RE: Yes, even Atheists...

RE: Yes, even Atheists... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FrostedFlake -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:14:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Actually, change kills a religion because it's followers start asking "Well if you're wrong about this than who's to say you're not wrong about any number of other things the bible says? We're talking about my life here. I've got to know that you won't change your mind about what is right and wrong tomorrow." Can you give us some historical examples of this phenomenon? Thor doesn't seem to have too many franchises going at the moment. Vishnu is out of work too. Those Mayans that used to cut peoples hearts out are long gone. The Celts, I'm told, used to eat their dead. Hard to believe, but anyway, not anymore. Charlemagne wiped out a tree worshiping philosophy. The Egyptians once worshiped their kings. And cats. I'm sure there is more.

curious23 -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:16:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Actually, change kills a religion because it's followers start asking "Well if you're wrong about this than who's to say you're not wrong about any number of other things the bible says? We're talking about my life here. I've got to know that you won't change your mind about what is right and wrong tomorrow." Can you give us some historical examples of this phenomenon? Thor doesn't seem to have too many franchises going at the moment. Vishnu is out of work too. Those Mayans that used to cut peoples hearts out are long gone. The Celts, I'm told, used to eat their dead. Hard to believe, but anyway, not anymore. Charlemagne wiped out a tree worshiping philosophy. The Egyptians once worshiped their kings. And cats. I'm sure there is more. Amen

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:18:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 I'm thinking you mean human right? Rights one has as a human whether supported by law or religion or not? I can't think of an example of such a right that isn't automatically prescribed into law (if I understand correctly...I probably dont). Some call it human rights, yes, and I do believe that all of them are prescribed by law in most jurisdictions, yes. Which leaves the question: do you believe that such rights exists by virtue of a human being human (independent from law), or not? In other words, do you believe things like "a human has the right to freedom and life" even in jurisdiction that do not legally allow for those rights? Do you believe those rights to be inherently human, or not?

dcnovice -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:20:30 PM)
quote: Thor doesn't seem to have too many franchises going at the moment. Vishnu is out of work too. Those Mayans that used to cut peoples hearts out are long gone. The Celts, I'm told, used to eat their dead. Hard to believe, but anyway, not anymore. Charlemagne wiped out a tree worshiping philosophy. The Egyptians once worshiped their kings. And cats. Isn't Vishnu a key figure in Hinduism, which has some 900 million adherents? As for the others, did those religions die out because they changed (which was the argument being made)?

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:23:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 Amen quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 Lol a religion hasn't died because they keep diversifying like I said. [snip] Split or die. They always choose to split. Which one is it? Did the religions frostedflake mentioned die, or didn't they?

curious23 -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:23:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 I'm thinking you mean human right? Rights one has as a human whether supported by law or religion or not? I can't think of an example of such a right that isn't automatically prescribed into law (if I understand correctly...I probably dont). Some call it human rights, yes, and I do believe that all of them are prescribed by law in most jurisdictions, yes. Which leaves the question: do you believe that such rights exists by virtue of a human being human (independent from law), or not? Lol no. Like my father says, a house is only worth something if someone is willing to actually buy it. A right only exists if there are people there to give it and if they are willing to, then it is no longer a mere right, but law. Rights don't exist without law (IMO). The moment 2 people start to coexist, laws are formed, whether they are unspoken or not. Like do not murder. And if one chooses not to abide...well then one of those two people aren't existing now are they?

dcnovice -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:25:16 PM)
quote: So if, within a sect, there is a disagreement (example: whether Mary was simply the mother of christ or divine), the sect splits. In this case Catholicism split from Christianity. Both ideas could not exist together. Catholicism doesn't teach that Mary is divine. And it's a subset of Christianity. quote: Also Christianity split off from Judaism because there is a disconnect on the divinity of Christ and the state of an afterlife. The ideas could not coexist so those who felt one way went one way and the others went their own. Fair enough. But neither Christianity nor Judaism died.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:26:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 I'm thinking you mean human right? Rights one has as a human whether supported by law or religion or not? I can't think of an example of such a right that isn't automatically prescribed into law (if I understand correctly...I probably dont). Some call it human rights, yes, and I do believe that all of them are prescribed by law in most jurisdictions, yes. Which leaves the question: do you believe that such rights exists by virtue of a human being human (independent from law), or not? If law is an arbitrary construct, then slavery certainly CAN be legal. But slavery cannot be right, because a person is by inalienable right his own property. This we in the U.S. fought our bloodiest and most destructive war over. This, and the cotton trade. So, clearly, it is an important idea.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:30:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 The moment 2 people start to coexist, laws are formed, whether they are unspoken or not. Like do not murder. And if one chooses not to abide...well then one of those two people aren't existing now are they? Pew, it took a whole lot longer to ask that question than I had anticipated... How about "the right to liberty" does that immediately gets created without agreement the moment 2 people start to coexist? And if those agreements are unspoken, where do they come from? I'm also a little unclear on how you're using "law" to represent an unspoken, non-agreed to, hypothetical (as in that this doesn't always happen) social contract, not enforceable by law. Are you saying that if you dump two random strangers on a deserted island together, they would immediately, without discussing it, have such "laws" between them? And if so, then where do those "laws" come from?

curious23 -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:31:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Thor doesn't seem to have too many franchises going at the moment. Vishnu is out of work too. Those Mayans that used to cut peoples hearts out are long gone. The Celts, I'm told, used to eat their dead. Hard to believe, but anyway, not anymore. Charlemagne wiped out a tree worshiping philosophy. The Egyptians once worshiped their kings. And cats. Isn't Vishnu a key figure in Hinduism, which has some 900 million adherents? As for the others, did those religions die out because they changed (which was the argument being made)? I'd say that once people figured out the world wasn't flat (which was pretty early actually) Mythology couldn't really continue once people started to figure out how the world worked, now that they weren't afraid of falling off the edge. And once people figured out the real explanations as to why the sun moved or storms came, it became pretty hard to make any changes that still supported their deity's (poor zues and apollo). So it died.

Kirata -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:31:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 First off, Christ didn't write shit so the whole bible is one big claim that certain events took place. I don't know why you think... What I think is that if you're going to advance claims about the "God of Christ" then you need to be quoting the teachings attributed to Christ. Otherwise you're just making shit up. Sorry if that went over your head. K.

curious23 -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:36:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 I'm thinking you mean human right? Rights one has as a human whether supported by law or religion or not? I can't think of an example of such a right that isn't automatically prescribed into law (if I understand correctly...I probably dont). Some call it human rights, yes, and I do believe that all of them are prescribed by law in most jurisdictions, yes. Which leaves the question: do you believe that such rights exists by virtue of a human being human (independent from law), or not? If law is an arbitrary construct, then slavery certainly CAN be legal. But slavery cannot be right, because a person is by inalienable right his own property. This we in the U.S. fought our bloodiest and most destructive war over. This, and the cotton trade. So, clearly, it is an important idea. Ohhh now wait a minute. I do not have the right to ask someone to help me kill myself. I can't fuck for money even though it's my body. I can't walk around naked on my own property because someone might see and I'd be jailed for indecent exposure. There is plenty of stuff I am denied the right to do with my own person. So you can't really say a person has full rights to his own person in the U.S.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:37:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake But slavery cannot be right, because a person is by inalienable right his own property. This we in the U.S. fought our bloodiest and most destructive war over. This, and the cotton trade. So, clearly, it is an important idea. It's a very important idea, but it's not a fact (as in: provable by empirical data) that people have the right to not be slaves. Instead, it's something most people use as a starting assumption, because they go on faith that human beings have certain inalienable rights, de facto, on account of being human. Seeing that curious claimed she goes solely of facts, and doesn't understand the benefits a faith or believe can bring you without the threat of eternal damnation, or the promise of heaving, I was curious if she also reject the notion of inalienable rights. Now that I've finally got her answer, I'm more confused by it than ever, because she both seems to say that she rejects the notion (the "no" in the beginning of her reply) as well as saying that she believes it (by stating that 2 strangers have unspoken, unagreed upon "laws" between them that protect those inalienable rights). Either way, I'll try to stop derailing the thread now, because what I intended to be a short side point out of curiosity, has started getting completely off track.

dcnovice -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:39:22 PM)
quote: But slavery cannot be right, because a person is by inalienable right his own property. On this we wholeheartedly agree. [:)] But do we actually have evidence for this belief, or is it a civic form of faith? Curious was saying that she couldn't see believing without evidence, and I think it may be more common than one realizes.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Thor doesn't seem to have too many franchises going at the moment. Vishnu is out of work too. Those Mayans that used to cut peoples hearts out are long gone. The Celts, I'm told, used to eat their dead. Hard to believe, but anyway, not anymore. Charlemagne wiped out a tree worshiping philosophy. The Egyptians once worshiped their kings. And cats. Isn't Vishnu a key figure in Hinduism, which has some 900 million adherents? As for the others, did those religions die out because they changed (which was the argument being made)? You are right about Vishnu. Mea culpa. I'll trade you Vishnu for the Cathars. Copacetic? Re : the rest, I wasn't at all of their garage sales, but as I recall, the Celts got pushed all the way north and then were absorbed into the invaders. Charlemagne used fire and sword to convert the tree worshipers. And Alexander took out the Egyptians. Then, after Alex dies, Ptolemy took the place over. And of course, Pope Innocent burned the Cathars at the stake, because the Cathars believed in deeds while the Catholics believed in coins.

curious23 -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:44:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 The moment 2 people start to coexist, laws are formed, whether they are unspoken or not. Like do not murder. And if one chooses not to abide...well then one of those two people aren't existing now are they? Pew, it took a whole lot longer to ask that question than I had anticipated... How about "the right to liberty" does that immediately gets created without agreement the moment 2 people start to coexist? And if those agreements are unspoken, where do they come from? I'm also a little unclear on how you're using "law" to represent an unspoken, non-agreed to, hypothetical (as in that this doesn't always happen) social contract, not enforceable by law. Are you saying that if you dump two random strangers on a deserted island together, they would immediately, without discussing it, have such "laws" between them? And if so, then where do those "laws" come from? Well nothing says a law has to be written down. A law is simply a rule that 2 or more people choose to abide by. If two people weren't dumped in isolation together, the first laws would be the bare necessities of survival. You don't kill me if I don't kill you would be first. You don't hurt me if I don't hurt you would be second. You don't steal from me and I don't steal from you would be third. I don't think any of this necessarily has to be spoken in order to be understood. But I can see how someone could disagree with me on this as it is an idea that I have not really pondered. I mean, there were no such understandings at certain points when America was being conquered. You don't kill me and I kill you anyway lol. I guess the more I think on it, if I were in a situation where I was stranded with someone, I'd try and discuss the rules. I can also see myself having to take things on faith if there was a cultural or lingual gap. If we can't communicate, then we can't establish anything but that doesn't mean I'm going to slit their throats that night "just in case". I'd have to trust that they had empathy for a fellow human being and be prepared to end them if they didn't.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:47:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: But slavery cannot be right, because a person is by inalienable right his own property. On this we wholeheartedly agree. [:)] But do we actually have evidence for this belief, or is it a civic form of faith? Curious was saying that she couldn't see believing without evidence, and I think it may be more common than one realizes. Thought experiment. Three amnesia patients wake up on a beautiful deserted island. One immediately kills the second. Starts collecting wood to have a barbeque. How should the third person react? Why? ETA :Emphasis

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 3:53:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 Well nothing says a law has to be written down. A law is simply a rule that 2 or more people choose to abide by. Actually, while the dictionary doesn't specify that it needs to be written down, it does specify that it needs to be recognized in order to be a law. Which excludes it being not agreed upon. quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 If two people weren't dumped in isolation together, the first laws would be the bare necessities of survival. You don't kill me if I don't kill you would be first. You don't hurt me if I don't hurt you would be second. You don't steal from me and I don't steal from you would be third. I don't think any of this necessarily has to be spoken in order to be understood. But I can see how someone could disagree with me on this as it is an idea that I have not really pondered. I mean, there were no such understandings at certain points when America was being conquered. You don't kill me and I kill you anyway lol. That's a series of assumptions you make, not based on fact, but on your personal believes. It's having faith. You have faith that, if humans are left to their own devices in such a context, they would come to certain unspoken understandings with each other. I'm not trying to trick you into recanting your position on religious believes, just pointing out to you that people tend to have faith in a whole bunch of ideas that have got nothing at all to do with threats, promises, or direct benefits to themselves.

curious23 -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 4:02:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 Well nothing says a law has to be written down. A law is simply a rule that 2 or more people choose to abide by. Actually, while the dictionary doesn't specify that it needs to be written down, it does specify that it needs to be recognized in order to be a law. Which excludes it being not agreed upon. quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 If two people weren't dumped in isolation together, the first laws would be the bare necessities of survival. You don't kill me if I don't kill you would be first. You don't hurt me if I don't hurt you would be second. You don't steal from me and I don't steal from you would be third. I don't think any of this necessarily has to be spoken in order to be understood. But I can see how someone could disagree with me on this as it is an idea that I have not really pondered. I mean, there were no such understandings at certain points when America was being conquered. You don't kill me and I kill you anyway lol. That's a series of assumptions you make, not based on fact, but on your personal believes. It's having faith. You have faith that, if humans are left to their own devices in such a context, they would come to certain unspoken understandings with each other. I'm not trying to trick you into recanting your position on religious believes, just pointing out to you that people tend to have faith in a whole bunch of ideas that have got nothing at all to do with threats, promises, or direct benefits to themselves. Well I added more to my answer when I thought about it more if you wanna see my edit above. I would have to trust that the person I am stranded with saw me as a fellow human being and chose to treat me like he'd want to be treated. However I base this initial trust on the evidence I've seen of human nature. In my experience, people want to be treated fairly and thus treat others fairly to get that so it's not a stretch for me to come to the conclusion that N'gumbo here doesn't want to eat my spline. But if I had never come across another human being in my life and knew nothing of ones nature, I would not be surprised if I killed one at first glance for any number of reasons. Competition. A threat. Whatever.

njlauren -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/26/2013 4:02:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Personally I see no reason why anyone would believe in something that has no evidence unless they were threatened (hell) or promised something spectacular (SANTAAAA!!!) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. A lot of folks seem to believe Jefferson's uplifting words, though I'm not sure there's much evidence to buttress them. Just as an aside, the Creator Jefferson refers to is the God of Nature, the embodiment of the enlightenment, and not the God of the Jews or Christians. Jefferson's views on God varied over the years, by the end of his life he was something of a unitarian, but what he was expressing was what Locke and Rousseau and others had said, that the creator (nature, God, whatever) endowed man with certain things, and all of them came out of the right to be free, and also in the concept that a rulers power did not come from God (which was 180 degrees away from most Christians, especially the RC, who clung to the idea that leaders were put in that position by God and their power came from that God. The RC leadership hate Christianity, and hated much of what made the US different including the separation of church and state (a monk in the 1950's wrote a treatise in which he said, correctly, that the RC flourished in the US because of the separation, that it allowed the church to gain a foothold and flourish, and I believe he was excommunicated for it). The fundies love to point to this as proof that the founders wanted a theocracy, but the reality is that was furthest from Jefferson's mind when he wrote those words.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875