RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 5:33:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: And no religion too And no "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," no antislavery movement, no Underground Railroad, no Civil Rights movement, no reconciliation process in South Africa . . . Oh, and don't forget to close all those church-run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and hospitals. You'll also need to pitch any ancient texts preserved by monks during the Dark Ages. And here we are, right back where we started, with toothless rationalisations for why we just couldn't live without organised religion. One can describe human rights without appeal to a Creator. Its mention in that particular document has more to do with the verbal fashions of the day (and the need to symbolically go over the Kings head) than any need for a Creator's permission. There are plenty of secular charities and many reform movements which have managed quite well without any supernatural assistance. Ancient texts preserved by monks? Like the Vatican's erotica collection - the largest and most comprehensive in the world? What about the libraries that were burned by the church? Knowledge is found and knowledge is lost. Let's not make an excessive virtue out of some honest work done by a smattering of conscientious monks. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The most obnixious part about telling religious people that you're athiest is that so many believe you want there to be no God. Like you hate the idea of being able to earn eternal bliss and ultimate meaning or something. Too true, CL. As if one has the hubris to wish god away, clicking the heels of your ruby slippers. Z.

dcnovice -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 5:39:39 PM)
quote: toothless rationalisations for why we just couldn't live without organised religion. Emphasis added. Actually, I said nothing of the sort. I simply used examples to point out, apparently not clearly enough, that religion has had positive effects as well as the negative ones discussed earlier in the thread. quote: One can describe human rights without appeal to a Creator. Please do. Where do those rights come from? quote: There are plenty of secular charities and many reform movements which have managed quite well without any supernatural assistance. No doubt. My point, which I didn't make clear enough, was that an honest look at religion's impact on the world has to include positives as well as negatives.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 5:49:53 PM)
Didn't we already debunk the "founders=christians" equation in this thread already? Oh well, it's over here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1596148 [8\|]

dcnovice -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 5:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Didn't we already debunk the "founders=christians" equation in this thread already? Oh well, it's over here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1596148 [8\|] Thanks for the link, Sugar, but I don't really see its relevance, given that I didn't say the Founders were Christians.

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 5:58:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Absence of proof is not proof of absence. You are positing a belief in absence, not an absence of belief. I suspect you know by now that I have no problem believing in something that's painful. No, my friend, I'm positing an absense of belief. To me, the idea of a God is as silly as the idea of a golden cow on the dark side of the moon: there's no reason to believe it, it doesn't make sense, and it wreaks of mythology. My atheism consists of the notion that it's silly to believe in a golden cow on the far side of the moon, not that there's definetively not one. (However, I will argue against the notion of a Christian God as that's inheriently flawed in contradiction.) I knew you had spiritual beliefs, but do you also support the notion of a God?

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:03:00 PM)
"I think it's hard for some to wrap their minds around the concept of believing in something that's painful just because it's true. " Actually knowing quite a few masochists, I have no problem accepting that some people might want that, even gt off on it. Zen, Well I poked around, and the deinition of death is highly debated. There are cases where there is no measurable electrical activity for extended periods durring Clinical Death, and then they come back to life. And they report phenomena durring the period. Certainly doesn't proove anything, doesn't meet a standard of proof, but interesting. State of the art machines, no activity at all, Flat line,Experienceing a subjective "dream state" that varys from sub culture to sub culture,Then Clinical death is reversed. So it could be type of energy we are not able to detect, that sort of goes along with my thoughts on the matter. That would sort of like our "energetic existance" you refered to on the other thread that allows us to have free will, I guess. But I was wrong in my definition of death. I hadn't really thought about how many definitions there are, and the problems modern technology has brought to the issue. An interesting area, that I will read up on.

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:06:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 "I think it's hard for some to wrap their minds around the concept of believing in something that's painful just because it's true. " Actually knowing quite a few masochists, I have no problem accepting that some people might want that, even gt off on it. Please do not confuse the concepts of "pain". There is a vast difference between what the nerves report as physical pain and what one finds as determental and to-be-avoided. There typically a coorelation, but the two are quite seperate things.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:25:18 PM)
Where do our rights come from? We don't actually have any "rights', DC - unless we describe them and enforce them ourselves. They come from those being ill used looking up at those ill using them and thinking, that's not fair. It's important to remember that the ratonalisation for the ill use was, for many thousands of years, that the abusers were the chosen representatives of God on earth, and therefore both entitled and infallible. The presumption that rights, or indeed anything at all, descend from God is as baseless and prejudicial as any other presumption by the faithful. It is founded in a rhetorical tautology, a self referential argument. (i.e. The Bible is the word of God! How do you know that? Because he says so in the Bible.) So pardon my exaggeration (we just couldn't live without organised religion). Read that as some frustration at having to confront arguments on page 15 which have already been done to death. No one on either side has simplistically insisted that religion is all good or all bad, rather whether, on balance, it has been bebeficial or detrimental AND if it continues to be relevant today. Z.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:26:35 PM)
I know masocists who enjoy detrimental pain also. What is pain except what the nerves report? There are a large number of people who enjoy playing with psychological pain and sanity. The "Deep Brooding Nihilist" is an archetype in modern Scoiety. Admit it you feel a great connection when you find out a hot chick also thinks people of faith are dumb as shit. And it gives you 20 minutes of safe afirming conversation to have. It's not like you are Galileo shouting alone to an unknowing hostile world.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:27:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: One can describe human rights without appeal to a Creator. Please do. Where do those rights come from? ...ok, i'll take this one. Human rights are a function of being human. If they were dependent on a 'creator' then we'd have to specify which one......and down that road is the assumption that those who worship the wrong God or none at all don't have human rights. Well, that was easy.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:31:15 PM)
But if it were a function of being human wouldn't it arise cross culturally and historically. Not simply be a recent invention of the West.

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:31:59 PM)
"What is pain except what the nerves report?" ..are you serious? Alright. Pain can also be what people don't want. Such as when a loved one dies. The nerves do not say, "Pain!" They feed the mind a set of sensory information that yields such information; the mind comes to the conclusion that such is painful in the latter sense as opposed to the, "ouch, I burnt my finger" sense. Admittedly, you could point out that the brain is largely composed of types of nerves, but that would be to ignore the fact that "nerves", in context, was referring to sensory nerves.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:34:03 PM)
Lucky - Clinical Death is a medical opinion which is frequently enough, found to be premature. Death, as in eaten by worms, et al, is when that opinion migrates to certainty. Our energetic existence is tied to our organic existence, in my opinion and both are terminated at death (the wormy variety). Z.

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:34:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: One can describe human rights without appeal to a Creator. Please do. Where do those rights come from? Rights are a mental construct. In America, most seem to be established in law and by social forces.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 But if it were a function of being human wouldn't it arise cross culturally and historically. Not simply be a recent invention of the West. ..arguably it does occur across cultural boundaries......and, to be fair, it's not so much a western invention as a UN one. Most Human Rights Acts are based on the UN declaration of human rights. Admittedly, most cultures cherry pick a bit, but it's still early days. i doubt there's a single country on earth that lives up fully to that UN declaration yet.......but i live in hope :)

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:37:37 PM)
We can all agree humans came up with language.. not God, right? Okay. So if language is an invention of humans, why is it that I need Google Translator to view Spanish, French, Japanese, and -well, you get the point- pages?

dcnovice -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:46:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: One can describe human rights without appeal to a Creator. Please do. Where do those rights come from? ...ok, i'll take this one. Human rights are a function of being human. If they were dependent on a 'creator' then we'd have to specify which one......and down that road is the assumption that those who worship the wrong God or none at all don't have human rights. Well, that was easy. Emphasis added. It was easy 'cause you just drove in a circle. [:)]

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:52:00 PM)
How do you spelly irony? d -c - n - o - v - i - c - e Actually, Philo is in the place of stillness and it is you who is going in circles. Z.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:53:07 PM)
Nah, philosophy, its a recent development tied to the development of Humanism. The UN was of course also a Western Idea. Why have not the concepts of Human rights existed in past societies if they are a function of being human? Cl, the idea of Human rights is just one form of culture. There are lots of others, just like languages. The idea that Women have the same rights as a man? Thats new and from the West. The idea that some people are not natural slaves is new and from the West. The idea that every individual has worth and digntiy by virtue of being a human is very recent idea. Human rights does not mean any social arangement of right and privledges in a society, it is a pertty specific one, a little grey on the edges in reality.

dcnovice -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:56:17 PM)
quote: We don't actually have any "rights', DC - unless we describe them and enforce them ourselves. So there are no rights inherent in being human? Just social constructs? If a society fails to recognize and enforce certain rights, do they cease to exist there? I hate to use this example, but the Third Reich neither recognized nor enforced any rights for Jews. Does that mean such rights didn't exist? If so, we we wrong to prosecute those who carried out the Holocaust? quote: They come from those being ill used looking up at those ill using them and thinking, that's not fair. I think that's part of what happens. But doesn't the passion required for a sustained fight against unfairness stem from the belief in inherent human rights? quote: It's important to remember that the ratonalisation for the ill use was, for many thousands of years, that the abusers were the chosen representatives of God on earth, and therefore both entitled and infallible. I don't think there's much risk of that's being forgotten on this thread!

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02