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 (2/21/2008 4:21:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad 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. That's a misleading stretch. The League of Nations was a essentially a cabal of the captains of industry in the victorious nations of WW1 ganging up on the loosers to get their money back. The result, WW2. Reparations were their main focus, not human rights or political stability. So how about a list of functional ecumenical bodies that could define and enforce human rights globally? How about a list of one? If a secular forum is not the answer lets hear some concrete proposals from the religious side of the fence. It's all well and good to nit pick the blankets on this stall; lets see your goods. Z

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 4:26:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed 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. You mean like you just side stepped that question and ignored my rebuttals to your earlier points? You and Aswad are throwing up a lot of chaff but I don't see much wheat. Burden of proof applies to you two also, Bob Z.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 4:34:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee You mean like you just side stepped that question and ignored my rebuttals to your earlier points? You and Aswad are throwing up a lot of chaff but I don't see much wheat. Burden of proof applies to you two also, Bob I was unaware you'd addressed anything my way, Z. I will attend to it immediately.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 4:54:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee 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. And in this context, the fact remains that the quality of evidence or justification for beliefs is, in the final analysis, arbitrary- regardless of whether the beliefs are secular or not. There are no intrinsic qualities that inherently justify human rights, and indeed their pan-national acceptance is out of convenience. Describing them as random may not be apt, depending on your views on determinism, but they are merely the product of their time, not anything universally accepted or inherently human that it has simply taken us 200.000 years to come up with. If humans are still around come the next millenium, they will likely regard our present standards as being just as arbitrary and unjust as we now view the standards of the previous millenium. The convenience of government acceptance (I would actually say that pan-governmental is more apt than pan-national) does not provide evidence or justification for the notion that these human rights are universal or intrinsic, and certainly not for the differentiation between humans made therein. While the assertion has not been made, I would also point out that neither is there evidence or justification for these being the totality of human rights, which also supports the notion that they are fairly arbitrary. Perhaps I have used the word incorrectly. It wouldn't be the first time. If so, my apologies. I'd welcome a better word, if there is one; "subjective" seems inadequate. quote: Discussing common, human affairs in a secular forum is not an arbitrary choice. It is the most fair and respectful choice. Provided the secular forum is secular in the sense of being devoid of religious bias, that may well be the case. If it means being biased toward secularity, that's a different matter. Sort of like atheism vs materialism. quote: Create some sort of ecumenical / secular Frankenforum - good luck making that fly too. Heh... that's an inherently human thing, more than anything else. Try inviting secular people with a radically different viewpoint, and see the thing come crashing down just as fast. Try inviting religious people who understand the value of cooperation and respect for other people's views and choices, and it works just as well as with secular people. It's a matter of the distance in viewpoints, the ability to focus on the common ground, and the ability to keep an open mind. I have not experienced my religious views as interfering with my ability to reach agreement with others, or my ability to cooperate with others, even in the face of differences of opinion. quote: Both are thankfully unnecessary. We have a forum for discussing international issues of common, human concern. It's called the UN. Quite. And its efficacy is rather disputed. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 5:02:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee If a secular forum is not the answer lets hear some concrete proposals from the religious side of the fence. It's all well and good to nit pick the blankets on this stall; lets see your goods. I support the isolationist position. Limit the global body to a mutual defense alliance that secures individual states' rights to do as they see fit, regardless of whether that conforms to our morals and sensibilities, except insofar as those actions extend past the border of said state to cover the citizens and/or territory of another state. Let the morally concerned campaign for change if they wish, but don't make rights and such an international matter. Constructing a system to enforce global conformity is little more than global oppression. Suppress conflict between states, sure, but don't interfere with the internal affairs of states. Health, al-Aswad.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 5:04:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee 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. Religious beliefs as taught in the temples are more likely to take root and influence decisions because they are taught from birth until a child is old enough not to attend lessons, assuming it is his desire not to attend. And keep in mind we are speaking of all of the world's religious, not just one or two religions. There are many patterns of involvement with religion and not all of them are as lax as many christian denominations. quote: 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. Are you positing such a thing as an "ideal meeting ground" where humans can negotiate their differences? I would posit that nations sharing a religion are better able to negotiate under the guidance of their religious leaders: a final authority and arbiter they can all agree upon. Quite simply, theocracies will not adopt secular systems, and thus you are left with the problem you thought a secular system would solve. quote: 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. And when would a religious person turn off his religious beliefs when dealing with ethical issues? quote: Surely basic human rights are a common concern for those who cherish them, regardless of spiritual belief and practice. First rule of ethics is there are no constants. When you speak of rights you are speaking of privileges which the state grants and guarantees to some degree. The state can take them away (declaring martial law), or refuse to act. What then becomes of "rights"? quote: That's not arbitrary, that's respectful and practical. It would seem so because you haven't really said anything beyond a vague platitude. At some point in spelling out those rules we all end up disrespecting someone, and creating ideals that cannot be practically enforced. After all, why do we need rules unless we believe there are those who are breaking them, and if that is true, how will our rules show them respect? Now change the viewpoint to those who are deemed to be breaking the rules. They have their own arguments for their own rules, and from their point of view your insistence they are breaking rules is a breaking of their rules. The problem with ethics is it is so pov-dependant. To claim there are absolutes is fool-hardy, in my opinion. quote: 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? Would those be the same legislatures that have been corrupted by donations from big business? The ones who catered to the religious right in America for quite some time now? The ones like the 'Coalition of the Willing' who were largely bribed by America despite the beliefs and wishes of their own electorates? Ethics is never that simple.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 5:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee You and Aswad are throwing up a lot of chaff but I don't see much wheat. Burden of proof applies to you two also, Bob Right. The burden of proof usually lies with the one forwarding a position. The position has been forwarded that human rights are intrinsic and universal, among other things. Now, how about offering some support for the notion that there are moral absolutes and rights that are intrinsic to humans, yet have miraculously escaped our discovery for the past 200.000 years or so? Even more interestingly, how about offering some support for the notion that the UN declaration of human rights embodies such intrinsic and universal human rights as are posited to exist, despite the reservation that they retain the right to determine what is a correct interpretation and exercise of these rights (much as a priesthood usually will, I might add), and that they also differentiate between humans in the body of the declaration? Health, al-Aswad.

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 7:42:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm just not going to push the point on you. Now, this is something to make me question my sanity. [;)] I mean no offense, but haven't you spent a bunch of time on these boards doing exactly that? The intent in pushing a point was progress. Still, I'm finding my approach of debating people into the ground simply isn't very effective. I mean, sure, I'm right, but what's the matter when it just scares them more? Besides. I was just being emo out of intellectual loneliness, acting as if others owed me the effort of thinking rationally. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It's almost like these robotic matrices which I'm crunching in my lap (hence the late night) are child's play next to these grand philosophical questions. Philosophy contains irreducable problems, including antinomies. Robotics are a more tangible and reducable problem. Doesn't make either more grand than the other. Just makes one more difficult than the other. Your poetry read too far into my idiom. :P

brainiacsub -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 8:05:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub I cannot prostitute my common sense and better judgement for the sake of faith, no matter how badly I might need it. Common sense is little more than the prejudices (a.k.a. beliefs) accumulated by adulthood. Every time you make a decision without relying exlusively on proven data, you are making a leap of faith. Every time you make a value judgment, consult your sense of morals, or a bunch of other things, you rely on faith. What differentiates this from Spinoza's notions of faith, or those of Einstein? Nothing. The thing is that there are different beliefs out there, and the bulk of what humans base their lives on comes down to belief. Some such beliefs are organized into systems. All cultures, philosophies, mythologies and religions are collections of beliefs and practices that center on them. This includes secular humanism and no-soul Buddhism. You can't really escape some form of belief and still be human. Which is not to say that such beliefs need to include a bunch of stuff about afterlives, divine intervention or whatever. But it seems somewhat inaccurate to imply that Einstein prostituted his bettter judgment for the sake of faith, for instance. And it also seems more than a tad like trauma based reasoning (typical of lapsed Christians, or really any people who have come from some kind of background that they distance themselves from) to assert that it constitutes prostitution or irrationality for people to hold beliefs that are no less supported than the ones you base your day-to-day living on, just because they find some utility in theirs that yours cannot provide you with. quote: In spite of all the atrocities committed in the name of religion, at times it serves its purpose well. Correct. Care to speculate on its purpose? quote: The roots of religion begin in antiquity, with the belief that there will be justice in the afterlife where there is no justice here on earth. Which is non-productive. It consigns people to inaction, to not correcting what is flawed here and now. quote: I am envious of those who live such bliss... There is nothing blissful about a rational approach to religion; if anything, quite the contrary. What you are envious of, is lack of thinking, close-mindedness and contentment. Personally, I fail to see anything to envy about that. Health, al-Aswad. Aswad, if you will re-read my original post, you will find that it was clear that my position and lack of faith was restricted to the belief in God and an afterlife. I bolded your own words above to support my position. My post mentions nothing of lack of faith in non-religious matters. It is amazing to me how many people over the years have tried to convince me that my lack of belief must somehow be wrong because Einstein was a Deist. I made no such claim that he prostituted his judgement for the sake of belief. I only stated that I would not. I can give you the names of many great thinkers equal to Einstein who subscribed to my position. It means nothing. As for speculation on the utility of religion, I gave you two great examples in my original post. I am not envious of "lack of thinking, close-mindedness and contentment." If you read my post, it would be clear that I am envious of those who can take comfort in what religion has to offer, in spite of the fact that there is no underlying truth to their beliefs beyond what they have created for themselves.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:24:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The intent in pushing a point was progress. May I suggest that a better definition of progress may be to simply open people's minds to the possibility of being wrong? «You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyway.» When I argue on the boards, it is rarely with the intent to sway opinions. Far more commonly, the point is to inspire thought or (at best) open people's minds to different perceptions (think of it as dilation play, except the mind is the opening being targetted; unlike physical ones, it rarely shrinks back to its original size), or to test my own views in the hopes that I may find flaws in them and correct those flaws (or simply find them expanded). Pushing a point is pointless, as I don't seek to control other people's lives or thoughts. quote: Besides. I was just being emo out of intellectual loneliness, acting as if others owed me the effort of thinking rationally. Religious beliefs are not incompatible with rational thought. Blind faith, however, is- regardless of whether it is secular or religious. In any case, one must bear in mind that not everyone is wired to think the same way. One of the cool bits about any form of government, including organized religion, is that you can use it to direct those who are looking for direction. Consider it a biological mandate, if you will. Organized religion also offers the option (rarely, if ever taken) of using it to find those that have a similar inclination as to ways to think and question, and to move them to a place where their thinking and questioning can be beneficial to others beside themselves. A cynical way to think, perhaps, but if it weren't for this aspect of human wiring, religious practice would never have become organized to begin with. People would've simply been spiritual or secular on a personal basis. But that's probably a topic for CMail or oblivion. quote: Your poetry read too far into my idiom. :P Quite possibly so. Health, al-Aswad.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:31:50 PM)
"So how about a list of functional ecumenical bodies that could define and enforce human rights globally? How about a list of one? If a secular forum is not the answer lets hear some concrete proposals from the religious side of the fence. " Theoretically any "ecumenical body" (setting aside that is only one form of religion) could. Theoretically, any secular body could also. None have yet. The idea that the UN "defines and ENFORCES human rights globaly" is simply wrong. Dangerously wrong. Policy based on pretending the UN is something other than what it is is very dangerous. A treaty signed by horrible human rights abusers, because massive aid packages depended on it, means nothing. And is not intrinisic or universal in anyway. That is a real example of a meaningless Coalition of the Paid. China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and other marxist devloping nations have long asserted that Human rights means a stable society, food and health care...not Political, Economic, Social or Intellectuall Freedom. Their definition is cynically used by tyrants all over the world. The UN is a great confrence hall, but honestly there is no need for it. Nations could easily find ways to talk. There are a few operations it does well, WHO, and most of the time UNICEF. It needs a serious re-orginization.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:33:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Aswad, if you will re-read my original post, you will find that it was clear that my position and lack of faith was restricted to the belief in God and an afterlife. I bolded your own words above to support my position. My post mentions nothing of lack of faith in non-religious matters. And my point was that there is no substantial difference between secular constructs and religious constructs, in that they are both constructs. quote: It is amazing to me how many people over the years have tried to convince me that my lack of belief must somehow be wrong because Einstein was a Deist. It was an illustrative example used in connection with my reading of your position, not an argument. I am not fond of the appeal to authority fallacy myself. quote: I am not envious of "lack of thinking, close-mindedness and contentment." If you read my post, it would be clear that I am envious of those who can take comfort in what religion has to offer, in spite of the fact that there is no underlying truth to their beliefs beyond what they have created for themselves. Ah, but without blind faith, you're back to square one. My belief in a between-lives does not offer comfort, because I fully realize that this belief is not provable, and because it still sucks just as much to be without the company of those I have lost. In my experience- arguably not unlimited, but still not insignificant in scope- it's pretty much those with blind faith that have what you envy. And blind faith pretty much fits the bill of "lack of thinking, close-mindedness and contentment," wouldn't you say? Health, al-Aswad.

knees2you -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:42:26 PM)
quote: Religious beliefs as taught in the temples are more likely to take root and influence decisions because they are taught from birth until a child is old enough not to attend lessons, assuming it is his desire not to attend. And keep in mind we are speaking of all of the world's religious, not just one or two religions. There are many patterns of involvement with religion and not all of them are as lax as many christian denominations. *Excellent point!* *I believe people don't like believing that The Christian God exsists, because God says it is His way* *or no way[sm=book.gif]! Not that you can believe in something else, and He wouldn't care?* *As Always, ant[sm=idea.gif]*

brainiacsub -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 11:37:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Aswad, if you will re-read my original post, you will find that it was clear that my position and lack of faith was restricted to the belief in God and an afterlife. I bolded your own words above to support my position. My post mentions nothing of lack of faith in non-religious matters. And my point was that there is no substantial difference between secular constructs and religious constructs, in that they are both constructs. My faith in secular constructs exists only to the extent that those constructs are useful. Religion is of no use to me. Constructs of any ilk are valid only as long as they are useful. That is the difference.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:18:00 AM)
Just in passing, as much of what is currently under discussion is already plowed ground and/or off-topic for this thread... I think it's immoral to indoctrinate children religiously. It robs them of choice and usually means they have to undo the damage before they can actually start thinking for themselves again. Most don't even get as far as undoing the damage done to them, that being the point of early indoctrination - to create an unthinking adherent to the bullshit shoved down their throat from birth. Like Richard Dawkins, I also refuse to consider any child as belonging to a particular faith as it is almost never based on a choice on the part of the child.

Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 2:56:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad My notions of God entail a mind of sorts (I've discussed the meaning of the word "mind" with you in the past, so you probably get that this doesn't necessarily correspond to anything most people can relate to) The Divine is aware, but cannot on its own initiative intervene and direct in the affairs of the universe. Human incarnations of aspects of the Divine - being part of our universe; i.e. gods - can and do. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad an ability to interact with the world to an extent that I am not certain of the scope of. Generally to the extent that it is possible and feasible. In the arctic one may wish to encounter an ice bear and it is feasible for the Divine to make it happen. In the Sahara one may wish for the same, but there the Divine is unable to grant the wish; instead it may provide a dud response: the wishing person may stumble across a discarded magazine with an article about ice bears. In very rare instances the fabric of the universe itself may rift apart and a direct intervention occur. I have read about only two such miracles. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad I fully realize that this entails being part of the same causal network as the observable universe. It does not. Synchronicity functions acausally. The Divine 'exists' 'outside' our universe. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad I also do not posit omnipotence, The Divine is omnipotent within the limits of feasibility. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad and if there is omniscience (which I'm not at all certain of), then I believe it to be confined to the present and past. The Divine is omniscient. Among the incarnate gods the Creator is pretty much omniscient in the sense of being able to discern truths, not in the sense of knowing what each of us individually had for breakfast. I suspect that the past is not written in stone. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad I do not ascribe human labels such as "'good" to this entity, although I believe there is potential for (mutually?) gainful interaction. The Divine is neutral, impartial, everything and therefore nothing. It are the incarnate gods that embody the various virtues. The Creator among those representing good, and Satan ...

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:32:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Most don't even get as far as undoing the damage done to them, that being the point of early indoctrination - to create an unthinking adherent to the bullshit shoved down their throat from birth. Like Richard Dawkins, I also refuse to consider any child as belonging to a particular faith as it is almost never based on a choice on the part of the child. So so true. People aren't born religious, they are brainwashed into a religion. One of the biggest laughs I have is when people who consider themselves mainstream, ie. indoctrinated into a mainstream faith, they do not consider themselves indoctrinated but don't find it difficult to accuse people in upstart, johnny come lately religions, as indoctrinated into a cult. The mind boggles.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:02:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I think it's immoral to indoctrinate children religiously. Children are indoctrinated from birth, whether it is in a religious home or a secular one. Upon what objective standard of morality do you decide it is okay to indoctrinate them into one, but not the other?

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 5:35:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I think it's immoral to indoctrinate children religiously. It robs them of choice and usually means they have to undo the damage before they can actually start thinking for themselves again. Most don't even get as far as undoing the damage done to them, that being the point of early indoctrination - to create an unthinking adherent to the bullshit shoved down their throat from birth. Right... but, you see, to eliminate indoctrination has been tried... such experiments are considered unethical. The closest thing you get to an unindoctrinated child is a feral child, prior to contact with humans. It's not a secular/religious thing, and open-mindedness is a heritable trait in twin studies. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 5:45:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule The Divine is aware, but cannot on its own initiative intervene and direct in the affairs of the universe. Human incarnations of aspects of the Divine - being part of our universe; i.e. gods - can and do. I was never discussing any The Divine... I was discussing my notions of my god... I'm a henotheist. quote: It does not. Synchronicity functions acausally. The Divine 'exists' 'outside' our universe. You need to read more on karma. If there are inputs (awareness) and output (influence) and the entity is not immutable and stateless (dead or non-existent), then the connection entails a causal connection. Which is not to say that the causal relationship needs to be one that is consistently observable under controlled conditions, but to posit that it is not causally connected is to ignore the meaning of what causal connectivity is about. It's the foundation of the original karmic principle: the network of causal connection, centered on oneself. quote: The Divine is omniscient. Among the incarnate gods the Creator is pretty much omniscient in the sense of being able to discern truths, not in the sense of knowing what each of us individually had for breakfast. Depending on the truths you reference, that may well make me omniscient, so how about a better definition? [:D] quote: I suspect that the past is not written in stone. Barring the ability to directly perceive it, I couldn't comment either way. Visual perception is limited to the now, and to light with delayed propagation. quote: The Creator among those representing good, and Satan ... ...representing critical thinking? [;)] Seriously, though, our paradigms differ. Health, al-Aswad.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875