RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

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

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

Message

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 2:52:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Nonetheless, this is an arbitrary choice on your part. ..pardon me? How the hell would you know why i chose this standard? It certainly wasn't an arbitrary choice. It's the only secular, pan-national standard. So not an arbitrary choice, but a completely conscious one. Please stop pretending you can read my mind....you can't.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 2:58:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Nonetheless, this is an arbitrary choice on your part. ..pardon me? How the hell would you know why i chose this standard? It certainly wasn't an arbitrary choice. It's the only secular, pan-national standard. So not an arbitrary choice, but a completely conscious one. Please stop pretending you can read my mind....you can't. "Arbitrary" in that there is no objective, demonstrable evidence its claims have greater validity than anyone else's. Why assert that a "secular" standard is superior to a non-secular standard? Why assert that a "pan-national" standard is superior to a personal standard? I accept that you believe them superior, but a belief does not represent convincing demonstrable evidence to support itself.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:02:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Why assert that a "secular" standard is superior to a non-secular standard? ...because then it doesn't exclude some people because they believe in the 'wrong' religion.... quote: Why assert that a "pan-national" standard is superior to a personal standard? ....because then it can be used to hold governments to account.... quote: I accept that you believe them superior, but a belief does not represent convincing demonstrable evidence to support itself. ....design an experiment that will provide such evidence. If that's impossible then we have to fall back on first principles. So far, as far as i know, there is no mathematics that can reliably predict human relations.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:07:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Why assert that a "secular" standard is superior to a non-secular standard? ...because then it doesn't exclude some people because they believe in the 'wrong' religion.... ...which disrespects the vast majority of people on this planet who subscribe to the standards of the religion they believe to be true. The vast majority of humans are religious, not secular. Ergo choosing a secular standard to govern a religious people is arbitrary. quote: quote: Why assert that a "pan-national" standard is superior to a personal standard? ....because then it can be used to hold governments to account.... Used by who, and in what way? quote: quote: I accept that you believe them superior, but a belief does not represent convincing demonstrable evidence to support itself. ....design an experiment that will provide such evidence. If that's impossible then we have to fall back on first principles. So far, as far as i know, there is no mathematics that can reliably predict human relations. Indeed, which makes all such beliefs arbitrary, as no one can prove the efficacy of his standard over others.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:12:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed 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. That's a limitation of our current ability to observe, it seems. quote: Welcome to the Matrix [;)] Yeah, those movies weren't particularly impressive, except for the visuals. A guy I might be inclined to describe the village idiot pretty much summarized the basic premise of those movies back in high school. quote: And essentially that is what the spiritual experience is all about. Part of it, but by no means all of it. quote: You will need to wait a generation or more for that to work, my friend [;)] I was born before Sputnik [:D] I'm not sure why that would prevent you from pondering it. [;)] It's just a different perspective on the present, not a comment on the futture. Health, al-Aswad.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:13:33 PM)
So, holding religious types to a secular standard is arbitrary? What if their religious practise involves female circumcision? Ought not that type of behaviour be subject to secular standards? i.e. law? Bad principle to offer there Bob, it opens the door to a whole bunch of behaviours. Like that religious chap who thought bombing abortion clinics was a Godly thing. That's why i choose a secular standard. It does not discriminate.....all are equal under it. As to holding governments to account.....if there is an objective code of behaviour for governments then the international community have an ethical position to work from. Right now we just have narrow national interest masquerading as morality. As to your last point.....the end point of that logic is intellectual apathy. Nothing can be proved, so nothing should be done. That may suffice for you.....but not for me.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:23:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy .....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. I know. I was just clarifying, as some will occasionally read that into it and thus take offense at something that was never said. quote: You have still missed the point. I did get the point that human rights do not come from some sort of god. I merely commented that neither are they inherent in any other way. We have constructed them and enforced them; that is all. They are not an intrinsic property of being human. Just something that we project on humans. quote: DCnovice was told...."One can describe human rights without appeal to a Creator."......they then typed, "Please do. Where do those rights come from?". A valid question, as such. quote: Now if human rights are a function of being human they apply to all humans. But they are not. Which does not prevent us from applying them to all humans. quote: If they come from some sort of God then one can exclude some humans from having such rights for religious reasons. I'm well aware of that. A projection that is contingent on something more than merely being human does not extend the benefits of that projection to everyone, whereas one that is contingent only on being human (which is different from being a function of being human, or inherent in being human) will extend to everyone. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is again a matter of morality, which again is a matter of an arbitrary decision or an inherited arbitrary decision. Exclusion can still happen with a secular approach, as it has in the past. Note also that provisions for exclusion are included in the UN declaration of human rights, which specifically states that these rights cannot and should not be exercised contrary to the decisions of the UN. Granted, there is a difference between the UN and God, or even the UN and a priesthood, but the latter difference is not inherently so large as one might think. quote: That is the dangerous road to go down, that is the road that leads to self righteous violence. It's no more dangerous than any of the other paths that lead to the same. Othering is something humans do, always have done, and probably always will do. They simply don't need the excuse of religion to do it, although that excuse has been used. Such uses have pretty universally been contrary to the tenets of the relevant religions, however. quote: 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. It's not a debating tactic, but merely pointing out that the argument is circular to some extent, or at least a tautology. You weren't making your main point to begin with, and part of the problem was that statement. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:25:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Philo identified the source of human rights as an idea about humans originating from humans. He clearly failed to communicate that idea to both me and dcnovice, then. I have no objection to the idea, and have stated that exact thing myself, repeatedly. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:28:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee 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. Such has been a basic tenet of my religious beliefs for a long time. I hope we'll get a chance to laugh about it together, but my life is not lived contingent on an assumption that we will. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:30:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy It's an internal law so how can it be criticised unless we have a broader standard to measure it by? Does it need to be? Health, al-Aswad.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed The vast majority of humans are religious, not secular. Ergo choosing a secular standard to govern a religious people is arbitrary. They may identify with their religion of birth but that does not necessarily make them religious or compel their politics. Nor does it make religion the ideal meeting ground for negotiating the pragmatic concerns within or between faiths or between nations identifying with a faith or between nonreligious and religious nations. The obvious meeting place for pragmatic negotiation and agreement on common interests would seem to be a secular forum, where all beliefs are equal by virtue of being excluded as terms of reference. Surely basic human rights are a common concern for those who cherish them, regardless of spiritual belief and practice. That's not arbitrary, that's respectful and practical. quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Used by who, and in what way? Used by the electors, of course, through their legislatures and representatives. How did you imagine? From a secular pulpit? Z.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy How the hell would you know why i chose this standard? He doesn't need to. Even a conscious choice can be arbitrary. And a choice of standards is arbitrary. Granted, it's an arbitrary choice that many people have agreed to, but there's no more substance to it than if we all agreed to say that humans have no rights at all. The content of the choice is arbitrary. Nobody is asserting that it's not currently agreed upon by most. We're just asserting that that's all there is to it: agreement. Health, al-Aswad.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:45:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy So, holding religious types to a secular standard is arbitrary? Just as holding secular types to a religious standard is also arbitrary. quote: What if their religious practise involves female circumcision? Ought not that type of behaviour be subject to secular standards? i.e. law? And if it is held to be legal in the countries where it is practised, does that make it "right"? quote: Bad principle to offer there Bob, it opens the door to a whole bunch of behaviours. Like that religious chap who thought bombing abortion clinics was a Godly thing. That's why i choose a secular standard. It does not discriminate.....all are equal under it. Such as the equality of race under the secular laws of the Third Reich? What about the secular council that legalized slavery in America with the writing of the Constitution? Or the same council that forbade women the vote? Secular standards are no more immune to bias and arbitrariness than anyone else's. quote: As to holding governments to account.....if there is an objective code of behaviour for governments then the international community have an ethical position to work from. Right now we just have narrow national interest masquerading as morality. As to your last point.....the end point of that logic is intellectual apathy. Nothing can be proved, so nothing should be done. That may suffice for you.....but not for me. What worries me are people who in their self-righteous need to do something start pulling claims out of thin air that their standard is somehow intrinsically superior to mine or anyone else's. There is no inalienable right to govern others, yet some assume there is and that their standard should apply to everyone else.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:47:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...because then it doesn't exclude some people because they believe in the 'wrong' religion.... Yes, but what is the difference between a non-secular standard that extends the same rights to non-believers and a secular standard that does so? The point that has been forwarded is that the problem is not that these standards are non-secular, but that the standards differentiate between humans. Which is also done by the UN declarations of human rights. You're positing an arbitrary criterion of exclusion as being bad, while other arbitrary criterion of exclusion are not given the same treatment. My own non-secular notions extend the same considerations to people who do not share my faith. If my faith ever becomes a church, it will still extend those considerations to others, unless it is usurped and abused contrary to the tenets of the faith. Similarly, if the UN is usurped, their provisions for exclusion can also be used in a manner contrary to the spirit of the text, and contrary to the intentions of those who penned it. Secularity is not the distinguishing point here. quote: ....because then it can be used to hold governments to account.... In theory, yes. In practice, jungle law reigns. The US violates the UN declaration of human rights on a regular basis, and is not taken to task for it. In fact, with its predecessor, the argument was made that the "other" nations needed to understand that the comment about moral relativism applied to "other" nations' moral relativism, not Western moral relativism, which wasn't considered relative, after all, since it was in line with Western thought. No doubt it would surprise these people to learn that "other" nations' relativism is just the same in their frame of reference. Health, al-Aswad.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:51:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Yes, but what is the difference between a non-secular standard that extends the same rights to non-believers and a secular standard that does so? ...none at all...now give an example of a religion that extends the same rights to non-believers or other-believers as it does to those who do believe.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:58:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy What if their religious practise involves female circumcision? What if a secular practice involves intersex genital mutilation (the West does this)? What if a secular practice involves male circumcision (this isn't uncommon, even among non-Jews)? What if a secular practice involves the option for parents to choose to kill their offspring up to the 16th week of life? quote: Ought not that type of behaviour be subject to secular standards? i.e. law? That practice, and others, have- at times- been condoned by secular standards in the form of law. quote: Bad principle to offer there Bob, it opens the door to a whole bunch of behaviours. Well, gee... how horrible... not prohibiting people from believing differently than you, or practicing differently than you? Unbelievers, the lot of us... time to call a fatwa or something of the sort, wouldn't you say? Oh, wait, they call those "resolutions" in the UN. quote: Like that religious chap who thought bombing abortion clinics was a Godly thing. Or those atheists who have thought ethnic cleansing to be a "good" thing. quote: That's why i choose a secular standard. It does not discriminate.....all are equal under it. Actually, no. Not everyone is equal under it, as Bob pointed out. And equal oppression is still oppression- you can't disavow these "inalienable" rights. Bear in mind that atheists will frequently posit that the problem with non-secular standards is exactly that they're applied to those that don't subscribe to them. Which makes it an amusing hypocrisy to state that a standard should be chosen that is applied to everyone, regardless of whether they subscribe to the standard or not. quote: As to your last point.....the end point of that logic is intellectual apathy. It's called nihilism, and it's a choice. quote: Nothing can be proved, so nothing should be done. No. Nothing can be proved, but things can still be *decided, and actions can be taken based on those decisions. quote:* That may suffice for you.....but not for me. So you have chosen to have faith. A secular faith, of course, but a faith nonetheless. And as far as I can tell by your posting, you're zealous about it. Care to explain how that is objectively anything other than a matter of choice? Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 4:00:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Used by the electors, of course, through their legislatures and representatives. How did you imagine? From a secular pulpit? That was tried. It was called the League of Nations. It was a resounding failure. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 4:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...none at all...now give an example of a religion that extends the same rights to non-believers or other-believers as it does to those who do believe. Mine. Health, al-Aswad.

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 4:09:32 PM)
The word arbitrary is sure getting a shit kicking on this thread. Arbitrary has specific legal meanings but in the context of this discussion it is being used to describe the quality of evidence or justification for a particular belief. In essence it means choice by random chance or out of convenience or without regard for the intrinsic qualities of the possibilities. Discussing common, human affairs in a secular forum is not an arbitrary choice. It is the most fair and respectful choice. The alternatives? Pick one religion as arbiter - that won't fly. Create some sort of ecumenical / secular Frankenforum - good luck making that fly too. Both are thankfully unnecessary. We have a forum for discussing international issues of common, human concern. It's called the UN. Z.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 4:09:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Yes, but what is the difference between a non-secular standard that extends the same rights to non-believers and a secular standard that does so? ...none at all...now give an example of a religion that extends the same rights to non-believers or other-believers as it does to those who do believe. lol naaahnanananaah, you don't get to walk away that easily. [;)] Aswad wrote: quote: The point that has been forwarded is that the problem is not that these standards are non-secular, but that the standards differentiate between humans. Which is also done by the UN declarations of human rights. You're positing an arbitrary criterion of exclusion as being bad, while other arbitrary criterion of exclusion are not given the same treatment. In Post 360 I said: quote: 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? Now Phil, several times now you've managed to dance away from all this evidence that the standard you support is indeed an arbitrary one, based on political realities and not idealistic, intrinsic "rights". Yet you've been holding it up as the ideal standard to use to coerce governments into abiding by the standard. Let's address the issue, shall we? This standard is a political construct, not an intrinsic one any human would recognize as valid. I certainly do -not- subscribe to the idea that execution is "right" anywhere, let alone in countries where the practice is legal. By my standard, yours (the UN's) is sub-standard. By my standard, gays have equal rights to straights, including marriage. Nowhere does your standard of choice address this, let alone the discouragement of hatred against homosexuals: quote: Article 20 Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. Article 21 The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Let me clear that up a bit: Article 20 says nothing about promoting hatred against homosexuals, so the UN is cool with that. Article 21 makes clear that the "right of peaceful assembly" if deemed necessary by law for the sake of "morals", may be ignored. So much for the Pride Day parades, and whatever other peaceful assemblies the powers that be deem morally corrupt, such as munches and any other bdsm group activity. Are you -sure- you want to insist this is an intrinsic standard and not an arbitrary one?

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125