. Why does the apple fall down? Science says, because of gravity. What causes gravity? Well, we know there are three fundamental forces in the universe. Strong, Weak, Gravity.
Why?
Apparently, because that's the way God made it. You can keep asking 'why' forever. Eventually you come up against not only unknowns, but unknowables. This appears philosophically inevitable to me. Some questions are outside the domain of science. Science deals with observable and disprovable questions and entities. All others are outside the domain of science. Someone here expressed frustration with the concept of a diety...I'm frustrated too, yet, the concept exists and is inevitable, in whatever form you place it. 'God' is not disprovable with science, it's simply outside the domain of science.
Attempting to use science to answer questions improper for scientific analysis weakens and perverts science.
There is a wonderful little show, called Haibane Renmei, that takes place in a mysteriously walled city. The characters never escape the walls, or learn anything useful about what may be beyond them or even what they mean. They never show what is outside the walls! This angered me at first. It lacked resolution. Then I realized what is outside the walls represents not only the unknown, but the unknowable, and that the frustration is completely natural. I hated that show. Enought to buy it on DVD.
Post by: cosine on May 21, 2006, 04:29:21 AM
Quote from: Nightfall
cosine, if I could answer that, I'd be busy telling Stephen Hawking how I want him to polish my Nobel prize. Perhaps it has to do with the way our universe was created. The manner in which the physical came into being decided what could be done with it, like how the materials you use to make something dictates what is possible with it.
Okay, but how was the physical caused? How did it come into being?
Post by: Iain on May 21, 2006, 04:50:46 AM
Quote from: cosine
Okay, but how was the physical caused? How did it come into being?
The fact that not one human being alive can answer that fully and comprehensively is not an argument for the existence of a god.Maybe someone will answer that question someday. Someone figured out those giant death-dealing flashes from the sky.
Post by: cosine on May 21, 2006, 04:54:33 AM
Quote from: Iain
Quote from: cosine
Okay, but how was the physical caused? How did it come into being?
The fact that not one human being alive can answer that fully and comprehensively is not an argument for the existence of a god.Post by: Ron on May 21, 2006, 04:54:33 AM
Quote
Nightfall wrote:Basic, irrefutable rules of physical existence.
I don't have the faith to believe that chaos + time = order or that inanimate matter in a state of chaos + time = sentient personality.If something in science seems impossible they just ascribe a long time period for it to take place as if all chaos needs is some time to "work" it all out.
You cannot get 10 minutes into a nature program or book written for the layman without anthropomorphic language being used in relation to supposed natural processes. Science (subconsciously?) imbues inanimate processes with volition in the language it uses regularly. They tip their hat to the force, the will driving life, the One ordering chaos and they don't even realize it.
Personalty and sentience are the big dilemma for modern science. All they can tell us about are the mechanics. At the root to them we are not even brute animals. Sentience/personality is to the materialist scientist nothing more than an illusion that is the byproduct of bio mechanical processes.
Keep scratching at a materialists phlosophy about rights and eventually it will boil down to "might makes right". In other words all human rights derive from the human experience and the State is the final arbitrator of those (so called) rights.
Post by: Iain on May 21, 2006, 06:16:30 AM
Quote from: cosine
Okay, it may not be an argument for the existance of a god, but can you give me some reasons why it is not so rather than just saying it is not so?
Heard the watchmaker analogy? Basically it says that if you have never seen a watch and you find a watch you don't assume that some random sequence of events threw all that together and created an accurate yet distinguished timepiece for the gentleman about town. Instead you assume that someone made it. Sounds like I'm undermining myself but hang on. There are plenty of analogies that could be used (computers, lcd monitors, sex - I don't understand any of these)We can demonstrate how some aspects of evolution work (think Darwin's finches or dark and light moths in industrial cities). So it wouldn't be valid to look at a specific finch and say 'wow that suits its environment so perfectly, it just must have been designed that way.' And yet before we understood exactly how natural selection pressures work that would have been a decent response to have made. Incomplete understanding of how something works does not mean I should assume that someone designed it as it is. It merely means that I don't understand it.
As soon as someone provides an answer to the previously thought unanswerable then the argument has to change. The argument that some things are out of the reach of human knowledge and is god's realm is as old as questions about the bright shiny things in the sky and why the red flickering stuff hurts you when you put your hand in it.
This is an interesting thread, but I sort of wish I hadn't got involved. I stopped my Philosophy and Theology degree after a year, and I now remember exactly why.
As someone who does not believe in any god (at present anyway) I'm very interested in the following from jfruser
Quote
Contemporary secular types who try to reason their way to TUHR get tripped up by words that are burdened by western/christian morality
I was raised in a strongly christian household, others I know were not but are equally moral. At least I believe I am a moral person. Clearly western christian beliefs have had large impact on who I am, and who many of my friends are perhaps without us being entirely aware of it. The thought occurs to me that all this may be true, that jfruser's TUHR may entirely stem from christian beliefs. Does that in fact lead us to conclude that this value system is actually based on any universal truths?We may have created a more 'moral' system than Arapho Indians, but that is partly in our own estimation, an estimation which I do not disagree with. In large part christian morals inform us to do to others as we would have done to ourselves, which are words to live by aside from any christian beliefs. The thing that caused us to generally abide by this was the promise of life everlasting and on the flip side the promise of burny torment everlasting and then some.
So I guess that I'm going to make no effort to extricate TUHR from christianity. It could well be bound up with christian morals and ideas about being created in God's image, but I see no reason personally to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I might have no fear (right now) of eternal torment but I do have a fear of a society that discards all morals that Christians claim as their own.
Just initial thoughts, but there may be no more as my head hurts.
Post by: Ron on May 21, 2006, 06:49:24 AM
Quote
The argument that some things are out of the reach of human knowledge and is god's realm is as old as questions about the bright shiny things in the sky and why the red flickering stuff hurts you when you put your hand in it.
Straw man. I don't know of any serious Christian theologians or professors that advocate not seeking scientific truth.I don't know of any Christians that think that way either. Painting Christians as Luddites is a common argument devised to make Christians seem a quaint throwback to less enlightened times.
Quote
We may have created a more 'moral' system than Arapho Indians, but that is partly in our own estimation, an estimation which I do not disagree with.
Translated: I am a god deciding what is good and evil.Quote
Incomplete understanding of how something works does not mean I should assume that someone designed it as it is. It merely means that I don't understand it.
Incomplete understanding of how God works does not mean you should assume He doesn't exist. It merely means that you do not understand His workings.We are to trust the new high priests motives and their scientific method as if their belief system would not inform the way they interpret the facts. We are not to challenge their findings or motives because they alone are on an altruistic search for the truth. We are to believe that science alone is not defiled by the basest motivation to exert power over others. Really, the scientific community really isn't comprised of elitists who want to guide the human race to it's next level of evolution.
Post by: Nightfall on May 21, 2006, 07:00:07 AM
Quote from: cosine
Okay, but how was the physical caused? How did it come into being?
Big bang, I reckon. I'm sure your next question is about the period before THAT. Well, hell, I dunno. Check back in a few centuries and maybe they'll have a better answer for you. 
Post by: Ron on May 21, 2006, 07:15:20 AM
Quote
Big bang, I reckon. I'm sure your next question is about the period before THAT
Why ask about before?The Big Bang doesn't explain anything clearly. How does chaos turn into order, that which is lifeless come to life and that which is alive become aware?
Post by: Iain on May 21, 2006, 09:16:02 AM
Quote from: GoRon
Straw man. I don't know of any serious Christian theologians or professors that advocate not seeking scientific truth.
I don't know of any Christians that think that way either. Painting Christians as Luddites is a common argument devised to make Christians seem a quaint throwback to less enlightened times.
It's not a straw man at all, ironically you've set up the argument you wish to knock down not me. I've at no point called Christians luddites or argued that they hold back scientific progress. I'm suggesting that the teleological argument relies on that which we do not understand, and that which we do not understand has shrunk. So for years the best explanation for something would have been that 'this is how it has always been' or 'God made it thus', but as science has moved on, with the help of some Christian individuals, that area of the 'unknowable' has shrunk from being most everything.I don't know of any Christians that think that way either. Painting Christians as Luddites is a common argument devised to make Christians seem a quaint throwback to less enlightened times.
I'm concerned that this has the potential to be taken too personally. I'm merely discussing the idea that we can see evidence of God all around us, I happen not to be a Christian, but this is not a personal crusade of mine either. Just a line of internet discussion that I promised I had given up some time ago.
Quote from: GoRon
Quote from: Iain
We may have created a more 'moral' system than Arapho Indians, but that is partly in our own estimation, an estimation which I do not disagree with.
Translated: I am a god deciding what is good and evil.We're dotting about a bit so back to 'argument by design'...
Quote from: GoRon
Incomplete understanding of how God works does not mean you should assume He doesn't exist. It merely means that you do not understand His workings.
It's clearly a sterile argument. Although I'm a bit confused by the logic of this statement, clearly it has internal logic, but I'm not sure that it logically fits with the rest of this discussion. I'm discussing not making assumptions that all we see around us is the product of divine design, you're predicating your statement that we don't understand God on a belief in God.Quote from: GoRon
We are to trust the new high priests motives and their scientific method as if their belief system would not inform the way they interpret the facts. We are not to challenge their findings or motives because they alone are on an altruistic search for the truth. We are to believe that science alone is not defiled by the basest motivation to exert power over others. Really, the scientific community really isn't comprised of elitists who want to guide the human race to it's next level of evolution.
I'm sure it's not lost on you that this whole statement can be turned right around onto religion.
Post by: Guest on May 21, 2006, 09:19:55 AM
The problem I see in both science and religion is that the only way they address the issue of creation is by pushing the question back another "level". With Religion, "God did it" , with science "It was the big-bang". This solves nothing. It just redefines the begining, then uses the new meaning to explain the step just after what was called the begining until a few moments ago. (explanation is a little (lot) ugly, but I am not that eloquent) If we say that God did it, then from where did God come? That is now the redefined begining (what we are after). In science, where was the material used in the big-bang? That is science's new begining (previously the big-bang). In both cases, the only explination that makes sense to me is that something has existed forever. I, however do not want to belive that. Thinking tells me that it is right, feeling tells me that it is wrong. In cases like this, I always side with my brain.
Now, let's rename that matter from the big-bang God. From that perspective, Science is religion (or vice versa if you prefer). Both "God"s have existed forever, created the universe, and all that is in it, designed all life, added sentience, etc.
"God" is also in everything to boot. Now the Gaia crew is happpy. On to the next topic.@ GoRon:
>Translated: I am a god deciding what is good and evil.
In a word: Yes. What is wrong with that?
I only experience life through me, I don't see why I should dwell on other people's opinions. Thinking about them is good, if you agree with said opinion, more power to you. On the other hand, if someone thinks you evil, so what? If you think yourself evil, then and only then do you have a problem. Why should another's morality interest me? All I ask is that you try to leave me be, regardless of what you think of me. If you decide that I am too "bad" and must be stopped (or something to that effect), then try (And would you care that I disagree with what you are doing?). I'll try to do the same for you.
"Good" and "Bad" are subjective.
In case you can't tell, I'm agnostic.
Hope I didn't bother anyone too badly.
Cheers,
Scott
(Do me a favor and ignore any spelling/gramatical errors.)
Post by: Ron on May 21, 2006, 11:03:47 AM
Quote
I'm concerned that this has the potential to be taken too personally. I'm merely discussing the idea that we can see evidence of God all around us, I happen not to be a Christian, but this is not a personal crusade of mine either. Just a line of Internet discussion that I promised I had given up some time ago.
Hi Ian! I almost put a disclaimer in my previous post that I wasn't directing my post at you personally but was using your post as a springboard to some of my thoughts.Quote
I'm sure it's not lost on you that this whole statement can be turned right around onto religion.
That was the point of the statement and the one before it where I plugged religious words into a statement you made.I am afraid many have discarded one religion and have adopted science as another. They don't even realize the "faith' they put into their new religion because it hides it's assumptions behind fancy theories that are generally accepted as fact.
Quote
"Good" and "Bad" are subjective.
And up is down, black is white and we all are one.Only someone who lives in a culture that insulates its people from the harshest aspects of life can make such a statement.
Welcome to APS Scott!
Post by: Guest on May 21, 2006, 04:01:23 PM
I think you took it a little differently than I meant. (Poor choice of words on my part) I did not mean that there is no good and evil, or that I do not consider things to be good and evil. I only mean to say that I judge things to be good or evil based on my own morality. What I think is good another may think is evil. Now, their opinion means very little to me, but they are equally conviced of their correctness. Each person sees good and evil as absolute, and yet the preception is not common to all people.
Good and bad depend on the observer may be a better way to communicate the idea.
Cheers,
Scott
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 21, 2006, 05:52:15 PM
Quote from: impassible
If we say that God did it, then from where did God come?
To a Christian, and I suppose also to a Jew, this question makes no sense, because we believe that God simply exists. He, eternally, is. That is why He identified himself to Moses as "I Am" (Yahweh). That is His name. He need not and cannot come from anywhere or anything, as He is Uncaused Cause and Unmoved Mover. He needs no cause, as He is not an effect. So at least that is the Christian answer.Quote from: impassible
Quote from: GoRon
>Translated: I am a god deciding what is good and evil.
In a word: Yes. What is wrong with that?Post by: Scott on May 21, 2006, 06:15:08 PM
>To a Christian, and I suppose also to a Jew, this question makes no sense, because we believe that God simply exists...
If we assume that a god can simply exist, then, it would seem to me, the same could be applied to the universe. This would solve one of science's largest problems. I guess it wouldn't be science if a "fact" were merely declared to be, without testing, though.
As previously established, I'm unsure as to what I think in this field.
>You may certainly make up your own mind on Good and Evil, but you don't think you're a god, do you?
Only in terms of good and evil. As far as I know, I am not omnipotent.
(Given the way words can be twisted, though, I might be able to get away with calling myself a god)
Edit: the above line was also added
Cheers,
Scott
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 22, 2006, 03:26:39 AM
Yes, the word god can have many uses.
Post by: Scott on May 22, 2006, 03:35:35 AM
Cheers,
Scott
Post by: richyoung on May 22, 2006, 04:43:48 AM
Post by: roo_ster on May 22, 2006, 07:56:28 AM
Quote from: Iain
Quote
Contemporary secular types who try to reason their way to TUHR get tripped up by words that are burdened by western/christian morality
The thought occurs to me that all this may be true, that jfruser's TUHR may entirely stem from christian beliefs. Does that in fact lead us to conclude that this value system is actually based on any universal truths?Disclosure: I am a practicing Christian (I hope I get it right, some day).
So, from my POV, TUHR are based on universal truths: human life has value in and of itself, diginity of man, etc. These, at their foundation are based on articles of faith:
1. We are made in God's image
2. We are equal before him
3. etc cetera...
But faith is what makes the wicket so sticky: no matter how much logic, reason, and empiricism a Christian may marshall; at the base of it all is his faith.
Well-reasoned arguments can be made for expedience, erecting circumstances where much more "good" can be served by violating TUHR. (Classic example: Man who is certainly guilty of placing, and certainly knows the location of, a ticking time bomb. He won't talk, despite using all sorts of acceptable and controversial methods intended for those know to be guilty. The guy does have family, who happen to be completely innocent of this matter, but who's torture likely will free guilty man's tongue...) Well, a man who by faith holds that innocent life ought to be held blameless and unharmed...can not be "reasoned" into agreeing that the aforementioned scenario is right. Intentionally harming or killing the innocent is an evil act, plain & simple.
From a survival strategy POV, the question, "What will improve my chances of living to breed and pass on my genes?" is amoral. Sometimes it is best to cooperate & play nice. Sometimes it is best to whack Bob on the head out behind the privy to eliminate the competition for females. The answer to the classic "ticking time bomb" question above is a hearty "yes," and doubly so if one of your progeny is endangered by the bomb. No universal truths beyond "survive to breed."
From a practical outcomes as seen in the world POV, universal truths regarding human rights can not be deduced. Vile treatment of fellow humans is the rule, not the exception for most people on this planet.
I do not think the wholly secular person can come to accept TUHR without resorting to faith of some sort. Western Civ's values (if not practices, at times) are grounded in J-C morality. The substitute gods or faiths erected to mimic J-C demands to treat fellow humans with some modicum of respect are pretty thin gruel and have already been shot full of holes by the marxists and fascists. Today, we promote and reward the most amoral of "ethicists" to the top bioethics posts in our most prestigious universities who have even weaker trumped-up faith and reason to the logical conclusion:
Quote from: ]"Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."
I detect no concept of TUHR from Peter Singer. For him, being self-aware is a prerequisite for humane treatment. (That requirement is, itself, an article of faith: it is not right to harm the self-aware).I guess my conclusion is that the secularist will reason (absent faith) that there are no moral obstacles to their will to power. (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff091399.asp
Nat Hentoff article quoting Peter Singer[/url)
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: roo_ster on May 22, 2006, 07:57:56 AM
-
>If we assume that a god can simply exist, then, it would seem to me, the same could be applied to the universe. This would solve one of science's largest problems. I guess it wouldn't be science if a "fact" were merely declared to be, without testing, though.
Third person vs firts person faith.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: griz on May 22, 2006, 08:50:43 AM
-
Throughout time people of various religions have murdered, enslaved, and tortured in the name of their religion. They typically justified this by saying that is what their g-d or g-ds wanted them to do. So if TUHR are based on faith based religions, why do the actions of believers sometimes veer from TUHR? You could argue that TUHR are a relatively recent construct, but to me that says that the idea is based more on reason than faith. My contention is it does not require faith in a higher power to realize your highest right is your own life, and from that reason that others should be entitled to that same right and more. That should sound a lot like the golden rule, and indeed most religions world wide have independently claimed that principle as their own.
And if Western Civs values are so engrained, why are they not more universal? On this very board you can find practicing Christians who believe it is moral to kill Arabs because they are of the wrong religion, and others who do not believe non-citizens in this country have rights. How did they avoid learning about the concept of TUHR if they were grounded in J-C morality?
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Iain on May 22, 2006, 02:34:02 PM
-
Just initial thoughts in response to your post jfruser.
Morality is a tough one. Perhaps all our religion stems from a basic need to instill certain values in society. You suggest that in the absence of religion then the realisation occurs that nothing prevents the strong from abuse of the weak, and whilst that is true I return to something I made a reference to earlier - the Prisoners Dilemma.
Which makes it a subjective morality of course, and that leads us to some unpleasant conclusions and I don't like it. On the other hand I'm left thinking that the idea that there is an absolute morality is a little too convenient. Perhaps the idea of recognising that rights are inherent in all men, that all men are created with such rights is a convenient way of expressing that we all hold these truths to be self-evident and as long as we can enfore their self-evidence then they continue to exist.
There was, and is for some, a stick and a carrot to christian morality. That works whilst people believe in it. I don't but that hasn't changed my moral perspective greatly because there is a rational conclusion to be drawn that whilst that system exists then the majority of the time the outcome will be the best possible for individuals and society, but that an individuals rights are of great importance. In answer to your scenario I'll say that I believe the first series of '24' contained a similar situation, and the mere thought of violating one person in such a way (to death in this fictional instance if I recall) is abhorrent to me.
From a vaguely anthropological point of view, perhaps that is the function that religion performs, it's merely a social glue. For that to work all the glue has to do is be strong and allow for the growth and success of a society, and where that happens perhaps it actually proves nothing more than that the belief system is successful.
There aren't hard and fast conclusions, but merely the musings of the last few days. It's very interesting, but my head hurts.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 22, 2006, 02:37:52 PM
-
I don't think you've been paying attention to what jfruser has said.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: griz on May 23, 2006, 08:15:46 AM
-
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 23, 2006, 05:34:47 PM
-
1. It implies that reason can function independent of some basic assumptions not deduced by reason. That would be a first.
2. It implies that ancient people were less rational than you and I. This is unwarranted - temporal chauvinism, if you will.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 23, 2006, 05:48:08 PM
-
In order for your claim to be believable, you're going to have to show us someone, just one, who has said, implied or led a reasonable observer to believe:
I am a practicing Christian.
I think we ought to nuke Iraq.
I think we ought to do it because Iraqis are Muslims.
We ought to kill all Muslims.
We must kill them not because some are terrorists who want to kill us.
Nor must we kill them because all Muslims are terrorists who want to kill us.
Nor must we kill them because Islam teaches terrorism against Christian Americans.
No, we must kill them only because of their religion, no matter how peacefully they practice it.
Got anybody in mind?
Besides all of that, "let's nuke country x" usually means, "Let's stop messing around and really hurt these guys!"
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: doczinn on May 23, 2006, 09:33:14 PM
-
I think the main problem with the reasoning here is assuming that everyone who says "Nuke the whole place and be done with it." really mean it.
It's an expression of exasperation with the situation. Hell, I've said it, and quite a few times. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 23, 2006, 09:40:56 PM
-
You're right drz, although I try not to toss words around that cheaply.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: doczinn on May 23, 2006, 10:40:40 PM
-
Me too. I particularly make it a point not to do it on the net, where the exasperation doesn't come through and people think it's serious.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: griz on May 24, 2006, 06:04:04 AM
-
2. I was thinking along the lines of the advancement of societal thinking, but you may be right about my unintentional temporal chauvinism.
With respect to the nukeem comments, I will grant that some people dont mean what they say. But if we can assume some people dont mean it when they say they want to kill Muslims, why cant we assume some people do want to kill them when they say the lack of respect the Koran (please excuse my spelling) shows for Christians is a reason for war?
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 24, 2006, 07:16:28 PM
-
1. It implies that reason can function independent of some basic assumptions not deduced by reason. That would be a first.
2. It implies that ancient people were less rational than you and I. This is unwarranted - temporal chauvinism, if you will.Yeah, maybe the first comment is unwarranted. You weren't necessarily saying that TUHR came from reason alone. But, yes, I was saying that we can't reason our way from the ground up; some assumptions have to be made. That is, unless you want to be stuck at "Cogito ergo sum."
My second point was that you seem to be saying that people in earlier times were less inclined to use reason. I don't think that is true. They reasoned much differently, of course.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: griz on May 25, 2006, 03:18:22 AM
-
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Ron on May 25, 2006, 02:27:38 PM
-
You don't hear cries for us to invade Turkey do you? They don't mess with us so they aren't even on the "invade them" radar. Syria, Iran, SA even Pakistan all deserve a good a** kicking. Not because they are Muslim but because they sponsor terrorism and have made moves against us.
I hope they all get free elections. The ones that vote in governments that want to go toe to toe with us will be easier to wage total war against. We have to leave the gloves on when going against totalitarian regimes. Vote in an anti US government and "F" with us, be prepared to get taken down a few notches, little regard for so called collateral damage.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 25, 2006, 07:05:54 PM
-
griz, I know you weren't saying that I wanted to kill Muslims. But you did imply that I said, "some people say they want to kill Muslims, but they don't mean it." I hope that is not too confusing. If people start talking about nuking some country back to the stone age, I take that with a grain of salt. If someone says they want to murder Muslims indiscriminately, then that ain't just bluster; it's deplorable bluster.
What is clear is that this person thinks Muslims are out to get him. He doesn't want to kill them "because they are of the wrong religion," but because they are a perceived threat. Self-preservation is a normal human instinct, so you can't say that this person is motivated by religious bigotry. The quotation you supply doesn't even identify his religion. Could be animist, pagan or Jewish or something else.
And why must you reduce Islam's attitude toward other religions to "they don't say kind things about them"? The Koran speaks of killing unbelievers, or at the least keeping them as second-class citizens. I will look up the passages if you would like. This is much more than "un-niceness," and I think you know it. You might just as well say the Aryan Nation "does not say kind things" about black people.
For what it's worth, the Iraq war needs no justification; it was obviously a morally acceptable act. Whether it was the best thing to do is a different question.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: griz on May 26, 2006, 09:43:07 AM
-
As for the rest, in the context of the question you posed, I think that thread (not just the quote) DOES show that Christianity is a big consideration in our war with Iraq. But we have drifted quite a bit from the main topic, so unless you have something else we will have to agree to disagree.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 27, 2006, 06:33:28 AM
-
My, my, I just wasted a few minutes reading that thread, griz, and let me state that it was not worth my attention now any more than it was at its debut. I found nothing, absolutely nothing, there that was different or "worse" than the afore-posted quotation from Mrs. Toro. That lady later made this comment:
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Strings on May 29, 2006, 02:49:14 PM
-
>Griz, I think if you're going to find any Christians, even nominal ones, who favor killing people because they are of "the wrong religion"... you're not going to find them outside of Serbia, if even there.<
Ummm... excuse me? I halucinated those threats? Or are you strictly refering to Christians wanting to kill Muslims?
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 29, 2006, 05:38:23 PM
-
A Christian actually tried to kill you because of your religion?
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Strings on May 29, 2006, 08:08:58 PM
-
I've had several make the threat: something about how I'd make a good piece of firewood. It always gets pointed out that making a threat against someone who has you outgunned is a bad idea. But to my mind, making the threat is enough...
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 29, 2006, 08:36:54 PM
-
I've no doubt your uncommon religion has attracted its share of wacky responses, as have my own seemingly normal beliefs, and I wish I could have been there to help you out. However, I would like to know how you know these people are Christians and if you believe their threats were sincere - sincere enough they would support an unprovoked war against "Paganistan" just to wipe out all of your kind. That would put it in terms of what griz and I were discussing. If so, I will stand corrected.
I remember having a conversation like this before, but I think it was with someone else. Something about a drunk redneck with a cross around his neck.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Strings on May 29, 2006, 10:28:37 PM
-
well, when the conversation goes something like "Why don't you accept the Lord Jeezus* in your life? Y'all are Abominations in the Eyes of The Lord, and should be struck down!", you can make a fair assumption that said person believes themselves Christian...
Would they "declare war on Paganistan"? If they could get enough people behind them, AND manage to find it on a map. Seems the worse your absolute intolerance of differing beliefs, the lower your IQ**...
*this isn't intended as a slam on Christians, or a deliberate perversion of your Savior's name. It's an attempt to convey the dialect. And yes, the caps ARE necessary...
** "Intolerance" meaning at least a small amount of civility. I know fistful would LOVE to get me to convert, but he's still willing to defend my right to my beliefs (even if he DOES think their wrong)...
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2006, 03:45:04 AM
-
Remain online, Hunter Rose, we are triangulating your position.
I'll take your word for it. Where'd you find this guy, and was he sober?
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Strings on May 30, 2006, 06:07:55 AM
-
Stone cold sober, every time. I've run into them outside gaming conventions, at Ren Faire, even just wandering around on some cities. The one I quoted was bothering me at a convention...
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2006, 06:14:30 AM
-
I'm still having a hard time believing that these people are anything but talk. I guess if someone on a forum had told me about Fred Phelps I would have had trouble believing that too.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: roo_ster on May 30, 2006, 06:53:08 AM
-
Sorry to let this slip, but I was too busy to give y'all's questions/contentions the time they deserved.
IANAP (I Am Not A Philosopher). Not even a "Stand up" philosopher.
Throughout time people of various religions have murdered, enslaved, and tortured in the name of their religion. They typically justified this by saying that is what their g-d or g-ds wanted them to do. So if TUHR are based on faith based religions, why do the actions of believers sometimes veer from TUHR?Before I get to the meat of your question I must reiterate or clarify what I wrote before. My contention is that faith is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite to TUHR. But, faith in what? Faith in the Will to Power? Nope. Faith in the sub-human character of your enemies? Nope. Faith in darwinian evolution? Nope.
Faith in Christianity or Judaism* or derivative** faith in TUHR in and of itself.
Many other religions do not have any content that pertains to TUHR (most polytheistic religions, for example, are of the "please god don't hurt me" variety). Others have ethical content or teachings that do not or only tangentially pertain to TUHR (Bhuddism, ancient Zoroastrianism**, Taoism). Still others have beliefs that are completely antithetical to TUHR (Thuggee, Central American paganism, pagan religions of the ancient middle east, etc).
But, let us get to the meat: what about those Christians who "...have murdered, enslaved, and tortured in the name of their religion?" This can be answered in several ways.
1. I am somewhat hesitant to quote scripture in such a conversation, but I think it pertains to how Christians view such:
2. The NT does not call for conversion by the sword and does endorse the OT Ten Commandments, murder being one of the big ten.
3. From the beginning of the state church in the Roman Empire until very recently, it was state & church policy that all were to be "Christian" of the proper type (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) in the state, regardless of one's true convictions. If you were born in Bavaria, you were a Catholic, unless you declared openly otherwise. My denomination looks with a gimlet eye on the whole state church concept as not legitamate. Oh, sure, some members of state (& former state) churches can be Christian, but a splash of water on an infant and a fancy piece of paper does not a Christian make.
4. I would mention again that faith is not sufficient. It took Western Civ over 1700 years to come up with a document that embodied TURH. The messy, often "two steps forward, one step back" contention between Greek, Roman, Christian, and Anglo-Saxon traditions was necessary to get there.
5. Last, there are those who are truly Christian but do engage in such barbarity. Christians claim to worship a perfect God, not be perfect themselves. Is it hypocracy? Yep, you betcha. A standard of perfection is impossible to maintain, given humanity's corrupt nature. That doesn't mean that one should not try and encourage others to do similarly. In a more general sense, there are folks who will do things antithetical to their beliefs. I suspect there is more than one libertarian who collects Social Security or uses Medicaid, for example. Are their beliefs any less valid, given the fact they can not attain Ayn Randian perfection?
* Judaism is an interesting case. The requirements for the ancient Hebrew state and peoples were pretty darned exclusive, IMO. Judaism as a stateless religion, although still exclusive, is much more friendly to TUHR without the need to refer tothe OT reqirements and practices for running an earthly government.
** Derivative from Western Civ generally & nondenominational J-C morality in particular.
*** Contemporary Zoroastrianism is a different case.
I think the idea that "..your highest right is your own life, and from that reason..." is pretty much confined to Western Civ. From what I have read, most folks on earth throughout most of recorded history were fatalists who had no inkling of the concept of "rights." Certainly not African or Japanese peasants. They took what came to them, be it a kissing or killing.
Juat as you have deduced that "..your highest right is your own life, and from that reason..." is a TURH, the vast majority of those who live in the People's Republic of China (athiests) have come to other conclusions. If you read a bit about the PRC & the attitudes of its subjects, you come to the conclusion that democracy, liberty, and the whole idea of TUHR are not valued. (Every once in a while we hear about a pro-liberty activist getting beaten & stuffed into the laogai, but they are not representative.) What floats their boat is a xenophobic, resentful nationalism and a drive to do well, financially speaking.
I would suggest that they (subjects of PRC) are for the most part without faith and that they have the values that have been characteristic of China since the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. When they look at reality without the lens of faith in J-C morality, they see that the individual is near worthless and the group is what matters. Also, that what furthers the interests of the groups is what is right.
Plenty of societies have grown & flourished without the concept of TUHR. The Greeks* & Romans, to name but two.
* Democracy != TUHR, despite what so many profess. When 50% plus 1 can exile you on pain of death, I'm thinking that deomcracy is just another way to execise power, not necessarily a means to protect TUHR or a sign of TUHR.
Angles & Saxons
A-S genetic superiority with respect to TUHR? No. A-S cultural superiority with repsect to TUHR? Yes.
I think there is little debate outside of the anti-western left that Western Civ. was the first to implement TUHR to any great extent or that W Civ is where all the significant intellectual/moral knife-fights over TUHR occurred. Even so, there are some parts of W Civ that do TUHR better than others.
For instance, I would argue that those countries that originate from A-S culture have it all over the Gallic and Teutonic cultures WRT TUHR. The continental europeans have been, since the birth of modernity, more statist and less individualist-friendly than the A-S countries. For instance, here in the USA we gripe & carp about real and perceived encroachment by gov't on individual sovereignty at the drop of a hat, while the French just go ahead and pass the 800lb gorilla version of the PATRIOT ACT.
Getting to TUHR in practice was a messy, organic contention between several strains in Western Civ.
Eastern Religions
I am trying to think of an E religion that had some significant TUHR content and am coming up with bupkus.
Taosim? Not in the Taoist tracts I have read. It is described as either a philosphy or a folk, polytheistic religion.
Shinto? I believe this is an animist religion.
Bhuddism? My reading of their doctrine(s), is that they have universal truths, but nothing in the way of human rights. Only "Correct Conduct" may come anywhere close, IME. I would appreciate any Bhuddism-savvy folks to comment. Oh, I would exclude the goofy westerners who seem to think that "Bhuddism=AllGoodStuffGoofyWesternersSupport."
Hinduism? Quite a varied religion, IMO. Some concept of good & evil as well as bearing responsibility for actions.
Sikh? Comes pretty close, though I am not sure if its truly universal or confined to other Sikhs. It does not predate Christianity, as its roots date to the 16th century.
Zoroastrianism? The contemporary version comes close, the ancient version, much less so. Its origins date back to the OT Hebrew tribes.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2006, 08:18:14 AM
-
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: roo_ster on May 30, 2006, 10:53:35 AM
-
Time-wise. I believe they were contemporaneous or pretty close.
OK, after perusing Wikipedia, the range is from 1800-500BC, with the likeliest being 1000BC.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Ron on May 30, 2006, 05:51:24 PM
-
Hunter Rose,
Every group has its extremist nutty fringe. The right wing Christians have the Fred Felps (sp?) and groups of that ilk.
The most hateful thing that happens with these guys is they hurt feelings and hand out leaflets.
You get the occasional homicidal maniac that the media portrays as a typical anti choice proponent. We even have some groups I am sure that hate the Muslims for believing different. But I fail to see any proof that these guys are representative of anything other than their particular so called "Christian" cults.
To call them mainstream Christians is wrong.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2006, 06:04:47 PM
-
GoRon, Hunter Rose was responding to a statement of mine, which may have been overly broad. You do make a good point, however.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Ron on May 30, 2006, 06:50:01 PM
-
God is not going to sanction murder regardless the just cause used as a defense.
The onus is on Christians and like minded folk to win hearts and minds.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: griz on May 31, 2006, 09:40:40 AM
-
Thank you jfruser for a thoughtful reply.
I think a big part of the problem is the difficulty in defining human rights in the first place. We currently consider our list of rights as the best one. (This may be somewhat universal) But there are schools of thought that say rights should include a job and housing, so even within our government there is disagreement. And the UN considers us as violating basic human rights because we execute some murderers. (Not that I care a great deal what the UN believes)
But before I comment more I need another answer. My question is about this statement:
Since I am trying to address the topic of the thread instead of the many offshoots that are developing, I would appreciate some clarification before I proceed.
Thanks, Griz
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: Iain on May 31, 2006, 11:51:34 AM
-
Jfruser - I am essentially saying that the creation of the Christian religion was and is pretty beneficial, particularly in the area germane to this conversation, human rights and human worth.
That said, my point is that it the value of those beliefs doesn't say anything about the factuality of those beliefs. Christian morals can benefit the man and hopefully those around him, but he won't go to heaven if there is no heaven.
Of course societies can flourish without the same beliefs in rights, more than one way to skin a cat I suppose.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: roo_ster on May 31, 2006, 12:56:26 PM
-
Since I am trying to address the topic of the thread instead of the many offshoots that are developing, I would appreciate some clarification before I proceed.
Thanks, GrizOkey dokey.
TUHR can not be reasoned out or determined from observation alone. One must have faith in one or more of:
1. Christianity & egalitarianism before the almighty
2. Western Civ's values (which is inextricably entwined with Christianity)
3. TUHR (as a subset of Western values)
Individual or collective does not seem pertinent. Christians are a group, but most (at least many) beleive that their faith is an intensely personal, individual experience. Western values do seem more collective than personal, though.
Oh, and another thing:
I have no problem believing that there are avowed secularists* who support TUHR. In my eyes, Mr. Secularist is holding mutually contradictory convictions. He wouldn't be the first. We don't always have perfect reason and perfect evidence to back up what we believe to be true.
* As opposed to an atheist. I would suppose that a complete secularist would require reason and observation to back up all that they held to be true/factual, whereas an atheist does not believe in God or any sort of deity but may still have faith in...something.
-
Title: Word Perversion Example #7854: Atheism and Its Discontents
Post by: griz on June 02, 2006, 09:24:49 AM
-
Sorry for the delay in response. And by the way, I forgot to include this link when I mentioned in my last post that human rights are difficult to define. It doesnt prove anything, but is interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
My problem is with saying that faith is a requirement to believe in TUHR, but the faith can be in TUHR. It is a circular argument. You might as well say that you are a Christian because it is the true faith, and its true because you believe in it.
Post by: roo_ster on May 22, 2006, 07:57:56 AM
Quote from: impassible
>If we assume that a god can simply exist, then, it would seem to me, the same could be applied to the universe. This would solve one of science's largest problems. I guess it wouldn't be science if a "fact" were merely declared to be, without testing, though.
Third person vs firts person faith.
Post by: griz on May 22, 2006, 08:50:43 AM
Quote
I do not think the wholly secular person can come to accept TUHR without resorting to faith of some sort. Western Civ's values (if not practices, at times) are grounded in J-C morality
I must disagree with your conclusions. Throughout time people of various religions have murdered, enslaved, and tortured in the name of their religion. They typically justified this by saying that is what their g-d or g-ds wanted them to do. So if TUHR are based on faith based religions, why do the actions of believers sometimes veer from TUHR? You could argue that TUHR are a relatively recent construct, but to me that says that the idea is based more on reason than faith. My contention is it does not require faith in a higher power to realize your highest right is your own life, and from that reason that others should be entitled to that same right and more. That should sound a lot like the golden rule, and indeed most religions world wide have independently claimed that principle as their own.
And if Western Civs values are so engrained, why are they not more universal? On this very board you can find practicing Christians who believe it is moral to kill Arabs because they are of the wrong religion, and others who do not believe non-citizens in this country have rights. How did they avoid learning about the concept of TUHR if they were grounded in J-C morality?
Post by: Iain on May 22, 2006, 02:34:02 PM
Morality is a tough one. Perhaps all our religion stems from a basic need to instill certain values in society. You suggest that in the absence of religion then the realisation occurs that nothing prevents the strong from abuse of the weak, and whilst that is true I return to something I made a reference to earlier - the Prisoners Dilemma.
Which makes it a subjective morality of course, and that leads us to some unpleasant conclusions and I don't like it. On the other hand I'm left thinking that the idea that there is an absolute morality is a little too convenient. Perhaps the idea of recognising that rights are inherent in all men, that all men are created with such rights is a convenient way of expressing that we all hold these truths to be self-evident and as long as we can enfore their self-evidence then they continue to exist.
There was, and is for some, a stick and a carrot to christian morality. That works whilst people believe in it. I don't but that hasn't changed my moral perspective greatly because there is a rational conclusion to be drawn that whilst that system exists then the majority of the time the outcome will be the best possible for individuals and society, but that an individuals rights are of great importance. In answer to your scenario I'll say that I believe the first series of '24' contained a similar situation, and the mere thought of violating one person in such a way (to death in this fictional instance if I recall) is abhorrent to me.
From a vaguely anthropological point of view, perhaps that is the function that religion performs, it's merely a social glue. For that to work all the glue has to do is be strong and allow for the growth and success of a society, and where that happens perhaps it actually proves nothing more than that the belief system is successful.
There aren't hard and fast conclusions, but merely the musings of the last few days. It's very interesting, but my head hurts.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 22, 2006, 02:37:52 PM
Quote from: griz
On this very board you can find practicing Christians who believe it is moral to kill Arabs because they are of the wrong religion
I would very much like to know who you speak of and where and what they said. I don't think you've been paying attention to what jfruser has said.
Post by: griz on May 23, 2006, 08:15:46 AM
Quote
I would very much like to know who you speak of and where and what they said.
First I will have to ammend my comment to include THR. I think of the two as related so did not use the name. That said, I started searching for just the right quote until I realized I was going into to much detail. All you have to do is think of the times you have seen the words "nuke" and "Iraq" in the same sentence. Unless you can show me a big enough cluster of terrorist that it would take a megaton to kill them all, I would take the comment as a condemnation of ordinary Iraqis. If you want quotes relating the Iraq war to Islam I can show you plenty.Quote
I don't think you've been paying attention to what jfruser has said.
I thought his point was you needed religion for morality and TUHR. Please tell me what I missed.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 23, 2006, 05:34:47 PM
Quote from: griz
I thought his point was you needed religion for morality and TUHR. Please tell me what I missed.
This, at the least:Quote from: jfruser
I would assert that the combination of Christian emphasis on the inherent value of every being made in God's image, combined with Greek & Roman ideas of democratic and republican rule, leavened with a heavy dose of Anglo-Saxon personal sovereignty, and given time for those to steep and contend with one another...lead us to our contemporary belief that there is such a thing as TUHR.
He is not saying that generic religious belief leads automatically to TUHR. Quote from: griz
You could argue that TUHR are a relatively recent construct, but to me that says that the idea is based more on reason than faith.
I take issue with this comment on two grounds:1. It implies that reason can function independent of some basic assumptions not deduced by reason. That would be a first.
2. It implies that ancient people were less rational than you and I. This is unwarranted - temporal chauvinism, if you will.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 23, 2006, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: griz
On this very board you can find practicing Christians who believe it is moral to kill Arabs because they are of the wrong religion....
All you have to do is think of the times you have seen the words "nuke" and "Iraq" in the same sentence. Unless you can show me a big enough cluster of terrorist that it would take a megaton to kill them all, I would take the comment as a condemnation of ordinary Iraqis. If you want quotes relating the Iraq war to Islam I can show you plenty.
So we have one set of people who say on an internet forum that they want to nuke Iraq, which may or may not be among the set of people who support the Iraq war as a way to indiscriminately kill Muslims. Not good enough.All you have to do is think of the times you have seen the words "nuke" and "Iraq" in the same sentence. Unless you can show me a big enough cluster of terrorist that it would take a megaton to kill them all, I would take the comment as a condemnation of ordinary Iraqis. If you want quotes relating the Iraq war to Islam I can show you plenty.
In order for your claim to be believable, you're going to have to show us someone, just one, who has said, implied or led a reasonable observer to believe:
I am a practicing Christian.
I think we ought to nuke Iraq.
I think we ought to do it because Iraqis are Muslims.
We ought to kill all Muslims.
We must kill them not because some are terrorists who want to kill us.
Nor must we kill them because all Muslims are terrorists who want to kill us.
Nor must we kill them because Islam teaches terrorism against Christian Americans.
No, we must kill them only because of their religion, no matter how peacefully they practice it.
Got anybody in mind?
Besides all of that, "let's nuke country x" usually means, "Let's stop messing around and really hurt these guys!"
Post by: doczinn on May 23, 2006, 09:33:14 PM
It's an expression of exasperation with the situation. Hell, I've said it, and quite a few times. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 23, 2006, 09:40:56 PM
Post by: doczinn on May 23, 2006, 10:40:40 PM
Post by: griz on May 24, 2006, 06:04:04 AM
Quote
He is not saying that generic religious belief leads automatically to TUHR.
I was trying to credit him with a more general assertion than Christian/Anglo-Saxon superiority. If that is the gist of his theory, it is easily disproved by other religions who believe in TUHR. In fact I believe some of the eastern religions came to that conclusion before the Christians did.Quote
I take issue with this comment on two grounds:
1. It implies that reason can function independent of some basic assumptions not deduced by reason. That would be a first.
2. It implies that ancient people were less rational than you and I. This is unwarranted - temporal chauvinism, if you will.
1. It implies no such thing unless you are merely stating that reason cannot exist on its own. But that would apply to all reasoning, not just mine.1. It implies that reason can function independent of some basic assumptions not deduced by reason. That would be a first.
2. It implies that ancient people were less rational than you and I. This is unwarranted - temporal chauvinism, if you will.
2. I was thinking along the lines of the advancement of societal thinking, but you may be right about my unintentional temporal chauvinism.
With respect to the nukeem comments, I will grant that some people dont mean what they say. But if we can assume some people dont mean it when they say they want to kill Muslims, why cant we assume some people do want to kill them when they say the lack of respect the Koran (please excuse my spelling) shows for Christians is a reason for war?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 24, 2006, 07:16:28 PM
Quote from: griz
if we can assume some people dont mean it when they say they want to kill Muslims
Assume away, but I didn't say that.Quote
they say the lack of respect the Koran (please excuse my spelling) shows for Christians is a reason for war?
Who says that? Quote from: fistful
Quote from: griz
You could argue that TUHR are a relatively recent construct, but to me that says that the idea is based more on reason than faith.
I take issue with this comment on two grounds:1. It implies that reason can function independent of some basic assumptions not deduced by reason. That would be a first.
2. It implies that ancient people were less rational than you and I. This is unwarranted - temporal chauvinism, if you will.
My second point was that you seem to be saying that people in earlier times were less inclined to use reason. I don't think that is true. They reasoned much differently, of course.
Post by: griz on May 25, 2006, 03:18:22 AM
Quote
Assume away, but I didn't say that.
As you had requested, I was trying to show people on this board who believed people of other religions were not entitled to TUHR despite their own Christian/Anglo-Saxon upbringing. I was not accusing you of that since I do not know who, or even if, you want to kill anyone.Quote
Who says that?
Here is a quote from this thread:Quote
The Taliban is connected to Iraq because of their religion. Don't you think that they would ban together for the purpose of defeating a country or countries who are Christian and Jewish? I believe they will ban together at some point because of their religious beliefs. I think they want to rid the world of Christians and Jews and Atheist. This all goes back in the Bible to Abraham who is the father of the Arab nation and also the father of the Jewish nation. A study of these origins would help you to understand their way of thinking.
It seems clear from that thread and others that a lot of people consider us being in Iraq justified by the fact that Islam does not say kind things about Christians.
Post by: Ron on May 25, 2006, 02:27:38 PM
Quote
It seems clear from that thread and others that a lot of people consider us being in Iraq justified by the fact that Islam does not say kind things about Christians.
Give it up. you are way out on a limb trying to find a Christian motive for going into Iraq.You don't hear cries for us to invade Turkey do you? They don't mess with us so they aren't even on the "invade them" radar. Syria, Iran, SA even Pakistan all deserve a good a** kicking. Not because they are Muslim but because they sponsor terrorism and have made moves against us.
I hope they all get free elections. The ones that vote in governments that want to go toe to toe with us will be easier to wage total war against. We have to leave the gloves on when going against totalitarian regimes. Vote in an anti US government and "F" with us, be prepared to get taken down a few notches, little regard for so called collateral damage.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 25, 2006, 07:05:54 PM
Quote from: griz
Quote from: some other thread
The Taliban is connected to Iraq because of their religion. Don't you think that they would ban together for the purpose of defeating a country or countries who are Christian and Jewish? I believe they will ban together at some point because of their religious beliefs. I think they want to rid the world of Christians and Jews and Atheist. This all goes back in the Bible to Abraham who is the father of the Arab nation and also the father of the Jewish nation. A study of these origins would help you to understand their way of thinking.
It seems clear from that thread and others that a lot of people consider us being in Iraq justified by the fact that Islam does not say kind things about Christians.And why must you reduce Islam's attitude toward other religions to "they don't say kind things about them"? The Koran speaks of killing unbelievers, or at the least keeping them as second-class citizens. I will look up the passages if you would like. This is much more than "un-niceness," and I think you know it. You might just as well say the Aryan Nation "does not say kind things" about black people.
For what it's worth, the Iraq war needs no justification; it was obviously a morally acceptable act. Whether it was the best thing to do is a different question.
Post by: griz on May 26, 2006, 09:43:07 AM
Quote
But you did imply that I said, "some people say they want to kill Muslims, but they don't mean it."
I didn't think I implied that, but am sorry if you took it that way.As for the rest, in the context of the question you posed, I think that thread (not just the quote) DOES show that Christianity is a big consideration in our war with Iraq. But we have drifted quite a bit from the main topic, so unless you have something else we will have to agree to disagree.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 27, 2006, 06:33:28 AM
Quote
the vast bulk of Muslim people are peaceful. It is the Wahabbists who are causing all the trouble.
Griz, I think if you're going to find any Christians, even nominal ones, who favor killing people because they are of "the wrong religion" or because "the Koran says mean things" you're not going to find them outside of Serbia, if even there. If some Christians believe Islam is at war with us, and we must therefore defend ourselves, that's a different matter.
Post by: Strings on May 29, 2006, 02:49:14 PM
Ummm... excuse me? I halucinated those threats? Or are you strictly refering to Christians wanting to kill Muslims?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 29, 2006, 05:38:23 PM
Post by: Strings on May 29, 2006, 08:08:58 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 29, 2006, 08:36:54 PM
I remember having a conversation like this before, but I think it was with someone else. Something about a drunk redneck with a cross around his neck.
Post by: Strings on May 29, 2006, 10:28:37 PM
Would they "declare war on Paganistan"? If they could get enough people behind them, AND manage to find it on a map. Seems the worse your absolute intolerance of differing beliefs, the lower your IQ**...
*this isn't intended as a slam on Christians, or a deliberate perversion of your Savior's name. It's an attempt to convey the dialect. And yes, the caps ARE necessary...
** "Intolerance" meaning at least a small amount of civility. I know fistful would LOVE to get me to convert, but he's still willing to defend my right to my beliefs (even if he DOES think their wrong)...
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2006, 03:45:04 AM
I'll take your word for it. Where'd you find this guy, and was he sober?
Post by: Strings on May 30, 2006, 06:07:55 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2006, 06:14:30 AM
Post by: roo_ster on May 30, 2006, 06:53:08 AM
IANAP (I Am Not A Philosopher). Not even a "Stand up" philosopher.
Quote from: griz
Quote
I do not think the wholly secular person can come to accept TUHR without resorting to faith of some sort. Western Civ's values (if not practices, at times) are grounded in J-C morality
I must disagree with your conclusions. Throughout time people of various religions have murdered, enslaved, and tortured in the name of their religion. They typically justified this by saying that is what their g-d or g-ds wanted them to do. So if TUHR are based on faith based religions, why do the actions of believers sometimes veer from TUHR?
Faith in Christianity or Judaism* or derivative** faith in TUHR in and of itself.
Many other religions do not have any content that pertains to TUHR (most polytheistic religions, for example, are of the "please god don't hurt me" variety). Others have ethical content or teachings that do not or only tangentially pertain to TUHR (Bhuddism, ancient Zoroastrianism**, Taoism). Still others have beliefs that are completely antithetical to TUHR (Thuggee, Central American paganism, pagan religions of the ancient middle east, etc).
But, let us get to the meat: what about those Christians who "...have murdered, enslaved, and tortured in the name of their religion?" This can be answered in several ways.
1. I am somewhat hesitant to quote scripture in such a conversation, but I think it pertains to how Christians view such:
Quote from: Matthew 12:33
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.
IOW; if his fruit is murder, slavery, and torture; most Christians would be hesitant to claim him as one of their own. We can't know with certainty the state of his soul, but I'm arguing in favor of "not."2. The NT does not call for conversion by the sword and does endorse the OT Ten Commandments, murder being one of the big ten.
3. From the beginning of the state church in the Roman Empire until very recently, it was state & church policy that all were to be "Christian" of the proper type (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) in the state, regardless of one's true convictions. If you were born in Bavaria, you were a Catholic, unless you declared openly otherwise. My denomination looks with a gimlet eye on the whole state church concept as not legitamate. Oh, sure, some members of state (& former state) churches can be Christian, but a splash of water on an infant and a fancy piece of paper does not a Christian make.
4. I would mention again that faith is not sufficient. It took Western Civ over 1700 years to come up with a document that embodied TURH. The messy, often "two steps forward, one step back" contention between Greek, Roman, Christian, and Anglo-Saxon traditions was necessary to get there.
5. Last, there are those who are truly Christian but do engage in such barbarity. Christians claim to worship a perfect God, not be perfect themselves. Is it hypocracy? Yep, you betcha. A standard of perfection is impossible to maintain, given humanity's corrupt nature. That doesn't mean that one should not try and encourage others to do similarly. In a more general sense, there are folks who will do things antithetical to their beliefs. I suspect there is more than one libertarian who collects Social Security or uses Medicaid, for example. Are their beliefs any less valid, given the fact they can not attain Ayn Randian perfection?
* Judaism is an interesting case. The requirements for the ancient Hebrew state and peoples were pretty darned exclusive, IMO. Judaism as a stateless religion, although still exclusive, is much more friendly to TUHR without the need to refer tothe OT reqirements and practices for running an earthly government.
** Derivative from Western Civ generally & nondenominational J-C morality in particular.
*** Contemporary Zoroastrianism is a different case.
Quote from: griz
You could argue that TUHR are a relatively recent construct, but to me that says that the idea is based more on reason than faith. My contention is it does not require faith in a higher power to realize your highest right is your own life, and from that reason that others should be entitled to that same right and more.
Recent in practice, for sure, but not in principle.I think the idea that "..your highest right is your own life, and from that reason..." is pretty much confined to Western Civ. From what I have read, most folks on earth throughout most of recorded history were fatalists who had no inkling of the concept of "rights." Certainly not African or Japanese peasants. They took what came to them, be it a kissing or killing.
Juat as you have deduced that "..your highest right is your own life, and from that reason..." is a TURH, the vast majority of those who live in the People's Republic of China (athiests) have come to other conclusions. If you read a bit about the PRC & the attitudes of its subjects, you come to the conclusion that democracy, liberty, and the whole idea of TUHR are not valued. (Every once in a while we hear about a pro-liberty activist getting beaten & stuffed into the laogai, but they are not representative.) What floats their boat is a xenophobic, resentful nationalism and a drive to do well, financially speaking.
I would suggest that they (subjects of PRC) are for the most part without faith and that they have the values that have been characteristic of China since the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. When they look at reality without the lens of faith in J-C morality, they see that the individual is near worthless and the group is what matters. Also, that what furthers the interests of the groups is what is right.
Quote from: griz
And if Western Civs values are so engrained, why are they not more universal? On this very board you can find practicing Christians who believe it is moral to kill Arabs because they are of the wrong religion, and others who do not believe non-citizens in this country have rights. How did they avoid learning about the concept of TUHR if they were grounded in J-C morality?
I think others addressed this sufficiently.Quote from: Iain
Just initial thoughts in response to your post jfruser.
Morality is a tough one. Perhaps all our religion stems from a basic need to instill certain values in society. You suggest that in the absence of religion then the realisation occurs that nothing prevents the strong from abuse of the weak, and whilst that is true I return to something I made a reference to earlier - the Prisoners Dilemma.
Which makes it a subjective morality of course, and that leads us to some unpleasant conclusions and I don't like it. On the other hand I'm left thinking that the idea that there is an absolute morality is a little too convenient. Perhaps the idea of recognising that rights are inherent in all men, that all men are created with such rights is a convenient way of expressing that we all hold these truths to be self-evident and as long as we can enfore their self-evidence then they continue to exist.
There was, and is for some, a stick and a carrot to christian morality. That works whilst people believe in it. I don't but that hasn't changed my moral perspective greatly because there is a rational conclusion to be drawn that whilst that system exists then the majority of the time the outcome will be the best possible for individuals and society, but that an individuals rights are of great importance. In answer to your scenario I'll say that I believe the first series of '24' contained a similar situation, and the mere thought of violating one person in such a way (to death in this fictional instance if I recall) is abhorrent to me.
From a vaguely anthropological point of view, perhaps that is the function that religion performs, it's merely a social glue. For that to work all the glue has to do is be strong and allow for the growth and success of a society, and where that happens perhaps it actually proves nothing more than that the belief system is successful.
There aren't hard and fast conclusions, but merely the musings of the last few days. It's very interesting, but my head hurts.
Iain, what you wrote sounds something like this, "If the Christian God didn't exist, someone would have to invent him."Morality is a tough one. Perhaps all our religion stems from a basic need to instill certain values in society. You suggest that in the absence of religion then the realisation occurs that nothing prevents the strong from abuse of the weak, and whilst that is true I return to something I made a reference to earlier - the Prisoners Dilemma.
Which makes it a subjective morality of course, and that leads us to some unpleasant conclusions and I don't like it. On the other hand I'm left thinking that the idea that there is an absolute morality is a little too convenient. Perhaps the idea of recognising that rights are inherent in all men, that all men are created with such rights is a convenient way of expressing that we all hold these truths to be self-evident and as long as we can enfore their self-evidence then they continue to exist.
There was, and is for some, a stick and a carrot to christian morality. That works whilst people believe in it. I don't but that hasn't changed my moral perspective greatly because there is a rational conclusion to be drawn that whilst that system exists then the majority of the time the outcome will be the best possible for individuals and society, but that an individuals rights are of great importance. In answer to your scenario I'll say that I believe the first series of '24' contained a similar situation, and the mere thought of violating one person in such a way (to death in this fictional instance if I recall) is abhorrent to me.
From a vaguely anthropological point of view, perhaps that is the function that religion performs, it's merely a social glue. For that to work all the glue has to do is be strong and allow for the growth and success of a society, and where that happens perhaps it actually proves nothing more than that the belief system is successful.
There aren't hard and fast conclusions, but merely the musings of the last few days. It's very interesting, but my head hurts.
Plenty of societies have grown & flourished without the concept of TUHR. The Greeks* & Romans, to name but two.
* Democracy != TUHR, despite what so many profess. When 50% plus 1 can exile you on pain of death, I'm thinking that deomcracy is just another way to execise power, not necessarily a means to protect TUHR or a sign of TUHR.
Quote from: griz
Quote
He is not saying that generic religious belief leads automatically to TUHR.
I was trying to credit him with a more general assertion than Christian/Anglo-Saxon superiority. If that is the gist of his theory, it is easily disproved by other religions who believe in TUHR. In fact I believe some of the eastern religions came to that conclusion before the Christians did.A-S genetic superiority with respect to TUHR? No. A-S cultural superiority with repsect to TUHR? Yes.
I think there is little debate outside of the anti-western left that Western Civ. was the first to implement TUHR to any great extent or that W Civ is where all the significant intellectual/moral knife-fights over TUHR occurred. Even so, there are some parts of W Civ that do TUHR better than others.
For instance, I would argue that those countries that originate from A-S culture have it all over the Gallic and Teutonic cultures WRT TUHR. The continental europeans have been, since the birth of modernity, more statist and less individualist-friendly than the A-S countries. For instance, here in the USA we gripe & carp about real and perceived encroachment by gov't on individual sovereignty at the drop of a hat, while the French just go ahead and pass the 800lb gorilla version of the PATRIOT ACT.
Getting to TUHR in practice was a messy, organic contention between several strains in Western Civ.
Eastern Religions
I am trying to think of an E religion that had some significant TUHR content and am coming up with bupkus.
Taosim? Not in the Taoist tracts I have read. It is described as either a philosphy or a folk, polytheistic religion.
Shinto? I believe this is an animist religion.
Bhuddism? My reading of their doctrine(s), is that they have universal truths, but nothing in the way of human rights. Only "Correct Conduct" may come anywhere close, IME. I would appreciate any Bhuddism-savvy folks to comment. Oh, I would exclude the goofy westerners who seem to think that "Bhuddism=AllGoodStuffGoofyWesternersSupport."
Hinduism? Quite a varied religion, IMO. Some concept of good & evil as well as bearing responsibility for actions.
Sikh? Comes pretty close, though I am not sure if its truly universal or confined to other Sikhs. It does not predate Christianity, as its roots date to the 16th century.
Zoroastrianism? The contemporary version comes close, the ancient version, much less so. Its origins date back to the OT Hebrew tribes.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2006, 08:18:14 AM
Quote from: jfruser
Zoroastrianism? ....Its origins date back to the OT Hebrew tribes.
Really?
Post by: roo_ster on May 30, 2006, 10:53:35 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: jfruser
Zoroastrianism? ....Its origins date back to the OT Hebrew tribes.
Really?OK, after perusing Wikipedia, the range is from 1800-500BC, with the likeliest being 1000BC.
Post by: Ron on May 30, 2006, 05:51:24 PM
Every group has its extremist nutty fringe. The right wing Christians have the Fred Felps (sp?) and groups of that ilk.
The most hateful thing that happens with these guys is they hurt feelings and hand out leaflets.
You get the occasional homicidal maniac that the media portrays as a typical anti choice proponent. We even have some groups I am sure that hate the Muslims for believing different. But I fail to see any proof that these guys are representative of anything other than their particular so called "Christian" cults.
To call them mainstream Christians is wrong.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2006, 06:04:47 PM
Quote from: fistful
I think if you're going to find any Christians, even nominal ones, who favor killing people because they are of "the wrong religion" or because "the Koran says mean things" you're not going to find them outside of Serbia, if even there.
Additional commentary deleted to avoid misunderstanding and general goofiness.
Post by: Ron on May 30, 2006, 06:50:01 PM
Quote
Perhaps misguided is a better word.
Yeah, like not guided into prison fast enough before his/their Savior complex kicked in.God is not going to sanction murder regardless the just cause used as a defense.
The onus is on Christians and like minded folk to win hearts and minds.
Post by: griz on May 31, 2006, 09:40:40 AM
I think a big part of the problem is the difficulty in defining human rights in the first place. We currently consider our list of rights as the best one. (This may be somewhat universal) But there are schools of thought that say rights should include a job and housing, so even within our government there is disagreement. And the UN considers us as violating basic human rights because we execute some murderers. (Not that I care a great deal what the UN believes)
But before I comment more I need another answer. My question is about this statement:
Quote
My contention is that faith is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite to TUHR. But, faith in what? Faith in the Will to Power? Nope. Faith in the sub-human character of your enemies? Nope. Faith in darwinian evolution? Nope.
Faith in Christianity or Judaism* or derivative** faith in TUHR in and of itself.
Saying that faith is necessary for TUHR, then saying that the faith can be in TUHR itself, seems contradictory to me. I caught the word derivative, but I am assuming you mean the faith is derived from the culture and not on an individual basis. Faith in Christianity or Judaism* or derivative** faith in TUHR in and of itself.
Since I am trying to address the topic of the thread instead of the many offshoots that are developing, I would appreciate some clarification before I proceed.
Thanks, Griz
Post by: Iain on May 31, 2006, 11:51:34 AM
That said, my point is that it the value of those beliefs doesn't say anything about the factuality of those beliefs. Christian morals can benefit the man and hopefully those around him, but he won't go to heaven if there is no heaven.
Of course societies can flourish without the same beliefs in rights, more than one way to skin a cat I suppose.
Post by: roo_ster on May 31, 2006, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: griz
Quote
My contention is that faith is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite to TUHR. But, faith in what? Faith in the Will to Power? Nope. Faith in the sub-human character of your enemies? Nope. Faith in darwinian evolution? Nope.
Faith in Christianity or Judaism* or derivative** faith in TUHR in and of itself.
Saying that faith is necessary for TUHR, then saying that the faith can be in TUHR itself, seems contradictory to me. I caught the word derivative, but I am assuming you mean the faith is derived from the culture and not on an individual basis. Faith in Christianity or Judaism* or derivative** faith in TUHR in and of itself.
Since I am trying to address the topic of the thread instead of the many offshoots that are developing, I would appreciate some clarification before I proceed.
Thanks, Griz
Quote
I am assuming you mean the faith is derived from the culture and not on an individual basis.
Short answer ("Yeah, right!" they remarked...):TUHR can not be reasoned out or determined from observation alone. One must have faith in one or more of:
1. Christianity & egalitarianism before the almighty
2. Western Civ's values (which is inextricably entwined with Christianity)
3. TUHR (as a subset of Western values)
Individual or collective does not seem pertinent. Christians are a group, but most (at least many) beleive that their faith is an intensely personal, individual experience. Western values do seem more collective than personal, though.
Quote
Saying that faith is necessary for TUHR, then saying that the faith can be in TUHR itself, seems contradictory to me.
I would say that, yes, one can have faith in TUHR. Heck, some folks believe that crystals can heal them with some undetectable aura. Others believe that honor is worth sacrificing thier lives to maintain. Still others willingly put themselves at risk for the sake of others or their country. PETA activists would deny the morality of animal testing to save human lives. IOW, a lot of beliefs that make no (darwinian) sense. Given those examples, a faith in TUHR does not seem far-fetched. I would bet that hard-core human rights activists have the faith of zealots, even if they claim to be, ah, "unaffiliated" in a religious sense. SOme folks will beleive in just about anything.Oh, and another thing:
I have no problem believing that there are avowed secularists* who support TUHR. In my eyes, Mr. Secularist is holding mutually contradictory convictions. He wouldn't be the first. We don't always have perfect reason and perfect evidence to back up what we believe to be true.
* As opposed to an atheist. I would suppose that a complete secularist would require reason and observation to back up all that they held to be true/factual, whereas an atheist does not believe in God or any sort of deity but may still have faith in...something.
Post by: griz on June 02, 2006, 09:24:49 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
My problem is with saying that faith is a requirement to believe in TUHR, but the faith can be in TUHR. It is a circular argument. You might as well say that you are a Christian because it is the true faith, and its true because you believe in it.