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 (2/22/2008 12:43:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro The ethic of reciprocity has a twin: the law of the jungle. The law of the jungle is properly called a law (in the "natural law" sense), because it is what most ethics and all societies boil down to, to varying degrees. It doesn't exclude the possibility of the weak banding together in order to beat the strong. In fact, that's pretty much a given in modern society, although it remains an open question whether it works without some sort of authority figure or doctrine. The ethic of reciprocity isn't really related, though. Risk-benefit tradeoffs remain a factor, as does rage and a bunch of other stuff. Health, al-Aswad.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:49:41 PM)
It would be nice if people could be a little more objective in defining their "objective standards" [:D] Objective: 1. existing independantly of perception or an individual's conceptions. 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias. 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughs, feelings, etc. quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro The ethic of reciprocity is almost self-evident. If anyone ever feels like testing it out they find out in short order that punching someone in the face can result in that person beating one almost to death. Generally speaking, if one wishes for personal safety one starts by first not doing any harm to others - don't hit, don't get hit in return. Almost every other ethic is based upon this first observation alone. And that's an objective standard, not subjective. The experience is almost universal. Religion? I don't need it and don't want it. When people tell me about eternal salvation or pie in the sky, I check for my wallet.

caitlyn -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:51:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro But no, I don't have some path to salvation nor do I drink the same kool-aid as most around here. I don't even need to respond ... that says it all.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Almost every Western ethic can be traced to Judeo-Christianity. That's the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christianity" per se - that's sloppy thinking on your part. I'll accept it as a kind of shorthand for two discreet and almost entirely dissimilar faith systems. But the idea that the Mosaic faiths don't have antecedents is absurd. Judaism was nothing but a hodgepodge of prior faith systems. Mesopotamian and Sumerian gobbledygook. Throw in Moloch the fire god because it's a good story... [8\|] Gee, ever heard of the code of Hammurabi? WTF? Is this a serious conversation for you, or are the rest of us supposed to take your idiotic assertions at face value?

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 12:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed It would be nice if people could be a little more objective in defining their "objective standards" [:D] Objective: 1. existing independantly of perception or an individual's conceptions. 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias. 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughs, feelings, etc. quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro The ethic of reciprocity is almost self-evident. If anyone ever feels like testing it out they find out in short order that punching someone in the face can result in that person beating one almost to death. Generally speaking, if one wishes for personal safety one starts by first not doing any harm to others - don't hit, don't get hit in return. Almost every other ethic is based upon this first observation alone. And that's an objective standard, not subjective. The experience is almost universal. Religion? I don't need it and don't want it. When people tell me about eternal salvation or pie in the sky, I check for my wallet. If I told you that Budgerigars were not only the most intelligent creatures on the planet but they also ruled your life, would you believe me? Because you are telling people who don't believe in god to believe in something crazier without any evidence at all.

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:01:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Almost every Western ethic can be traced to Judeo-Christianity. That's the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christianity" per se - that's sloppy thinking on your part. I'll accept it as a kind of shorthand for two discreet and almost entirely dissimilar faith systems. But the idea that the Mosaic faiths don't have antecedents is absurd. Judaism was nothing but a hodgepodge of prior faith systems. Mesopotamian and Sumerian gobbledygook. Throw in Moloch the fire god because it's a good story... [8\|] Gee, ever heard of the code of Hammurabi? WTF? Is this a serious conversation for you, or are the rest of us supposed to take your idiotic assertions at face value? Yep, its idiotic. We certainly didn't get the idea of equality of the sexes or democracy from the bible which require moral principles, though maybe we got the idea of genocide from the bible.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:03:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm afraid it wouldn't do as a definition, but as an instance? I'll assume this is what you meant. Correct. quote: Of course, we may differ in the view that religion is a bad thing. Clearly. quote: It serves me to have an environment in which it isn't perceived as an okay thing. Which works both ways. I've been around the block too many times to want to exclude everything from my world. quote: I mean, sure, even in such an environment with regards to rape or forced slavery, (this is, a hypothetical environment in which rape and forced slavery are okay) I could argue it's (rape/slavery/etc) a bad thing.. but how many people would care? Would it be the same, or are things seen as more acceptable due to their popularity? And what of children: will they hear intellectual arguments or the actions of society more loudly? And, perhaps most importantly: would it prevent the rape and oppression? History seems to indicate people wouldn't really give a damn, but that change can happen over time... both ways. quote: As with several other things, I hope to kill this one socially. To kill religion, sexism, racism, acceptance for rape, child abuse, and other sorts of things in the public eye. Which pretty much translates into evangelism or jihad, depending on how far you take it. quote: The world's still growing up. Hopefully, this brand of intellectual dishonesty can end in this age. For you, that is desireable. For the jihadists, the ideal is for Islam to be the only belief allowed. Personally, I'd rather fight for people's right to believe as they wish, secularly or not. Once you move past jungle law, it's all equally dishonest, intellectually. Health, al-Aswad.

Kirata -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:06:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord we may differ in the view that religion is a bad thing. Still, I'm of the opinion that it is. It serves me to have an environment in which it isn't perceived as an okay thing.... As with several other things, I hope to kill this one socially.... The world's still growing up. Hopefully, this brand of intellectual dishonesty can end in this age. I have no objection to dismissing belief in the particular notion of God that keeps popping up around here as 'Exhibit A', nor would I miss any of the several religions that preach such abysmally cruel nonsense. But ridding ourselves of one extreme does not automatically confer "intellectual honesty" on its opposite. There is nothing intellectually honest about promoting, purely on the basis of personal belief, the equally unproven claim of materialism. K.

caitlyn -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:09:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata But ridding ourselves of one extreme does not automatically confer "intellectual honesty" on its opposite. There is nothing intellectually honest about promoting, purely on the basis of personal belief, an equally unproven claim. Very well said, in my view ... and done very tactfully. I've learned something in the reading. [:D]

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:16:11 PM)
I'm not speaking of an ideal in which anything that might be somewhat related to something religion has taught to be outlawed, only the removal of the religous assumptions. I'd make a further argument that everything that's real conforms to materialism by definition. Material might not always be stoms (indeed, we know better already), but I never took the word to be limited to such. I think it's entirely dishonest to ignore materialism. (This is an argument I'd love to make as I feel such a view is very poorly misunderstood by most, so I'd like a chance to hear others' views on it.)

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:17:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata But ridding ourselves of one extreme does not automatically confer "intellectual honesty" on its opposite. There is nothing intellectually honest about promoting, purely on the basis of personal belief, an equally unproven claim. Very well said, in my view ... and done very tactfully. I've learned something in the reading. [:D] This is a muddying of the water all religious people like to do in an effort to discredit people who don't believe in god. People tend not to believe in god because they have never come across a reason to believe in god, eie. evidence. It is not an ideological position, it is a rational position. You wouldn't believe you had a second head on your shoulders just because someone says you have one on your shoulders, you would just dismiss their assertion as irrational or just a figment of their imagination, unless they produced evidence to the contrary. Though no doubt religious people woud say, the only none ideological position to theirs is to be agnostic about having two heads on ones shoulder but this is equally an illogical position to take because one would end up being agnostic to just ever fantastical and illogical idea while all the evidence points to us existing in a rational world. Believing in god is a faith, not believing in god is just a position taken through lack of reason and evidence to believe otherwise.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:19:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Contrast and compare these two doctrines..... [...] The latter is pretty much the gist of what my mum taught me. i suppose we can call it indoctrination, but compared to A) it's clearly a different sort of indoctrination. Then contrast and compare these two doctrines: A) Male children should be circumcised as soon as their health allows. B) Intersex children should be assigned a gender immediately, based on surgical convenience. The former is practiced by Jews, the latter by secular Humanists. Care to provide an argument for either that does not hold equally well for the other when reduced to basic principles? Health, al-Aswad. ...i will do you the courtesy of answering your question when you answer mine. Clear?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:20:30 PM)
Materialism is a loaded term. I would have preferred "Physicalism." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism Not only is it intellectually honest. It's scientifically provable, if you will accept such as proof.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:21:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro That's the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. Then I count you a very fortunate person. [:D] quote: There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christianity" per se - that's sloppy thinking on your part. It is a family tree of religions. Just like Semitic is a family of languages. quote: I'll accept it as a kind of shorthand for two discreet and almost entirely dissimilar faith systems. They may appear dissimilar to you. They are one and the same to me. But that depends on how you interpret them, of course. quote: But the idea that the Mosaic faiths don't have antecedents is absurd. I never said that it doesn't have antecedents. I've studied Mesopotamian religion, for instance. What I did say, is that that family of faiths is a direct ancestor of secular humanism. quote: Judaism was nothing but a hodgepodge of prior faith systems. There are definite influences there, yes. And the posited deity can be traced back to a Mesopotamian storm god, if you like. quote: Mesopotamian and Sumerian gobbledygook. Actually, the Sumerians had a lot of interesting things about them, and not just in terms of religion. quote: Throw in Moloch the fire god because it's a good story... Yup. A veritable Atlas Shrugged. "Don't kill your kids" and all that gobbledygook, hmm? [;)] quote: Gee, ever heard of the code of Hammurabi? Yup. Complicated set of Babylonian law. By no means the earliest recorded. And the only direct genealogical connection to modern views is through Christian evangelism. quote: Is this a serious conversation for you, or are the rest of us supposed to take your idiotic assertions at face value? I'm usually pretty serious about everything in life. The assertions in question touch on religion and memetic genealogy, and I happen to have an interest in both. To the extent that you disagree with the assertions, by all means make your disagreements known and argue your point. The florid language does not constitute arguing your point, however. Pardon me for not pursuing the ethic of reciprocity this time. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:24:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...i will do you the courtesy of answering your question when you answer mine. Clear? I did not see a question that I have not answered. If there is one, would you care to point it out to me? If there was an implicit question in what you said, I may have misread it, but my example was intended as an answer to what you said. Health, al-Aswad.

philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:28:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...i will do you the courtesy of answering your question when you answer mine. Clear? I did not see a question that I have not answered. If there is one, would you care to point it out to me? If there was an implicit question in what you said, I may have misread it, but my example was intended as an answer to what you said. Health, al-Aswad. ...oh come on, now thats fatuous. i asked people to contrast and compare, that's clearly a question. Your reply is to ignore my question and ask another, presumably in order to duck the implications of my question. Your debating tactics in this thread have not been intellectually honest. Your 'example' merely attempted to move the debate onto ground you are more comfortable on.

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:29:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: It serves me to have an environment in which it isn't perceived as an okay thing. Which works both ways. I've been around the block too many times to want to exclude everything from my world. You mean "anything", right? There are certainly ideas I wish to keep out of my environment, such as the idea that it'd be productive and easy to kill me and take my wallet. When my kids grow up, I want them to learn that 1+1=2, not 4. It's not because, given forever, they'd never figure out the truth.. but because they're kids, and part of being human is taking on assumptions. Like it or not, we live off of a huge number of assumptions we've made. Sadly, even science is based off of them. Personally, though.. I want my young and the young of those around me to be perferentially exposed to assumption that's based in empiracle observation and reason as opposed to the wild claims of some deranged mind. Not because it's impossible for a good idea to come from a psychotic, but because they're more likely to come from a rational mind. And, again.. we're mortal. We do not have forever to sort through the good and the bad. Of course, this is all humoring the individualistic approach to viewing the world, which I'd like to point out is an idealization. Pointing this out only further serves my point, as the view of individuals being islands of logic and reason ignores the reality of the way our minds work and absorb surroundings. I'd rant more, but.. well, I don't need to and it'd take me hundreds of pages to accurately express this one thought, even to an intelligent conversational partner. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: I mean, sure, even in such an environment with regards to rape or forced slavery, (this is, a hypothetical environment in which rape and forced slavery are okay) I could argue it's (rape/slavery/etc) a bad thing.. but how many people would care? Would it be the same, or are things seen as more acceptable due to their popularity? And what of children: will they hear intellectual arguments or the actions of society more loudly? And, perhaps most importantly: would it prevent the rape and oppression? History seems to indicate people wouldn't really give a damn, but that change can happen over time... both ways. My friend, I think history'll reflect that the notion of keeping a person with black skin as a slave was far more acceptable in historical southern America than it is in even current southern day America. I'd argue that the social climate is largely responsible for this shift. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: The world's still growing up. Hopefully, this brand of intellectual dishonesty can end in this age. For you, that is desireable. For the jihadists, the ideal is for Islam to be the only belief allowed. Personally, I'd rather fight for people's right to believe as they wish, secularly or not. Once you move past jungle law, it's all equally dishonest, intellectually. This is working under the heavy idealism, my friend. And I'd argue that there's far less dishonesty in Newton ranting about how gravity makes things fall than a priest ranting about why God hates gay people. So, I sharply disagree that it's all equally dishonest.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:32:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Once you move past jungle law, it's all equally dishonest, intellectually. Not so. Once you accept there is no objective basis for ethical decisions, you must accept that there is a subjective basis for making them. For make them we do, all of us, whether it is to take, to give, or to do nothing. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about accepting that we all make our ethical decisions based on our own, uniquely subjective standards. The problem is when we insist our standards must apply to others. That's what gives rise to conflict.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:47:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'd make a further argument that everything that's real conforms to materialism by definition. Material might not always be stoms (indeed, we know better already), but I never took the word to be limited to such. I think it's entirely dishonest to ignore materialism. (This is an argument I'd love to make as I feel such a view is very poorly misunderstood by most, so I'd like a chance to hear others' views on it.) You have two problems with that equation. One, there is no single, universal definition for "real". So you are already wrapped up in semantics in order to define it in a way everyone will agree to. Two, science has yet to catalogue everything there is to do with matter. Thus it is a little premature to conclude everything must involve matter. As I recall, Einstein postulated several dimensions to our universe, and we have only scratched the surface of this mudball called earth. That would be my challenge to you: we don't know enough to be making claim to such an absolute as you have postulated.

Kirata -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 1:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Materialism is a loaded term. I would have preferred "Physicalism." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism Not only is it intellectually honest. It's scientifically provable, if you will accept such as proof. "Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things" ~wikipedia [italics mine] It is difficult to imagine an experimental design that conforms to scientific method by which conscious minds could "prove" that they are in fact nothing but epiphenomena of basic physical processes. K.

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875