RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

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

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

Message

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:36:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Which, when you think about it, is a very apt analogy for the difficulties facing people of faith when challenged to provide "evidence". It's called an antinomy, and it's reality's hard limit, as far as I can tell. Ponder for a moment that we may be some kid's high school project in an external reality, or that the reality we perceive may be nothing more than a MMORPG (without commenting on how lame the plot is, I'd also note that it's an open question whether we are the NPCs or the logged-in players). Certainly, our own technology will eventually advance to the point where we can do the same things ourselves. Direct neural interfaces that replace your sensory input will give you no way to prove whether the reality you perceive is true reality, as long as you are realistically represented in it. Every philosophical question mankind has ever asked will have validity in such a simulation, and be equally unanswerable. However, your real, off-line mind may know things that are not a function of what is happening in the simulation, and while a good simulation would seek to represent those things to an in-simulation brain scan, there'd be a subjective quality to the experience which could not be conveyed, due to the limitations of the medium. This is called gnosis. Of course, if you really want to mess your mind up, ponder that it's a valid abstraction to say that you are a vessel through which your PC interacts with the real world. It's the soul, you're the body. The Internet is the true reality, and this world is the shared hallucination that the PCs partake of. These things work both ways, yanno. Perspective can be an interesting thing, once you let go of fixed points of reference and assumptions about what a mind is. Health, al-Aswad..

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:46:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I dont even start off with the assumption that I am owed an explanation. Seems like a wise position for anyone. quote: So many people who insist on the existence or non-existence of an immortal super being refuse to contemplate a longitidinal explanation. Perhaps even more to the point: such people generally demand to have this entity think, feel and act as humans do. They try to apply human ideas and standards to something the only quality of which they can all agree on is that it's not human. quote: Maybe the whole God thing is not all about you and what you percieve? Bingo. It's a very human thing to make it all about oneself, but it's also a fairly unsupportable thing. Health, al-Aswad.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 10:16:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Which, when you think about it, is a very apt analogy for the difficulties facing people of faith when challenged to provide "evidence". It's called an antinomy, and it's reality's hard limit, as far as I can tell. Shared reality more like it. It is where our individual realities diverge from the reality we share with others. Much like a dream is a part of our individual reality, not something we can share with others directly as we can a baseball game. quote: Ponder for a moment that we may be some kid's high school project in an external reality, or that the reality we perceive may be nothing more than a MMORPG (without commenting on how lame the plot is, I'd also note that it's an open question whether we are the NPCs or the logged-in players). Welcome to the Matrix [;)] quote: there'd be a subjective quality to the experience which could not be conveyed, due to the limitations of the medium. This is called gnosis. And essentially that is what the spiritual experience is all about. quote: Of course, if you really want to mess your mind up, ponder that it's a valid abstraction to say that you are a vessel through which your PC interacts with the real world. It's the soul, you're the body. The Internet is the true reality, and this world is the shared hallucination that the PCs partake of. These things work both ways, yanno. Perspective can be an interesting thing, once you let go of fixed points of reference and assumptions about what a mind is. You will need to wait a generation or more for that to work, my friend [;)] I was born before Sputnik [:D]

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 10:47:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: You may, rudely, describe me having to point out the obvious as vapid.....but i think you just missed the point. I did not describe *you* as vapid. I described your statement as vapid. .....and i did not, oh my pedantic friend, say you described me as vapid. i said you described me having to point out the obvious as vapid. You have still missed the point. In this thread we have come to a question.......are human rights a human thing or do they come from some sort of God. By stressing the human angle i am trying to point out the danger of saying that human rights come from God. DCnovice was told...."One can describe human rights without appeal to a Creator."......they then typed, "Please do. Where do those rights come from?". Now if human rights are a function of being human they apply to all humans. If they come from some sort of God then one can exclude some humans from having such rights for religious reasons. That is the dangerous road to go down, that is the road that leads to self righteous violence. Now it may be a good debating tactic to suggest that i have employed a circular argument but it does distract from the main point.......and you have colluded in that distraction.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:06:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy DCnovice was told...."One can describe human rights without appeal to a Creator."......they then typed, "Please do. Where do those rights come from?". Now if human rights are a function of being human they apply to all humans. If they come from some sort of God then one can exclude some humans from having such rights for religious reasons. Those are not the only positions available for that question. "Rights" are legalities created by the state. They can also be changed by the state. They apply to whomever the state chooses, and none others. In our society even animals have "rights". It is against the law to mistreat them. It is against the law to exterminate a species. Corporations also have "rights". Their property cannot be seized except by due process of law, despite the fact a corporation is not a living thing at all. Rights are not intrinsic to human existence. Drop an individual into the heart of a jungle and see which of his rights save him. Rights are duties and obligations the state owes us, and in theory we owe each other. It is a social construct and as such is malleable to meet the needs of the state.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:08:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee How do you spelly irony? d -c - n - o - v - i - c - e Does that pass for adult reasoning in your world? quote: Actually, Philo is in the place of stillness and it is you who is going in circles. I'm admittedly not a logician, but the sentence Human rights are a function of being human. honestly does strike me as circular. No. It's called humour. It's a raw resource in Canada and is shipped in bulk to the USA where it is apparently processed into bleached, irony free laffs for TV and Hollywood. The humour extends from the manner in which you (improperly) found circularity in Philo's reasoning but failed to recognise the obvious circularity and restrictions in your own question. Your question presumes that human rights are a commodity to be dispensed. This limits the answer to a choice of dispensers. Philo identified the source of human rights as an idea about humans originating from humans. That's not circular reasoning, it's just an accurate observation. Z.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:13:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Rights are duties and obligations the state owes us, and in theory we owe each other. It is a social construct and as such is malleable to meet the needs of the state. ....apologies for this long quote.... "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge" http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ........the history of humanity is about learning to see consequences to our actions, both individually and socially. Note the above section that i have italicised. We can argue for ever about where the concept of human rights come from, but it is very clear what happens whenever we try to suggest that they don't apply to all, regardless of any selector you wish to name.

LotusSong -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:17:20 AM)
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet "I'd rather believe in God and find there is not one,than to not believe and find out there is." (not my quote but I can't remember who's it is) "Skepticism is for those that fear to be wrong" - LotusSong

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:19:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong "Skepticism is for those that fear to be wrong" - LotusSong ...and here was me thinking that skepticism was for those who don't accept that trust is the same as truth.......[:D]

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:24:45 AM)
Well Lotus, I'd rather believe my senses, the evidence and my reason. If it eventually turns out that reasoning happens to be God given, He and I can have a good laugh about it, after he explains the joke. I would hope He'd be pleased that I made proper use of the intellectual tools He gave me, instead of submitting to superstitious faith. Z.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:30:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ........the history of humanity is about learning to see consequences to our actions, both individually and socially. Note the above section that i have italicised. We can argue for ever about where the concept of human rights come from, but it is very clear what happens whenever we try to suggest that they don't apply to all, regardless of any selector you wish to name. I'm not trying to assess the consequences of ignoring long-accepted rights. I'm simply telling you what they are. They are state-supported legalities, much like the United Nations [;)] For example, the rights you assert to be intrisincally human, presumably including the right to life-sustaining health care (or at least the right to live without others threatening one's life) does not apply to a fetus in most of the Western world. No one would argue that the fetus is not human, the genetic code marks it as such. However, the rights accorded humans after birth are not applied to a fetus in the womb. I am not arguing the right or wrong of this, only pointing out it is a fallacy to argue that there is something intrinsic about human rights. Rights are given out by the state because it is the state that is expected to defend those rights.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:34:03 AM)
...we shall have to agree to disagree then Bob. My take on this is that the concept of human rights are not the preserve of a single state, rather that they come from a global perspective. Say Turkey decides that writing about the Armenian Genocide is embarassing so it outlaws it. It's an internal law so how can it be criticised unless we have a broader standard to measure it by?

JerryFrankster -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:48:06 AM)
If God is love, and you believe in love, but not God, couldn't it be said that you do believe in God, but are unaware of it. You can't prove or disprove the existence of love anymore than God. You can only believe that it does exist, does not exist, or that you don't really know. Personally, I'm agnostic both ways.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 12:03:20 PM)
Jerry - Defining the ethereal in terms of the ambiguous is a semantic exercise, not a logical process. Z>

JerryFrankster -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 12:22:16 PM)
It's an unproveable if:then logic statement. Logic without conclusion, like trying to discuss the existence of God.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 1:32:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...we shall have to agree to disagree then Bob. My take on this is that the concept of human rights are not the preserve of a single state, rather that they come from a global perspective. Say Turkey decides that writing about the Armenian Genocide is embarassing so it outlaws it. It's an internal law so how can it be criticised unless we have a broader standard to measure it by? What "broader standard" would you like to use: Chinese Neo-Marxist or Chinese Maoist, Czarist Russia or Stalin's Soviet Union, Bush's America or Lincoln's? Would you like the standard that most people live under today, or the standard that applied to the most humans who have ever lived since humanity began? This is the problem of positing a broader standard, there are so many to choose from that the result is an arbitrary act reflecting your personal views and not something universally accepted.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 1:41:03 PM)
What I said, Jerry, was that you were playing a game of rearranging symbols. One symbol, god, defies definition, even by the faithful. The other, love, is so broad, vague and personal as to be useless in the task of describing anything, let alone something undefinable. Like trying to contain a fog inside a mist. A logical process does not need a conclusion to be logical. Z.

domiguy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 1:44:28 PM)
If there were no death there would be no religion...I believe I'm going to live forever. You can worship me if you please. You still are going to be fucked one way or the other. Just do the best you can today. Leave tomorrow for those who can't grasp what they should be doing today.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 2:05:47 PM)
Oh be fair Bob.....i've been consistent, both on this thread and these fora in general. The broad standard i'd apply is the UN declaration of Human Rights.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 2:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Oh be fair Bob.....i've been consistent, both on this thread and these fora in general. The broad standard i'd apply is the UN declaration of Human Rights. Sorry Phil, but not having followed you around, I was unaware of this. Nonetheless, this is an arbitrary choice on your part. Many would turn to the bible (or Qu'ran, or the Vedas, etc) to decide what rights humans have. For example, in Canada murderers have a right to continue living and not be executed by the state. However, in America this right does not exist. And the UN equivocates: quote: PART III Article 6 Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court. Everyone has an inherent right to life, except those who live in countries where the death penalty has not been abolished. Obviously, they must be less than human as they do not have an inherent right to life like the humans in my country. So just what does the UN declare to be an intrinsic right of humanity: a right to life, or a right to be executed by the state? on edit: I should have mentioned that according to the UN, humans under 18 should have more rights than those 18 or over, and that pregnant women have more rights than anyone other than those under 18. So there are four different types of humans enjoying different kinds of rights not enjoyed by the others. Shall I get into protections for homosexuals?

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875