|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 20, 2014 20:55:48 GMT -5
I don't think religion or spirituality has any bearing on success. This is what I have to often tell my religious family. You've had lots of religious people doing "good" or "bad" things. Rich or poor. Terrorists are religious after all. They have beliefs. In broad strokes, I don't think that either. But, you don't think there are seem beliefs within certain religions [Not necessarily the whole religion] that are good? For example, Tom Woods talks about the history of Christian thinking and it's effect on natural law which posited a set of laws that included protection from arbitrary punishment, Man being a special creation apart from nature and that nature is here to serve our needs [Perfect against environmentalist], protestant work ethic [That material prosperity is a sign that you're going to heaven] and so forth. I think there are some good things, but I'm not saying that those good things make religion great. It's just cause and effect. What makes prosperity is production. Hard working people who keep what they earn regardless of what they believe are going to be more successful than those who are a more collectivist nature. Religion has a lot in common with collectivism in many ways. It's essentially the group before the individual. Religion doesn't preach much about individualism, but succumbing to some larger power. Many liberals who don't believe in God, just believe in government, which is the same principle. I agree with that but there have been however brief forms of Christianity that were more individualistic. Samuel 10 to 18 "Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”"This verse was commonly used in the defense of limited government. There is also big government Christianity too. It's mot all bad. Our country was based off of individualism, but the religion wasn't a part of it. We had separation of church and state. Also the Pilgrims settled here and they were religious and tried socialism and it failed. So a belief system doesn't really matter much compared to behavior. Many states are broke. Not because of their religion though, but because they have too much government. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/the-conservative-states-of-america/71827/I'm not trying to change your opinion on religion, but hear me out here. There are certain philosophical ideas tied to certain religions that does help success. Whether by accident and I'm not defending "religions" just those ideas. Things like Man being a special creation that is apart from nature and nature being created to serve man, The protestant work ethic, Natural law, etc. I was talking about those things, but of course you have the collectivism as well: Christian Socialism, Islam and Jewish Bolshevism. I don't think believing in God will make you richer or healthier. But, old time protestants believed that getting rich was a sign of being blessed and then you have prosperity preachers who believe that you should try to be rich. Separation of Church and State goes back to Leviticus 3: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar#Separation_of_church_and_stateThis country was a combination of Humanist, Deist and Christian ideas. Tom Woods talks a great deal about this. Of course, it doesn't change the bad things either. I'm just saying their are some good ideas, it's not all garbage. Afterall, some of these ideas are cornerstones to Western philosophy. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy 
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 1:24:49 GMT -5
In broad strokes, I don't think that either. But, you don't think there are seem beliefs within certain religions [Not necessarily the whole religion] that are good? For example, Tom Woods talks about the history of Christian thinking and it's effect on natural law which posited a set of laws that included protection from arbitrary punishment, Man being a special creation apart from nature and that nature is here to serve our needs [Perfect against environmentalist], protestant work ethic [That material prosperity is a sign that you're going to heaven] and so forth. I think there are some good things, but I'm not saying that those good things make religion great. It's just cause and effect. It's not about it being "all bad". Religion is nothing but a tool created by man. All tools have uses. You can use a tool for good things i.e motivating weak minded people do make it through the day, or to serve your own ends, or you can use it for "bad", i.e as a tool to motivate people to kill another person or steal their stuff. "Don't kill your neighbors, don't steal their stuff, and don't rape them." Have been natural human laws for thousands and thousands of years. You don't have to be religious to believe this, nor to lead a "good" life. Religion is unnecessary at best, and bad at worst. If a person who is weak needs to believe in something to do what they need to do anyways, that's their own business. My biggest problem is them spreading their ideas and ramming it down other people's throats. Not saying everyone who is religious does it, but still. People can believe in anything, but success comes from actually *doing* things. Like that alpha male link I sent you, most people just don't have what it takes to get things done, or have the wrong mindset. They just use religion to further justify their own ways of thinking. You don't have to believe you're separate from nature to fight environmentalists who are really just socialists in disguise. You can use a more cerebral argument and explain how private property leads to a better care of the environment. I think it's better than religion simply saying "God says we're this" with no proof, and environmentalists using their typical feel good Marxist garbage they use (which is even worse) I agree with that but there have been however brief forms of Christianity that were more individualistic. Samuel 10 to 18 "Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”"This verse was commonly used in the defense of limited government. There is also big government Christianity too. It's mot all bad. I don't see the individualism though, it's still about serving another authority. Even on top of that it's in regards to the king taking away the rights of the people. I think many people are "enslaved" by religion in that they don't live their own free lives. They live the life that another authority tells them to. There's no individualism there. Individualism is about people living their own life and following their own self interests. Our country was founded on the idea that a man could do this and still help others. Giving up your choice, possessions, and life to a "higher power" is very collectivist in nature. I'm not trying to change your opinion on religion, but hear me out here. There are certain philosophical ideas tied to certain religions that does help success. Whether by accident and I'm not defending "religions" just those ideas. Things like Man being a special creation that is apart from nature and nature being created to serve man, The protestant work ethic, Natural law, etc. I was talking about those things, but of course you have the collectivism as well: Christian Socialism, Islam and Jewish Bolshevism. I don't think believing in God will make you richer or healthier. But, old time protestants believed that getting rich was a sign of being blessed and then you have prosperity preachers who believe that you should try to be rich. Separation of Church and State goes back to Leviticus 3: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar#Separation_of_church_and_stateThis country was a combination of Humanist, Deist and Christian ideas. Tom Woods talks a great deal about this. Of course, it doesn't change the bad things either. I'm just saying their are some good ideas, it's not all garbage. Afterall, some of these ideas are cornerstones to Western philosophy. The problem is that none of that is actually proven fact or true, it's all belief. To me it's no different than a 40 year old man believing in Santa Claus. People need to believe in something to get them through the day. When they could just believe in their own strength and make good decisions. If you're overweight, sitting around praying to get in good shape while you continue to lay around and eat bad food won't make a world of difference and that's a fact. If you want prosperity, blowing all of your money and not saving any of it won't make any difference. I believe people have the ultimate control of their lives and I know that's a fact. I don't need to believe stories to do it. It just seems like a form of weakness to me to have to. I think some Christians or others *will* admit they need a belief in God to "make it through". Keep in mind I was religious, I went to Church most of my life and I donated to it. My grandfather is a pastor. I've heard and have seen all of these arguments. I'd have a lot more respect for it if people came to their own decision in adulthood about it instead of having it shoved down their throats and being brainwashed by their parents and community. They can't come with an unbiased view because they have no point of reference at that age, and when they get older they indulge in cognitive dissonance when they face any fact so they can keep believing. I won't even get into the hypocrisy that religious people often indulge in, much like Marxists do. They condemn others and talk about not being judgmental. They tell others how to live their lives when they don't live their own life, etc. I'll just post two very basic links I found really fast for some basic ideas of some flaws in religion. I haven't been sitting around for ages looking for arguments or pondering it, but I thought they were effective enough. listverse.com/2013/03/23/10-reasons-for-man-to-leave-religion-behind/On the "weak" part: www.examiner.com/article/ted-turner-correct-calling-christianity-a-religion-for-losers"A few years ago wealthy media tycoon and yacht racing champion Ted Turner made the unequivocal statement that "Christianity is a religion for losers." Many Christians who heard this remark were offended by Turner's dismissal of believers.
However, in one respect the verbal Turner was correct. Christianity is for people who realize they can't get through life alone. It is for people who have come to the conclusion they need help. It's not for those who profess that they are so self-sufficient they can get through life and succeed all on their own."At the end of the day people can live good lives without submitting themselves to a belief of a "higher authority", it's up to them to have the strength to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 2:00:24 GMT -5
It's not about it being "all bad". Religion is nothing but a tool created by man. All tools have uses. You can use a tool for good things i.e motivating weak minded people do make it through the day, or to serve your own ends, or you can use it for "bad", i.e as a tool to motivate people to kill another person or steal their stuff. Okay, I agree with you their that it is a tool socially and individually. Like all tools it can be used for good and bad. But, I'm talking about Judeo Christianity just for clarification. So, I hope we keep it that way rather than all religion. "Don't kill your neighbors, don't steal their stuff, and don't rape them." Have been natural human laws for thousands and thousands of years. You don't have to be religious to believe this, nor to lead a "good" life. Religion is unnecessary at best, and bad at worst. I never said you need religion to have rules in a functional society. That was never my argument for favoring Christianity. Which has a different set of standards about decency and human worth than non-christian societies did. It's not just about utilitarian use. This is where Atheist and agnostics mess up. No one is saying without Christianity people will kill each other on the fly. We had this debate before and I stated that the rules of religion shouldn't by the type that requires the threat of violence for enforcement. You countered by claiming any set of rules without enforcement is meaningless. But, what about a social Faux pas? Picking your nose, Being rude, having B.O. etc. We both agree those things are "bad". But, should they require government intervention? Let me go a step further, what about negative thinking? That's bad, but should it be illegal? No. Christianity has within it a set of beliefs that go back to Judaism that is very positive even if the religious authorities did not always manifest that way. That is why I think it's good on a philosophical basis and most of all empowering. Like you said, it's a tool. Why resist a tool simply because you rather do something another way? If a person who is weak needs to believe in something to do what they need to do anyways, that's their own business. My biggest problem is them spreading their ideas and ramming it down other people's throats. Not saying everyone who is religious does it, but still. People can believe in anything, but success comes from actually *doing* things. Like that alpha male link I sent you, most people just don't have what it takes to get things done, or have the wrong mindset. They just use religion to further justify their own ways of thinking. And, waht's wrong with using it? Didn't you say it's a tool after all. Tools are mean't to be used. As for wrong mindset, that's why the tool can work. Certain aspects donate the right mindset. It's not all disposable garbage. You don't have to believe you're separate from nature to fight environmentalists who are really just socialists in disguise. You can use a more cerebral argument and explain how private property leads to a better care of the environment. I think it's better than religion simply saying "God says we're this" with no proof, and environmentalists using their typical feel good Marxist garbage they use (which is even worse) I was referring to animal rights arguments. When Environmentalist bring up animals should have the same rights as people. What justification does anyone have to rebuke them? What makes a horses life worth less than mine or a cockroach? You could use the intelligence argument, but then it would have to apply internally as well. So, that would mean some humans who are smarter should have more rights than dumber humans if intelligence is what gives us rights. Or a Chimpanzee which is as smart as a 4 year old would be equal in rights too? The problem I have with Objectivism is it uses Nietzsche old Master-Slave morality. Where strength determines privileged. but, what is strength? If I said only strong people should have rights that might work. But, what if you get sick or injured? OR what if strength is who can inflict violence not matter what? The notion of rights falls apart, because in the end what gives rights in the first place. If you argue that it would be beneficial for everyone to own private property I could respond beneficial for what? Humans? What about animals, how do they benefit and what right do we have to discount them. It's a Pandoras box. I don't see the individualism though, it's still about serving another authority. Even on top of that it's in regards to the king taking away the rights of the people. I think many people are "enslaved" by religion in that they don't live their own free lives. They live the life that another authority tells them to. There's no individualism there. Individualism is about people living their own life and following their own self interests. Our country was founded on the idea that a man could do this and still help others. Giving up your choice, possessions, and life to a "higher power" is very collectivist in nature. It's actually individualistic because that higher power has a personal relationship with you. It becomes collectivist when a priest stands as a middle man between you and God. But, one of the main reasons post Catholic Christianity is different is because the centralized church lost power and people began to interpret the bible on their own. No, authority necessary. The Higher power is within and that keeps people from taking the role of that higher power through Government or some High Priest. The problem is that none of that is actually proven fact or true, it's all belief. To me it's no different than a 40 year old man believing in Santa Claus. People need to believe in something to get them through the day. When they could just believe in their own strength and make good decisions. If you're overweight, sitting around praying to get in good shape while you continue to lay around and eat bad food won't make a world of difference and that's a fact. If you want prosperity, blowing all of your money and not saving any of it won't make any difference. I believe people have the ultimate control of their lives and I know that's a fact. I don't need to believe stories to do it. It just seems like a form of weakness to me to have to. I think some Christians or others *will* admit they need a belief in God to "make it through". Because if your own strength isn't enough. So, why not use a tool? Besides, what makes your strength better? God isn't Santa Claus because it can be a useful belief. It's empowering to have a rational God that created the entire universe and imbued it with laws that could be understood with reason. A God that has a plan for humanity and you have a personal relationship with this God and he has a special purpose that only you and him know about. Yes, it's all belief but it's empowering when you act on it. Just like belief in yourself leads to good things, even when it's just a belief. Nothing bad about the above. Keep in mind I was religious, I went to Church most of my life and I donated to it. My grandfather is a pastor. I've heard and have seen all of these arguments. I'd have a lot more respect for it if people came to their own decision in adulthood about it instead of having it shoved down their throats and being brainwashed by their parents and community. They can't come with an unbiased view because they have no point of reference at that age, and when they get older they indulge in cognitive dissonance when they face any fact so they can keep believing. I wasn't religious as a kid, I went to church but I never really was passionate. At one point I did want to be a priest. But, as I got older I became more agnostic [you can tell from my older post]. It's only recently in my 20's I've read the arguments for Christianity. They didn't convince me to be a christian but to believe in God and study Christianity because it does have philosophically empowering ideas. I'm not even talking about Heaven [which I don't believe in]. I won't even get into the hypocrisy that religious people often indulge in, much like Marxists do. They condemn others and talk about not being judgmental. They tell others how to live their lives when they don't live their own life, etc. Yes, but marxist use big government. I don't believe in using government to favor religion, government should be secular. I'm talking about what comes after free agents decide to live their lives. That's where religion comes in. I'll just post two very basic links I found really fast for some basic ideas of some flaws in religion. I haven't been sitting around for ages looking for arguments or pondering it, but I thought they were effective enough. listverse.com/2013/03/23/10-reasons-for-man-to-leave-religion-behind/On the "weak" part: www.examiner.com/article/ted-turner-correct-calling-christianity-a-religion-for-losers"A few years ago wealthy media tycoon and yacht racing champion Ted Turner made the unequivocal statement that "Christianity is a religion for losers." Many Christians who heard this remark were offended by Turner's dismissal of believers.
However, in one respect the verbal Turner was correct. Christianity is for people who realize they can't get through life alone. It is for people who have come to the conclusion they need help. It's not for those who profess that they are so self-sufficient they can get through life and succeed all on their own."At the end of the day people can live good lives without submitting themselves to a belief of a "higher authority", it's up to them to have the strength to do it. I've addressed the 10 list on another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 2:15:12 GMT -5
Since we were derailing the thread.
I read it and I'm not impressed tbh. It looks like the typical new atheist poorly constructed arguments. It uses the old "Christianity is just like paganism" argument. Which is very wrong.
#10 is wrong, there's an apologist named J.P. Holdings from Tektoniks ministry who debunks this. Even if you're not religious the Pagan messiahs thing has been debunked to death. It simply isn't true.
It's shoddy historically, Sorta like the belief that Christians believed the earth was flat. Which is also wrong.
9. Another ahistorical point. The mythology of the ancient world is not the same as that of the jews. I don't believe in God because I think he's the reason it rains or why the sun comes up. Like many of the supernal Gods of ancient times were nature Gods. That is they were the personification of nature and they weren't the creators of the universe. Many mythological Gods were created with the Primordial choas that created the universe. So, they're just denizens of an accidental creation like me.
The God of the Hebrews on the other-hand was not a nature God, rather he created the universe Ex Nihilo. He was apart from nature. Not only was he apart from nature. He was a rational creator that created a rationally ordered universe. That's a big difference.
8. It's funny that according to this person Slavery is wrong for instance because modern values. But, what justification does he have for these things being "wrong"? He doesn't explain why they're wrong, he just assumes they are. In Christianity we have Imago Dei which argues that all humans have inherit value since they're created in the image of God. The only justification outside oft that is some utilitarian reason. Which is a mess in itself. Because if you argue that slavery is wrong because it's harmful to society, I can retort by asking "to whom"? It's not harmful to the slave owners. What makes their will less important than the slaves and it will degrade into an argument about the majority disagreeing thus it's bad [Collectivism.]
That's it for now, I'll keep reading.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 3:14:21 GMT -5
Okay, I agree with you their that it is a tool socially and perhaps individually. Like all tools it can be used for good and bad. But, I'm talking about Judeo Christianity just for clarification. So, I hope we keep it that way rather than all religion. I'm focusing on religion in general. It's all the same concept even if it's been used differently in history. " I never said you need religion to have rules in a functional society. That was never my argument, the fact is Christianity has a different set of standards about decency and human worth than non-christian. It's not just about utilitarian use. This is where Atheist and agnostics mess up. No one is saying without Christianity people will kill each other. We had this debate before and I stated that the rules of religion aren't the type that require the threat of violence to enforce. You countered by claiming any set of rules with enforcement is meaningless. This is of course wrong. Think of a social Faux pas? Picking your nose, Being rude, having B.O. etc. We both agree those things are "bad". But, should they require government intervention? No. My point is, the church as it was in western europe was an institution that served as the conscience of society not the law maker. It tried to make man good, but the most it could do at certain times is ex-communicate. I think every institution has it's proper place in society. When the church mixes with government it's bad. But, the same is true for big business or any other institution. There is a proper role for everything. Because a rule is pointless without any enforcment. T his is the issue I have with people who argue in favor of religion. You are saying religion has a purpose or need in society, when it doesn't. You can respect private property and individual rights without believing in a all powerful being. One has nothing to do with another. People who are religious do use the argument that without religion the world would go to chaos, and that religion is what gives people morals. They do it all of the time. Even on Peter Schiff today someone made that argument in regards to rioting and looting. He tried to bring up Hitler and other dictators being atheist, but as Peter pointed out, most wars had some sort of religious influence behind them. At the end of the day people will believe in things whether they believe in an all powerful creator. Yes, I'm well aware that religion was mostly separate from western society, although you're wrong in assuming it was always the case. Early settlers did use very heavy religious beliefs in their lawmaking and there are some traces of religion in some laws now. Too much power to one party is bad regardless of the source, people can choose to be religious but there is no actual need of it. And it is not the "conscience" of society. It may have played a stronger part in the past, but it is not needed in that way. People are rational enough to respect others without needing fairy tales. What is "Ramming down peoples throat"? In free societies people should advertise their beliefs so long as their is no coercion. People who are religious do it alot, I get that. But, still. Trying to force or constantly persuade others to believe. Religions need to grow and this is how they do it. What about motivation? When you're in a tough spot sometimes the right thinking helps your action. What difference is there between someone who believes in himself and believes God wants him to succeed? The right thinking is to get off of your butt and take the proper action you need to succeed, not thinking God is going to hand things down to him or that he has to be "ordained" by a higher authority to succeed. This is where people get this nonsense idea that whomever succeeds is just "blessed", which is just another way of saying "lucky". Religions often even preach that you don't succeed in whatever god doesn't want you to succeed in and that's because it isn't your calling. People use religion to shirk responsibility in a lot of ways which is another large problem with it. They should take responsibility in their own lives. I was referring to animal rights. When Environmentalist bring up animals should have the same rights as people. What justification does anyone have to rebuke them? What makes a horses life worth less than mine or a cockroach? You could use the intelligence argument, but then it would have to apply internally as well. So, that would mean some humans who are smarter should have more rights than dumber humans if intelligence is what gives us rights. Or a Chimpanzee which is as smart as a 4 year old would be equal in rights too? Animals don't have rights in our society because they do not participate in our society the way we do and do not have the same responsibility and contributions to our society. They are not protected by our constitution. A person's pet is someone's property and you cannot harm their property, but animals do not have "rights". There is no definite answer to whether a roach's life has more value than a donkey. Nobody knows that, but making up fairy tales doesn't answer anything either. It's natural for humans to think they have more of a right to live than other animals. The problem I have is with the inherent contribution. They think they are above some creatures, but every human is equal, when this is clearly not the case. Humans want to survive at all costs and when push comes to shove they will justify whatever they can to push their own survival. Our society is based on human rights and private property not animal rights, so they simply don't have them end of story. The problem I have with Objectivism is it uses Nietzsche old MAster Slave morality. Where strength determines privledge. but, what is strength? If I said only strong people should have rights that might work. But, what if you get sick or injured? OR what if strength is who can inflict violence not matter what? The notion of rights falls apart, because in the end what gives rights in the first place. If you argue that it would be beneficial for everyone to own private property I could respond beneficial for what? Humans? What about animals, how do they benefit and what right do we have to discount them. It's a Pandoras box. That's one view of it. Ultimately strength does determine who makes the laws, since laws are nothing else but an idea backed up by force. This is a fallacy however, not believing in religion or fairy tales doesn't mean people go around using force to get their way. Religions have used force for centuries to enforce their own ideas more than anybody. So that clearly isn't the standard to go by. Strength in numbers, strength in money, strength in connections. These things do end up having a powerful influence in society. The bottom line is the belief of private property starts with the person. Your body is your own property since you control it and by extension whatever you create belongs to you. People don't have a right to infringe upon any of that. The laws were built on extension of that. How does the idea that you don't own anything and that everything was made by some all powerful make believe creator that people interpret the way they want to get what they want any better. Private property is far more rational. As far as animals go, the ones that interact in proximity with humans live much easier lives than they did in the wild. Naturally however, it is the survival of the fittest and this law really can't be overwritten. Those who are weak have to be supported by the strong, and if the weak become too great in number they destroy their own society. They often use things like government and religion to get the strong to carry them, but that's just force in another manner really. No, it isn't. It's actually individualistic because that higher power has a personal relationship with you. It becomes collectivist when a priest stands as a middle man between you and God. But, one of the main reasons post Catholic Christianity is different is because the centralized church lost power and people began to interpret the bible on their own. No, authority necessary. The Higher power is within and that keeps people from taking the role of that higher power through Government and church. Religion is all about figures and authorities and groups. That's the exact point of it. Nothing is individualistic about it at all. A person can have individualistic beliefs on their own (obviously), but imposing rules and telling others how to live and telling others to give their life to a "higher cause" and to other members of said group is collectivist. You even agreed to that before. You even admit here that even the Catholic Church used religion as a tool to do what they want, and just because you don't have a super powerful figure imposing everything doesn't mean it's better when the mobs do it. That's pretty much what democracy is. A person's ultimate power is within themselves, not some make believe higher power. Because your own strength isn't enough. Unless you believe you incarnated into this world on your own. I mean what's your purpose in life, if it's just to build wealth then what happens when you die? Do you want prosperity for it's own sake? Making money is hard, but if it doesn't have a point then what's the point. Just enjoying things until it's time to go, if life has no grand meaning then what difference does it make if we die now or later in the grand scheme of things? Maybe a fairy tail, but I rather believe. My strength is enough, other people don't have enough strength or are depressed with the fact that they only live once and die one day that they need to rationalize it with fairy tales. I was born here by a sperm and egg meeting and going through the reproductive process. Not magic. Life is what you make out of it. There is no magical hidden meaning, or grand purpose. Humans have tried to explain away for millennia things they do not understand. Using some magical ghost in the sky to scare people into believing things doesn't advance humanity, it retards humanity and prevents it from advancing. People want to believe in this "second life" and higher purpose because honestly a very large percentage of them are losers and they are weak and need to believe something in order to make it through the day because they can't accept the fact that they'll die one day. They can't look in the mirror and accept that every man is not equal and that some will do and see and understand far more than them, so they use some magical boogeyman to justify it. Believing is what people would rather do because it's easy to do instead of facing reality. It's no different than what we have now. The country is collapsing and people want to believe their lord and savior Obama will take care of them. If they just "believe" in more government then everything will be ok. No, it's your own job to make sure your life is ok. My biggest problem with religious/government folk is how they condemn money. They really don't understand it, and they want to go on and on making it all about money or that my life is all about money. Wealth and building it is one of the greatest things humanity has to offer. It's tangible unlike religion. Everything you use, see, and touch, was created by someone who wanted to further his own life and in the process of doing so advanced everyone else's life around him. It wasn't sitting around and believing in magic to happen that made these things possible. People build and create and leave it behind for future generations to use so that they may advance it and come to know more than the past generation. People all want more in life, more wealth, more fun, more leisure. Money allows you to buy the freedom you need to enjoy and explore your life to get the most out of it. If we all sat around waiting for some magical purpose, nothing would get done. If you want something out of life it is up for you to get it and not wait for it to come to you. Some sit around believing in things to happen, others go out and make those things happen. The ones who make things happen is whom we owe our much better and easier lives that we have now compared to our ancestors. Much of our civilization was held back by religious nonsense and people being told not to go above and beyond because it was "bad" or "evil" or some other reason to make the rest feel good. The risk takers and entrepreneurs are the ones who go against the grain and get it done anyways. Otherwise we'd still be in homes made out of primitive material believing in some figure taking care of us instead of doing it ourselves. That's why it's for the weak. Surrendering your life and potential to some make believe figure to get through life isn't strength, it's weakness. Why else would someone "need" to believe in something? I wasn't religious as a kid, I went to church but I never really was passionate. At one point I did want to be a priest. But, as I got older I became more agnostic [you can tell from my older post]. It's only recently in my 20's I've read the arguments for Christianity. They didn't convince me to be a christian but to believe in God and study Christianity because it does have philosophically empowering ideas. I'm not even talking about Heaven [which I don't believe in]. Read more: thacmaster.proboards.com/thread/2062/gaming-journalism-exposed-devel-reviews?page=2&scrollTo=42396#ixzz3B0prWWKqSo you don't believe in Heaven, that's interesting. So what exactly do you believe in? God made everything? Salvation? What's this higher purpose you believe in? Yes, but marxist use big government. I don't believe in using government to favor religion, government should be secular. I'm talking about what comes after free agents decide to live their lives. That's where religion comes in. Read more: thacmaster.proboards.com/posts/recent#ixzz3B0qLLOhiBig Government is the marxist religion. They just took their belief in a mystical being and replaced it with government. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 3:28:32 GMT -5
Since we were derailing the thread. I read it and I'm not impressed tbh. It looks like the typical new atheist poorly constructed arguments. It uses the old "Christianity is just like paganism" argument. Which is very wrong. #10 is wrong, there's an apologist named J.P. Holdings from Tektoniks ministry who debunks this. Even if you're not religious the Pagan messiahs thing has been debunked to death. It simply isn't true. It's shoddy historically, Sorta like the belief that Christians believed the earth was flat. Which is also wrong. 9. Another ahistorical point. The mythology of the ancient world is not the same as that of the jews. I don't believe in God because I think he's the reason it rains or why the sun comes up. Like many of the supernal Gods of ancient times were nature Gods. That is they were the personification of nature and they weren't the creators of the universe. Many mythological Gods were created with the Primordial choas that created the universe. So, they're just denizens of an accidental creation like me. The God of the Hebrews on the other-hand was not a nature God, rather he created the universe Ex Nihilo. He was apart from nature. Not only was he apart from nature. He was a rational creator that created a rationally ordered universe. That's a big difference. 8. It's funny that according to this person Slavery is wrong for instance because modern values. But, what justification does he have for these things being "wrong"? He doesn't explain why they're wrong, he just assumes they are. In Christianity we have Imago Dei which argues that all humans have inherit value since they're created in the image of God. The only justification outside oft that is some utilitarian reason. Which is a mess in itself. Because if you argue that slavery is wrong because it's harmful to society, I can retort by asking "to whom"? It's not harmful to the slave owners. What makes their will less important than the slaves and it will degrade into an argument about the majority disagreeing thus it's bad [Collectivism.] That's it for now, I'll keep reading. 10. I think you're missing many of these points. It doesn't necessarily agree with the atheists or Christians. The point was that modern religion branched and had many traits from older religions, which is true. Many people did believe the earth was flat, religious or not. Modern advanced religions still have these traits and don't completely abstain from them. 9. There isn't really a large difference. In the past people believed in Gods that controlled different elements, which is true. People still believe our god controls the elements, but also *everything else* so instead of being polytheistic they are simply monotheistic. Modern religions still believe in an angry and jealous god who requires obedience and faith and tithing and offering, and worship. Really not a massive difference at the core despite some of the general differences in the amount of gods and the names of them. 8. The bible had slave owners, and all kinds of other things that are out of date and even modern Christians don't follow. How do you explain why sex before marriage is wrong? There is no real logical reason behind it. It's very easy to explain why slavery is wrong and harmful through the explanation of private property, every man owns his own body, therefore it is his own property. Slavery is harmful to everyone, it is far less productive to force a person to work at gunpoint than it is for them to be motivated on their own self interest. This is why extremely high tax communist or socialist states don't work. A man doesn't keep what he earns, he gives it to another owner whether it's a single man or the masses. There is no difference. Simply saying "God said so" (which is what you're saying) doesn't really prove or explain anything. What if I'm not religious? What do I care. Marxists argue that welfare is good because it "helps the poor", don't Christians believe in helping the poor? If that's the case, then isn't welfare good? If you argue that it's bad because it uses force and doesn't allow others to practice giving, then what about the laws against murder and stealing? Is your argument essentially that people are dumb and bad and need to be told that "you shouldn't do this because it's bad because if you do it a boogeyman will get you". Can people not come up with rational and cerebral reasons as to why doing something is bad? They need to be goaded into good behavior like children? It's a big contradiction. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 3:57:29 GMT -5
I'm focusing on religion in general. It's all the same concept even if it's been used differently in history. See, I disagree with this. It's not really fair to say it's all the same. At least I'm not arguing the defense of religion as a whole. At most just western religion. The rest can go to heck. Because a rule is pointless without any enforcment. T his is the issue I have with people who argue in favor of religion. You are saying religion has a purpose or need in society, when it doesn't. You can respect private property and individual rights without believing in a all powerful being. One has nothing to do with another. I disagree, rights need an author to be valid. They aren't inherit otherwise anyone can claim whatever right you want. People who are religious do use the argument that without religion the world would go to chaos, and that religion is what gives people morals. They do it all of the time. Even on Peter Schiff today someone made that argument in regards to rioting and looting. He tried to bring up Hitler and other dictators being atheist, but as Peter pointed out, most wars had some sort of religious influence behind them. At the end of the day people will believe in things whether they believe in an all powerful creator. I'd like to see that as a statement of fact. China before the modern period had the most wars on earth and none of them were religion. So, that's wrong. It's not rationale to typecast everything as just Religion. Yes, I'm well aware that religion was mostly separate from western society, although you're wrong in assuming it was always the case. Early settlers did use very heavy religious beliefs in their lawmaking and there are some traces of religion in some laws now. Too much power to one party is bad regardless of the source, people can choose to be religious but there is no actual need of it. And it is not the "conscience" of society. It may have played a stronger part in the past, but it is not needed in that way. People are rational enough to respect others without needing fairy tales. People are rational enough to respect laws? After all the welfare voting and Obama Marxist you've seen you honestly believe that? Yes, they did use Religious laws which aren't always bad. If religion is a tool why not pick which ones are good and disregard the rest? Throwing everything away is not really rationale. Trying to force or constantly persuade others to believe. Religions need to grow and this is how they do it. You're making blanket statements, I've never seen you act like this.  All religions, really? The right thinking is to get off of your butt and take the proper action you need to succeed, not thinking God is going to hand things down to him or that he has to be "ordained" by a higher authority to succeed. This is where people get this nonsense idea that whomever succeeds is just "blessed", which is just another way of saying "lucky". Religions often even preach that you don't succeed in whatever god doesn't want you to succeed in and that's because it isn't your calling. How is it lucky if it's blessed by the creator of everything? Also, not everyone buys into faith alone. I don't, you have to work to earn Gods blessing it's not just given. It doesn't take away from your autonomy because you have free will. It's not because of God alone, it's your relationship. People use religion to shirk responsibility in a lot of ways which is another large problem with it. They should take responsibility in their own lives. People misusing something says little about it's usefulness. Animals don't have rights in our society because they do not participate in our society the way we do and do not have the same responsibility and contributions to our society. So, you need to participate in society to have rights? What if I'm a cripple and you have a work horse. Using your model we have equal rights or I have less. This is why utilitarian morality fails. They are not protected by our constitution. A person's pet is someone's property and you cannot harm their property, but animals do not have "rights". The constitution is a piece of paper that argues that rights are imbued by a creator. But, even if it didn't where would these rights come from? Since it was the government at the time that wrote it, then it would come from government? There is no definite answer to whether a roach's life has more value than a donkey. Nobody knows that, but making up fairy tales doesn't answer anything either. There's not definite answer?! Okay, for the record I think your life is worth more than a flea. Call me crazy, I know. It's natural for humans to think they have more of a right to live than other animals. The problem I have is with the inherent contribution. They think they are above some creatures, but every human is equal, when this is clearly not the case. Humans want to survive at all costs and when push comes to shove they will justify whatever they can to push their own survival. Our society is based on human rights and private property not animal rights, so they simply don't have them end of story. They don't have rights, because we say so? So, then if we say so then some people don't have rights either. That's one view of it. Ultimately strength does determine who makes the laws, since laws are nothing else but an idea backed up by force. But, that's a violation of the non aggression principle unless you believe force makes laws right. That's contradicting everything you stand fore. This is a fallacy however, not believing in religion or fairy tales doesn't mean people go around using force to get their way. I did not say that. I asked what justification would be given to undermine the belief in force. Ultimately rands philosophy does not explain why force is inherently immoral. So, it can lead to it. Religions have used force for centuries to enforce their own ideas more than anybody. So that clearly isn't the standard to go by. Religion being which one? It's fairly convenient for you to use the typical argument atheist use and bring up all religions as if I'm defending all religions. Likewise, if an Atheist killed some people. Would I seek an explanation from you? You're better than this. Strength in numbers, strength in money, strength in connections. These things do end up having a powerful influence in society. The bottom line is the belief of private property starts with the person. Your body is your own property since you control it and by extension whatever you create belongs to you. Was waiting for this. Please explain why I should own everything my body creates without using circular logic? Likewise, why should I be allowed own living thing since they own their body, right? People don't have a right to infringe upon any of that. The laws were built on extension of that. So, if man made laws decides if I can or cannot infringe on your rights. Then laws can take it away, correct? How does the idea that you don't own anything and that everything was made by some all powerful make believe creator that people interpret the way they want to get what they want any better. Private property is far more rational. Because private property rights would be inalienable. Meaning no one can take them away. What is private property a right come from without God? As far as animals go, the ones that interact in proximity with humans live much easier lives than they did in the wild. Naturally however, it is the survival of the fittest and this law really can't be overwritten. Those who are weak have to be supported by the strong, and if the weak become too great in number they destroy their own society. They often use things like government and religion to get the strong to carry them, but that's just force in another manner really. But, government has a monopoly on strength therefore it should be okay for it to take whatever it wants. In survival of the fittest, the ends justifies the means. As long as I win then it shouldn't matter how I did it just like in nature. Also, being more comfortable is an opinion. Tigers that are caged are not necessarily happier than free ones just because they're comfortable. Religion is all about figures and authorities and groups. That's the exact point of it. Nothing is individualistic about it at all. I just explained how through the use of personal relationship with God. A person can have individualistic beliefs on their own (obviously), but imposing rules and telling others how to live and telling others to give their life to a "higher cause" and to other members of said group is collectivist. You even agreed to that before. You even admit here that even the Catholic Church used religion as a tool to do what they want, and just because you don't have a super powerful figure imposing everything doesn't mean it's better when the mobs do it. That's pretty much what democracy is. The difference is mobs use the threat of force and It doesn't matter if the church uses the threat of hell. Because, I was never condoning it. Jews btw don't believe in Hell and neither do I. You're only looking at it's misuse which I agree'd it often is. But, this particular religion I'm talking about: Christianity and Judaism is not always the case. A person's ultimate power is within themselves, not some make believe higher power. My strength is enough, other people don't have enough strength or are depressed with the fact that they only live once and die one day that they need to rationalize it with fairy tales. I was born here by a sperm and egg meeting and going through the reproductive process. Not magic. Life is what you make out of it. There is no magical hidden meaning, or grand purpose. Humans have tried to explain away for millennia things they do not understand. Using some magical ghost in the sky to scare people into believing things doesn't advance humanity, it retards humanity and prevents it from advancing. Funny you should say this. Advancing into what? If there is no grand meaning why would advancing even matter? I'm not even trying to scare people, but you contradict yourself. If you're gonna die and there's no point to this. Why waste time caring about humans advancing? The buck stops before and after your life, right? People want to believe in this "second life" and higher purpose because honestly a very large percentage of them are losers and they are weak and need to believe something in order to make it through the day because they can't accept the fact that they'll die one day. They can't look in the mirror and accept that every man is not equal and that some will do and see and understand far more than them, so they use some magical boogeyman to justify it. I don't believe in a heaven if that's what you're saying or a hell. Again, please argue me not some religious guy you've debated with pre-packed arguments. I never mentioned hell or heaven. Believing is what people would rather do because it's easy to do instead of facing reality. It's no different than what we have now. The country is collapsing and people want to believe their lord and savior Obama will take care of them. If they just "believe" in more government then everything will be ok. No, it's your own job to make sure your life is ok. No, because they don't use any reason at all. You need faith AND reason not just one. Those people are using government as an opiate. I'm not. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 4:24:33 GMT -5
10. I think you're missing many of these points. It doesn't necessarily agree with the atheists or Christians. The point was that modern religion branched and had many traits from older religions, which is true. Many people did believe the earth was flat, religious or not. Modern advanced religions still have these traits and don't completely abstain from them. C, common man. The flat earth myth is false. No one believed in the western word that the earth was flat since Eratosthenes proved it's shape in antiquity. This isn't true in the slightest. Now with what you said about religion evolving from Mythology. I think you need to look up Hebrew religion and compare it to other near eastern religions. Outside the belief in a God, the similarities end. 9. There isn't really a large difference. In the past people believed in Gods that controlled different elements, which is true. People still believe our god controls the elements, but also *everything else* so instead of being polytheistic they are simply monotheistic. Modern religions still believe in an angry and jealous god who requires obedience and faith and tithing and offering, and worship. Really not a massive difference at the core despite some of the general differences in the amount of gods and the names of them. No, this wrong. They believed God created the universes and it runs autonomously with it's own set of rules. God as the clockmaker, that made and cranked the clock. But, it runs mainly by itself. 8. The bible had slave owners, and all kinds of other things that are out of date and even modern Christians don't follow. How do you explain why sex before marriage is wrong? There is no real logical reason behind it. It's to prevent illegitimacy. People back then were concerned with inheritance and passing down property to legitimate children. Bond slavery is different from Chattle slavery, even ignoring that a Hebrew slave could only be kept for 7 years [Jubilee]. No other culture did that and where was slavery thought to be wrong? It was in Europe in the 12th century with ideas like imago dei. Which is why enslavement of Christians was illegal. They needed loopholes to get around it.
It's very easy to explain why slavery is wrong and harmful through the explanation of private property, every man owns his own body, therefore it is his own property.
So, if he owns his property then he could sell it off to pay off debts?
Slavery is harmful to everyone, it is far less productive to force a person to work at gunpoint than it is for them to be motivated on their own self interest. This is why extremely high tax communist or socialist states don't work. A man doesn't keep what he earns, he gives it to another owner whether it's a single man or the masses. There is no difference.
Not if I have no start up capital. Then I don't have to pay them for the first few years. I'll pay them later when I want to motivate them assuming that's a better motivation than the whip. Also, that's a utilitarian as always and it's mistake is that inefficiency is a better incentive. What if I say "meh, I can take inefficient workers for now?". The act is not condemed, it's just inefficient.
Simply saying "God said so" (which is what you're saying) doesn't really prove or explain anything. What if I'm not religious? What do I care.
I could say the samething as you. what if I'm not efficient? I don't care, but you know what religion would give a better incentive for people to stop slavery then inefficiency. It's a better motivator because it's not rational
Marxists argue that welfare is good because it "helps the poor", don't Christians believe in helping the poor? If that's the case, then isn't welfare good? If you argue that it's bad because it uses force and doesn't allow others to practice giving, then what about the laws against murder and stealing? Is your argument essentially that people are dumb and bad and need to be told that "you shouldn't do this because it's bad because if you do it a boogeyman will get you". Can people not come up with rational and cerebral reasons as to why doing something is bad? They need to be goaded into good behavior like children? It's a big contradiction.
Yeah, but Christians don't or shouldn't believe in redistribution of weath through government. They help the poor to voluntary church charities. So, that's a non issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 4:38:06 GMT -5
My biggest problem with religious/government folk is how they condemn money. They really don't understand it, and they want to go on and on making it all about money or that my life is all about money. Wealth and building it is one of the greatest things humanity has to offer. It's tangible unlike religion. Everything you use, see, and touch, was created by someone who wanted to further his own life and in the process of doing so advanced everyone else's life around him. It wasn't sitting around and believing in magic to happen that made these things possible. People build and create and leave it behind for future generations to use so that they may advance it and come to know more than the past generation. Yes, it is tangible but the future is not. So, someone won't necessarily be able to hold out for some future in his hand if all he puts is emphasis on the hear and now. That's a flaw. Even if he could, holding out because you want things for yourself means your interest ends with you. Why build up tremendous wealth to pass down? Why not acquire enough to get some thrills before you die. You might say you want to pass some wealth down. But, there's nothing compelling you too. People all want more in life, more wealth, more fun, more leisure. Money allows you to buy the freedom you need to enjoy and explore your life to get the most out of it. If we all sat around waiting for some magical purpose, nothing would get done. If you want something out of life it is up for you to get it and not wait for it to come to you. Some sit around believing in things to happen, others go out and make those things happen. The ones who make things happen is whom we owe our much better and easier lives that we have now compared to our ancestors. Much of our civilization was held back by religious nonsense and people being told not to go above and beyond because it was "bad" or "evil" or some other reason to make the rest feel good. The risk takers and entrepreneurs are the ones who go against the grain and get it done anyways. Otherwise we'd still be in homes made out of primitive material believing in some figure taking care of us instead of doing it ourselves. That's why it's for the weak. Surrendering your life and potential to some make believe figure to get through life isn't strength, it's weakness. Why else would someone "need" to believe in something? You keep going on about sitting down. What are you talking about? Who's sitting down and waiting, the people you talked to? As far as I'm concerned that is not what the religion that I'm talking is about. The world to come and Christian Millennialism is not always about waiting. There's the belief that each soul is unique because it brings us closer through their works to the World to come/ Christ reign. Some even argue the modern world is moving towards the world to come. So you don't believe in Heaven, that's interesting. So what exactly do you believe in? God made everything? Salvation? What's this higher purpose you believe in. I believe in the world to come. A world in the future that Man [Gods Co-creator] will create a world where there is peace and prosperity. I believe free market, singularity, trans-humanism will lead us to this world. It will come through individuals who by their own initiative work to bring this world to pass. It's not a given we have to work for it. That's salvation to me, man using his reason and faith in Gods plan to reach his full potential. God and Man are partners. Big Government is the marxist religion. They just took their belief in a mystical being and replaced it with government. True. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 5:38:20 GMT -5
You really feel strongly about this. Don't feel too offended, I just don't care about what people believe in. I want logic and facts. Not "Just because xxx says so".  See, I disagree with this. It's not really fair to say it's all the same. At least I'm not arguing the defense of religion as a whole. At most just western religion. The rest can go to heck. This discussion is about religion, and it's not like western religion is completely clean or perfect in this regard. If I make a discussion about laws and society, I'm arguing laws, not whatever laws I pick and choose for my benefit. I disagree, rights need an author to be valid. They aren't inherit otherwise anyone can claim whatever right you want. Didn't you say that people have inalienable rights? That sounds like a contradiction. You seem to be under the impression that I see the government as some overlord. That's a strawman that I never used. I believe in a limited government, but a government is still a monopoly of force. I'd like to see that as a statement of fact. China before the modern period had the most wars on earth and none of them were religion. So, that's wrong. It's not rationale to typecast everything as just Religion. Based on what standard? Many conflicts were based on religion or had some religious influence like the crusades. Even terrorists now are in constant war over religious purposes. You misunderstand however. I don't think the wars are even really about religion, they're more about using the justification of religion to kill people and take their land. It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less. People are rational enough to respect laws? After all the welfare voting and Obama Marxist you've seen you honestly believe that? Well two things, people do and did respect the laws we had before when we were a more prosperous society. The government has breached past our constitution and has over written many laws which is what people respect now, but it is not what our country is founded on. I don't believe the mobs should have unlimited voting rights, but they are capable of living their own lives without believing in a higher power and respecting other people's property. I think it's silly to believe otherwise. Hell many religious places have the exact same issues as we've discussed before. Yes, they did use Religious laws which aren't always bad. If religion is a tool why not pick which ones are good and disregard the rest? Throwing everything away is not really rationale. Not always bad doesn't mean useful. You could argue anything isn't "always bad". That's a fallacious way of thinking. People are more than welcome to believe what they want tin their own lives, but you already said you believe in separation of church and state so why would you want the laws based on religion. What if other people don't agree with said religion? What purpose does it actually serve, why do we need it? Why? You're making blanket statements, I've never seen you act like this. All religions, really? First if I ever do make a general statement, it's because it's generally true. Just as you said women were unfit to lead in another thread. And what I said is true. Religions have to grow to keep their influence. In other words they have to brainwash others to believe in their make believe. How do they do this? They have to persuade others and get their followers to reproduce "be fruitful and multiply" and have them influence others. Religions are also notorious for using force or trying to ram down the throat their beliefs into others. How is it lucky if it's blessed by the creator of everything? Also, not everyone buys into faith alone. I don't, you have to work to earn Gods blessing it's not just given. It doesn't take away from your autonomy because you have free will. It's not because of God alone, it's your relationship. You tell me. People used "blessed" as a replacement for luck as if others were just selectively ordained for greatness while they were stuck being mediocre. If that's the case, why share. It was all pre ordained and you should just accepted it. This wasn't originally about autonomy I was only talking about people being "blessed" as an justification for why they didn't accomplish anything. This doesn't make any sense. Why do you have to work for God's blessing? How do you know you're being blessed? If you want to get into good shape you have to wait on a blessing, when proven good choices will get you there anyways? How do you know any of this? It's not rational. People misusing something says little about it's usefulness. They're not really misusing anything by their logic. God is the creator of everything and always knows what's going to happen, so by that rationale they could come to conclude it was in god's plan for them not to accomplish anything and there's nothing they can do about it. You can't have both. So, you need to participate in society to have rights? What if I'm a cripple and you have a work horse. Using your model we have equal rights or I have less. Crippled people can participate in society. If that's the case then any person in the world would have the same rights in the US as a US citizen. You're talking about animals having legal rights at least that's what I assume. This is why utilitarian morality fails. What wasn't my argument, and how does religious logic work? Who's to say God gave everyone rights in society? Slave owners used religion to justify owning slaves, how does that work? The constitution is a piece of paper that argues that rights are imbued by a creator. But, even if it didn't where would these rights come from? Since it was the government at the time that wrote it, then it would come from government? The constitution is designed to restrict the government. It's not there to argue any religious purpose. Governments don't own the people. The government is supposed to be run by the people and for the people and protect individual rights. There can be no government without people making a society before hand, so the government can't own what it was created by. Humans created religion so does that mean that humans essentially own other humans? There's not definite answer?! Okay, for the record I think your life is worth more than a flea. Call me crazy, I know. Not crazy, but there is no exact answer. What logical reasoning could you actually give for one living creature having more inherent value over another? I judge value by what value people bring, not simply due to the fact that they exist. The whole "everyone bleeds, craps, and eats" argument doesn't work because animals do it too. They don't have rights, because we say so? So, then if we say so then some people don't have rights either. They don't have rights in this society, they have welfare and nothing more. Yes humans created society and we deemed animals to not have the same rights as humans, not hard to follow. In a society humans have rights, in pure nature they have no rights over anything else, the one that survives has the right to live. You can't really have a "right to live" in nature. But, that's a violation of the non aggression principle unless you believe force makes laws right. That's contradicting everything you stand fore. No it's not. We have a right to use force when force is used against us. The government is supposed to act on behalf of the people to do certain things that others cannot do. Such as enforce private property. The government goes against the non aggression principle now, which is another issue. Religions also have a history of using violent force, something you continue to ignore. I did not say that. I asked what justification would be given to undermine the belief in force. Ultimately rands philosophy does not explain why force is inherently immoral. So, it can lead to it. Not true, Rand's argument against force (not sure why you're simply quoting Rand, my beliefs are not based on hers alone). Is that it takes away people's ability to think and act on their own. You're removing their thought. Morals are subjective anyways, everyone has different morals. I'm more concerned about what is more productive as a whole. Force and stealing aren't, and magic space ghosts aren't either. Religion being which one? It's fairly convenient for you to use the typical argument atheist use and bring up all religions as if I'm defending all religions. Likewise, if an Atheist killed some people. Would I seek an explanation from you? You're better than this. This argument is about religion. I don't identify as an atheist specifically so don't lump me in with a group. I am not wasting my time to prove the existence or lack of an existence of an all powerful creator because I don't care and it's a waste of time. Religions all over the world have used a significant amount of force and fear mongering to assert their authority. It's simply a fact. You focus on the west and ignore Puritans, Quakers, Oneida, and other communities who had their own set rules. There have been countless religions that have existed and it would be a waste of time to list them all. I want to know why believing in a fictional creator is productive. Why it is necessary today. There have been religions with more bloodshed and less bloodshed, so what. My point is that it's what people do that matters, no matter what they say their religion is. Many people who are religious are hypocrites anyways, they simply pick and choose what part of religion they wish to follow. Most people identify as Christian now in the US and still have premarital sex, divorce, and advocate laws that are theft. Why is this ok? Who cares that they believe in if what they do contradicts it? Was waiting for this. Please explain why I should own everything my body creates without using circular logic? Likewise, why should I be allowed own living thing since they own their body, right? Because you're using your own mind and body to create labor which makes those things. Based on that logic you wouldn't own anything because you could argue "who gets to own stuff, it should be everyone's" that's the argument that marxists make. As I've said before, nature and animals don't participate in a human society the same way humans do and aren't subject to the same laws. They do not stand trial, pay taxes, obey traffic laws, serve on a jury, require a business license, or anything of the sort. Therefore they do not have the same rights a human would either. That argument is a strawman. Animals have a right to be food on my plate, that's good enough for me. Waste not want not. So, if man made laws decides if I can or cannot infringe on your rights. Then laws can take it away, correct? Well it depends on the law. The US constitution had laws which the government/people could not vote or take away, but they do it anyways. So they "can" do it, but they're not supposed to be able to. Because private property rights would be inalienable. Meaning no one can take them away. What is private property a right come from without God? God is something man created and you don't need a fairy tale to explain why people have a right to own their body or what they produce. Private property is supposed to be inalienable here because that's what we designed the law to be since we created the government. It is up to the government to enforce that (which it does not, but that's another issue). Stop bringing church and state together. What is a person isn't religious? Do they not have a right to their property? But, government has a monopoly on strength therefore it should be okay for it to take whatever it wants. In survival of the fittest, the ends justifies the means. As long as I win then it shouldn't matter how I did it just like in nature. Also, being more comfortable is an opinion. Tigers that are caged are not necessarily happier than free ones just because they're comfortable. Survival of the fittest is the most natural law though, it always exists. Societies will come and go long after America crumbles and they will be held to the same natural law. The inner socities' law can help curb or work that to their favor by encouraging the productive to be as productive as possible which benefits society. The government "can" take everything, but it's not ok since in a free society a government is a construct that is meant to protect human rights. Unfit governments can use their monopoly of force but they still collapse. The US was the fittest at one point and was the best, but that is slowly deteriorating because the weak and dumb are in charge. If you take away survival of the fittest, what you have left is unfit governments and leaderships in charge. The fittest will find a way to survive in any environment . The key is to make it a society that rewards hard work. The fit don't need to steal or take from the unfit, it's the opposite that usually happens. It depends on the animal part. I would definitely argue that animals are better off not being caged, and I don't really care for that, but many animals have been allowed to live FAR beyond their normal time than if it weren't for humans. I just explained how through the use of personal relationship with God. That's spiritual not religion. Two different concepts. Believing in something along with a group with rules is not the same as having a belief. The difference is mobs use the threat of force and It doesn't matter if the church uses the threat of hell. Because, I was never condoning it. Jews btw don't believe in Hell and neither do I. You're only looking at it's misuse which I agree'd it often is. But, this particular religion I'm talking about: Christianity and Judaism is not always the case. It is the case. Christianity doesn't use hell? That's simply not true (I want to say a lie, but I just won't ). Why else would people bother believing in these religions at a young age. It's because they believe in good things "happening" to them and that they'll "go to hell" if it doesn't. Who's to say your religion is right and another religion is wrong? This is another problem with religion, everyone thinks their belief is best. Funny you should say this. Advancing into what? If there is no grand meaning why would advancing even matter? I'm not even trying to scare people, but you contradict yourself. If you're gonna die and there's no point to this. Why waste time caring about humans advancing? The buck stops before and after your life, right? Because it makes life better for their time you're here which you then pass onto your offspring. If that's the case if you're going to die, why do anything? Seriously? You type to me on a computer a man invented while sitting in a building with modern conveniences and you tell me why it matters. Did you know what life was like back then? Why not just die as early as possible and get to eternal life? Why use medicine and all of the natural things around you to enhance your life? It's a double standard. My grand purpose is to make the most of my time while I'm here. People have to make their own. If they need to believe in nonsense to get them through that's their business. I don't believe in a heaven if that's what you're saying or a hell. Again, please argue me not some religious guy you've debated with pre-packed arguments. I never mentioned hell or heaven. No, I'm asking you what you think then since you said you didn't. I didn't know what you believed in. You mentioned it in your next post. Are you paying attention or just tired? No, because they don't use any reason at all. You need faith AND reason not just one. Those people are using government as an opiate. I'm not. Faith without any proof is simply not rational, and there is no hard evidence here. You have to rely on faith because it's nothing but a story that's been passed down. People use religion as an opiate all of the time. It's really just another form of the same thing. C, common man. The flat earth myth is false. No one believed in the western word that the earth was flat since Eratosthenes proved it's shape in antiquity. This isn't true in the slightest. Now with what you said about religion evolving from Mythology. I think you need to look up Hebrew religion and compare it to other near eastern religions. Outside the belief in a God, the similarities end. I've never heard of this. From my understanding the Earth was proved not to be flat by discovery through trade routes. Modern religion does have a lot of similarities to ancient mythologies. The ones that survived the most simply had more similar rules at its base. "Thou shalt not kill" and so on. No, this wrong. They believed God created the universes and it runs autonomously with it's own set of rules. God as the clockmaker, that made and cranked the clock. But, it runs mainly by itself. Some Christians did, the others like Calvinists did not. This isn't true either. People believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent, that he does and controls everything. You can't know all that will happen and not believe in fate. So, if he owns his property then he could sell it off to pay off debts? Voluntarily? Yes. Not if I have no start up capital. Then I don't have to pay them for the first few years. I'll pay them later when I want to motivate them assuming that's a better motivation than the whip. Also, that's a utilitarian as always and it's mistake is that inefficiency is a better incentive. What if I say "meh, I can take inefficient workers for now?". The act is not condemed, it's just inefficient. I was arguing economically why slavery is bad, this is not about condemning anything (in this post). You don't need capital to start being productive. That's what employees are. People are productive when their labor is assimilated and managed from a more productive person with more capital. Employees start with no capital and work their way up. That or they could even take a loan for a business or for capital if need be. How did people travel across the world not knowing English and make it into the wealthiest country ever if they needed wealth? They had nothing but the shirt on their backs. I could say the samething as you. what if I'm not efficient? I don't care, but you know what religion would give a better incentive for people to stop slavery then inefficiency. It's a better motivator because it's not rational That's silly. Why would a person need to believe in as you blatantly admit non rational fairy tales to be productive. This is what I mean by people being weak. They have to believe in the magical guy in the sky in order to do things? Slave owners were religious themselves, didn't help the slaves any. People are most motivated when they can keep what they earn. They buy food, houses, go on dates, buy toys, and entertainment. That's plenty of motivation. Not starving. That's why the socialist system doesn't work. It's just slavery to the masses. Why work when I can be paid not to work? You do know that 90% of the cost of a slave went back to the slave? That slaves were the majority of capital that most slaveowners had? It wasn't efficient at all. Not to mention they didn't stimulate the economy much. Yeah, but Christians don't or shouldn't believe in redistribution of weath through government. They help the poor to voluntary church charities. So, that's a non issue Yet many vote for these things and support it, or believe in things like Social Security and Medicare, which is the same thing. I'd say most believe in redistribution of some format. They just don't like "food stamp" type welfare. Yes, it is tangible but the future is not. So, someone won't necessarily be able to hold out for some future in his hand if all he puts is emphasis on the hear and now. That's a flaw. Even if he could, holding out because you want things for yourself means your interest ends with you. Why build up tremendous wealth to pass down? Why not acquire enough to get some thrills before you die. You might say you want to pass some wealth down. But, there's nothing compelling you too. That's silly. In the free market people have an incentive to build wealth and pass it down. People think about the future. They want the life to be better for their own children so that they don't have to go through what they went through. Savings and capital build wealth, not spending all of it. Like what you see now. That's why the socialist model doesn't work. The inheritance tax we have now out of envy just encourages people to spend and blow all of their wealth and not to think in the future. Entrepreneurs often have visions that go far past the time they're here own earth. People can want to make the most out of their lives without believing in a fairy tale. It's often the religious who go on about how "money doesn't matter" and blow all of their money. I have several family members and friends who are always broke and go on about being spiritual, it's because they have nothing else. Hence why poor uneducated masses in small hick towns tend to be religious. They want someone to take care of them. They're losers in most cases. Of course like the government, they love to bash entrepreneurs and the wealthy by saying things like "You didn't do that, God/Government did it for you." Yet they have their hands out every time for more of the dollars we create. It's disgusting. You keep going on about sitting down. What are you talking about? Who's sitting down and waiting, the people you talked to? As far as I'm concerned that is not what the religion that I'm talking is about. The world to come and Christian Millennialism is not always about waiting. There's the belief that each soul is unique because it brings us closer through their works to the World to come/ Christ reign. Some even argue the modern world is moving towards the world to come. I'm talking about the idea that believing in something and praying about something is not doing something about it. If you're hungry, praying about food and believing in it won't fill you up. You have to go get the food, make it, and consume it. This is a simple fact that people won't deny. Yet when it comes to control of their lives, people of religion want to just toss it up to some other power to take control for them? It's just as fallacious. If you want the most out of your life, it's up to you to earn it. Not to sit around waiting for it like Marxists/religious types often talk about. believe in the world to come. A world in the future that Man [Gods Co-creator] will create a world where there is peace and prosperity. I believe free market, singularity, trans-humanism will lead us to this world. It will come through individuals who by their own initiative work to bring this world to pass. It's not a given we have to work for it. That's salvation to me, man using his reason and faith in Gods plan to reach his full potential. God and Man are partners. As far as I'm concerned the God part isn't necessary. You need to do what needs to be done. Believe in what you want, that's your business. At least we agree there. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 6:52:57 GMT -5
You really feel strongly about this. Don't feel too offended, I just don't care about what people believe in. I want logic and facts. Not "Just because xxx says so". I won't get upset, it's just a debate. That's all. This discussion is about religion, and it's not like western religion is completely clean or perfect in this regard. If I make a discussion about laws and society, I'm arguing laws, not whatever laws I pick and choose for my benefit. No, it's not clean. But, it is exceptional when compared to non-western religion and since we live in the West and that's our frame of reference. It would be accurate that way. Unless there's a direct influence from non-western religion, I don't see the point in mentioning it. I'm arguing worldviews and how they affect laws. If we disregarded a worldview than all laws would be the same in that they would all be utilitarian. Didn't you say that people have inalienable rights? That sounds like a contradiction. You seem to be under the impression that I see the government as some overlord. That's a strawman that I never used. I believe in a limited government, but a government is still a monopoly of force. It's not a contradiction. They're inalienable because the author is God. If the author is a man then the rights are open to reinterpretation by men. Based on what standard? Many conflicts were based on religion or had some religious influence like the crusades. Even terrorists now are in constant war over religious purposes. You misunderstand however. I don't think the wars are even really about religion, they're more about using the justification of religion to kill people and take their land. It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Based on objective standards, none of the wars in the Far east. Like the dynastic conflicts of the Chinese are based on religion. Same in india and same in antiquity. Was the Greeks vs The Persians about religion? What about Athens Vs Sparta? Romans Vs Carthagians, Huns vs Romans? I could go on and on. It's just not true. Crusades like many conflicts is caused by Islam. A religion I have no support for. I don't it makes sense to mention religions I'm defending or even the idea of religion which I'm also not defending. Well two things, people do and did respect the laws we had before when we were a more prosperous society. The government has breached past our constitution and has over written many laws which is what people respect now, but it is not what our country is founded on. I don't believe the mobs should have unlimited voting rights, but they are capable of living their own lives without believing in a higher power and respecting other people's property. I think it's silly to believe otherwise. Hell many religious places have the exact same issues as we've discussed before. I didn't say they couldn't live without a higher power, though. I said they are better motivated by a higher power and the framers of the constitution used God as a bases for their laws regarding men having rights that no government could take away for a reason. Infact, we were far more religious back then than now. Most secular states like Europe tend to have big government. Reason is once you get rid of God people will fill the Vacuum with something else, usually Government. A common saying in the revolutionary war was "No Sovereign But God and no King but jesus". When power is in the hand of a non earthly power it isn't in the hand of an earthly one. You can't get rid of authority, limited governments will become big government overtime. Government power grows, like it did during the 16th century during Absolutism after the Church fell. Since Europe had political pluralism and the church kept the Government from monopolizing power. Government will grow, the founders mistake was that they thought Government could check itself. They were wrong. Which is why in 200 years Government grew. The church kept government in check for almost a millennium in Europe. Not always bad doesn't mean useful. You could argue anything isn't "always bad". That's a fallacious way of thinking. People are more than welcome to believe what they want tin their own lives, but you already said you believe in separation of church and state so why would you want the laws based on religion. What if other people don't agree with said religion? What purpose does it actually serve, why do we need it? Why? But, in this case it is useful I said laws as in social customs. Not legal laws, things like not having a child out of wedlock or single mothers should be Social Faux Pas not illegal with the threat of government force. Just like dressing bad and having a bad diet should not be illegal, but should be a social Faux pas. First if I ever do make a general statement, it's because it's generally true. Just as you said women were unfit to lead in another thread. And what I said is true. Religions have to grow to keep their influence. In other words they have to brainwash others to believe in their make believe. How do they do this? They have to persuade others and get their followers to reproduce "be fruitful and multiply" and have them influence others. Religions are also notorious for using force or trying to ram down the throat their beliefs into others. So, is government. But, unlike government religion sustains it's self through donations versus taxation which is theft. I don't see how it make Religion bad? Brainwashing? If you mean indoctrination of children, I'm against that. But, persuading people is not force so I don't see the problem. Government exclusively uses violence. You tell me. People used "blessed" as a replacement for luck as if others were just selectively ordained for greatness while they were stuck being mediocre. If that's the case, why share. It was all pre ordained and you should just accepted it. It's not pre-ordained, though. I believe in free will. God's blessing isn't based on waiting and luck. I never said that nor do I believe that. You have to work hard. This wasn't originally about autonomy I was only talking about people being "blessed" as an justification for why they didn't accomplish anything. This doesn't make any sense. Why do you have to work for God's blessing. How do you know you're being blessed. If you want to get into good shape you have to wait on a blessing, when proven good choices will get you there anyways? How do you know any of this? It's not rational. I explained it. You know you're blessed based on your works which motivates you to work harder. Depending on what it is you believe you were made to do. Again, there's no waiting for anything. It's just a motivator, you can't sit and wait. They're not really misusing anything by their logic. God is the creator of everything and always knows what's going to happen, so by that rationale they could come to conclude it was in god's plan for them not to accomplish anything and there's nothing they can do about it. You can't have both. That's wrong because they aren't mean't to do anything they refuse. They have free will and God offers for them to be part of his plan. They can accept or refuse based on their works. Failing and saying God planned my failure would only work if it motivated them to try again or something new. But, there is no "sitting and waiting for a miracle". That's a strawman. Crippled people can participate in society. If that's the case then any person in the world would have the same rights in the US as a US citizen. You're talking about animals having legal rights at least that's what I assume. I asked if they would be as useful as say an animal? A work horse in the past would be worth more than a crippled worker and according to the rights by usefulness arrangement would be worthless than an animal. People all over the world do have the same rights. But, not privileges. Rights are intrinsic and are given at birth. They can't be taken away, while privileges are awarded by some earthly power like a government. If rights worked like privileges, your right to live could be revoked. I'm against that. What wasn't my argument, and how does religious logic work? Who's to say God gave everyone rights in society? Slave owners used religion to justify owning slaves, how does that work? Slave owners used the curse of ham to justify owning black slaves not all slaves. Besides, biblical slavery was for bonds slavery and was only allowed for 7 years [Jubilee]. We were talking about rights without God. In religious logic, since God is the author of rights. They cannot be taken away period. The constitution is designed to restrict the government. It's not there to argue any religious purpose. It argues from a religious world view. You can't argue unalienable rights without God, it makes no sense. Governments don't own the people. The government is supposed to be run by the people and for the people and protect individual rights. There can be no government without people making a society before hand, so the government can't own what it was created by. But, Government is given power by the people. So, if the people vote for charismatic demagogues to take our rights like Obama. Then it's because the people consent to it like they always do. People always consent to tyranny. Furthermore, you're wrong. Warlords that take over provinces by provinces exist on their own. They claim people as their subjects because they have the right to rule through their might. So no. Humans created religion so does that mean that humans essentially own other humans? This is a non-sequitur, but I could argue that humans discovered connection to God not created it. Not crazy, but there is no exact answer. What logical reasoning could you actually give for one living creature having more inherent value over another. I judge value by what value people bring, not simply due to the fact that they exist. The whole "everyone bleeds, craps, and eats" argument doesn't work because animals do it to. Which is why over dependence of logic leads to this kind of dead end. What's the meaning of life? Logically there is none. But, this undermines logic as well. If the universe is an accident with no cause, reason or purpose. Then how can we trust our logic for truth or even better is there a truth? It's self destructive. We trust reason because to some degree we have faith in our reason to discover reason otherwise what makes reason reliable? If you argue that it's because it's consistent then I'll counter that the consistency doesn't prove it will be consistent all the time. They don't have rights in this society, they have welfare and nothing more. Yes humans created society and we deemed animals to not have the same rights as humans, not hard to follow. So, then it also follows we created rights for ourselves and if we created them then we can give animals rights and take away human rights. In a society humans have rights, in pure nature they have no rights over anything else, the one that survives has the right to live. You can't really have a "right to live" in nature. But, society is in nature. So, why does anything have a right to live? No it's not. We have a right to use force when force is used against us. The government is supposed to act on behalf of the people to do certain things that others cannot do. Such as enforce private property. The government goes against the non aggression principle now, which is another issue. We have a right because we wished ourselves a right then it follows that we can wish some peoples rights away. It doesn't matter if government was created by the people. If governments limitation on rights are created by a person then they can be removed by a person. Religions also have a history of using violent force, something you continue to ignore. Where did I ignore this? Once again, I'am not arguing religions just one and the ones connected to it. Stop strawmanning please. Not true, Rand's argument against force (not sure why you're simply quoting Rand, my beliefs are not based on hers alone). Is that it takes away people's ability to think and act on their own. You're removing their thought. And, ultimately that's bad because what? Is it because Rand said so? Morals are subjective anyways, everyone has different morals. I'm more concerned about what is more productive as a whole. Force and stealing aren't, and magic space ghosts aren't either. Why should productivity be a goal anyway, we all go to the same place no matter what we do. So, who cares? This argument is about religion. I don't identify as an atheist specifically so don't lump me in with a group. I am not wasting my time to prove the existence or lack of an existence of an all powerful creator because I don't care and it's a waste of time. Then can we at least argue the religion I'm defending and not "Religion"? Religions all over the world have used a significant amount of force and fear mongering to assert their authority. It's simply a fact. You focus on the west and ignore Puritans, Quakers, Oneida, and other communities who had their own set rules. Puritans and Quakers are western. So, they're fine. Not that it matters, Government uses more force. But, you're not an anarchist. So, you would agree that some Government although limited is important. There have been countless religions that have existed and it would be a waste of time to list them all. I want to know why believing in a fictional creator is productive. Why it is necessary today. There have been religions with more bloodshed and less bloodshed, so what. My point is that it's what people do that matters, no matter what they say their religion is. Then can we talk about the people in the religion that is relevant? I don't care about religion outside of the ones I'm debating. They could all disappear and I wouldn't bat an eye. Many people who are religious are hypocrites anyways, they simply pick and choose what part of religion they wish to follow. Most people identify as Christian now in the US and still have premarital sex, divorce, and advocate laws that are theft. Why is this ok? Who cares that they believe in if what they do contradicts it? You're right, who cares if they believe in it. Because I'm arguing the beliefs themselves not people. Which is why Religious people killing folks doesn't refute what I'm saying unless there's a direct connection. So, can we talk about Christian ideas you have a flaw with instead of general religion which I'm not defending? Because you're using your own mind and body to create labor which makes those things. So, the product of my body and mind should belong to me because they're a product of my body and mind? That's a circular argument which I stated beforehand to avoid. Based on that logic you wouldn't own anything because you could argue "who gets to own stuff, it should be everyone's" that's the argument that marxists make. I know they make that argument which is why I used it. But, marxist only have an upper hand from a secular viewpoint which is why I'm using it. I'm not a secularist, what I own is mine because I'm an individual divinely created and entitled to my produce. As I've said before, nature and animals don't participate in a human society the same way humans do and aren't subject to the same laws. They do not stand trial, pay taxes, obey traffic laws, serve on a jury, require a business license, or anything of the sort. Therefore they do not have the same rights a human would either. That argument is a strawman. Animals have a right to be food on my plate, that's good enough for me. Waste not want not. Okay, so, if you don't stand trial, pay taxes, obey traffic laws, serve on a jury, aquire a business license, or anything of the sort. You have the same rights as animal. I other words, rights hinge on actions they aren't garunteed. So, if I'm in a coma and do neither of the following I could lose my rights? Well it depends on the law. The US constitution had laws which the government/people could not vote or take away, but they do it anyways. So they "can" do it, but they're not supposed to be able to. Yes, but most if not all of those changes were done while violating a principle versus my example. God is something man created and you don't need a fairy tale to explain why people have a right to own their body or what they produce. Private property is supposed to be inalienable here because that's what we designed the law to be since we created the government. It is up to the government to enforce that (which it does not, but that's another issue). Stop bringing church and state together. What is a person isn't religious? Do they not have a right to their property? So, what's stopping us from designing it not to carry out that function? Rights can't be inalienable if they're created by the government. Because if they created rights they could take it away. Rights is a religious issue not secular. You have no rights in nature, that's just something man created just like God. Go figure. Survival of the fittest is the most natural law though, it always exists. Societies will come and go long after America crumbles and they will be held to the same natural law. The inner socities' law can help curb or work that to their favor by encouraging the productive to be as productive as possible which benefits society. Yes, it's the law of animals. But, since you believe it's not clear whether were better than animals then their laws should be the defacto law of the land. I mean unlike rights, Darwinism has more proof. The government "can" take everything, but it's not ok since in a free society a government is a construct that is meant to protect human rights. Unfit governments can use their monopoly of force but they still collapse. The US was the fittest at one point and was the best, but that is slowly deteriorating because the weak and dumb are in charge. The problem is rights aren't inherit. Also, if they can't protect God given rights, why would they protect rights ordained by them? If you take away survival of the fittest, what you have left is unfit governments and leaderships in charge. The fittest will find a way to survive in any environment . The key is to make it a society that rewards hard work. The fit don't need to steal or take from the unfit, it's the opposite that usually happens. It depends on the animal part. I would definitely argue that animals are better off not being caged, and I don't really care for that, but many animals have been allowed to live FAR beyond their normal time than if it weren't for humans. I'm trying to illustrate the point that just relying on Social Darwinism leads to a tooth and claw society. You say we shouldn't use violence, but if someone stronger than you is okay with it then it's just a technicality. That's spiritual not religion. Two different concepts. Believing in something along with a group with rules is not the same as having a belief. No, but my belief draws on a group belief for inspiration. It is the case. Christianity doesn't use hell? That's simply not true (I want to say a lie, but I just won't ). Why else would people bother believing in these religions at a young age. It's because they believe in good things "happening" to them and that they'll "go to hell" if it doesn't. Hell is a pagan concept, it doesn't exsist in the hebrew interpretation and I don't believe in it or the afterlife. What we do here matters. Who's to say your religion is right and another religion is wrong? This is another problem with religion, everyone thinks their belief is best. Analyze the beliefs. We can have a thread if you want, but I will say one is better based on what I've read. Christianity and Judaism is way better than Paganism. Because it makes life better for their time you're here which you then pass onto your offspring. If that's the case if you're going to die, why do anything? I dunno, why do anything if it makes no difference in the end? Seriously? You type to me on a computer a man invented while sitting in a building with modern conveniences and you tell me why it matters. Did you know what life was like back then? I'm bring hypothetical, but if I was serious. What could you argue? Why does it matter if I can type on a laptop in one life or not. The ending is all the same, right? Why not just die as early as possible and get to eternal life? Why use medicine and all of the natural things around you to enhance your life? It's a double standard. As above, I dunno why? Life has no meaning right? [I'm being hypothetical, I don't really believe this of course.] My grand purpose is to make the most of my time while I'm here. People have to make their own. If they need to believe in nonsense to get them through that's their business. But, whether you make the most of it or not the ending is the same. What motivation is there to something different if the ending is the same? This is why I believe in God, because what I or you do matters. We matter more than a flea as well. No, I'm asking you what you think then since you said you didn't. I didn't know what you believed in. You mentioned it in your next post. Are you paying attention or just tired? Cut me some flak, this is alot of typing. Faith without any proof is simply not rational, and there is no hard evidence here. You have to rely on faith because it's nothing but a story that's been passed down. People use religion as an opiate all of the time. It's really just another form of the same thing. Hard evidence being only that which is observable. That's a naturalist bias to assume that something is true only if it's a observable natural phenomenon. There are philosophic truths which have real world consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 7:19:25 GMT -5
I've never heard of this. From my understanding the Earth was proved not to be flat by discovery through trade routes. Modern religion does have a lot of similarities to ancient mythologies. The ones that survived the most simply had more similar rules at its base. "Thou shalt not kill" and so on. This is an old myth. Tom Woods and even cracked debunks this: www.cracked.com/article_16101_the-5-most-ridiculous-lies-you-were-taught-in-history-class.htmlYes, I know they had some similar beliefs. But, where do you see me making a fuss about "Thou shalt not kill"? Some Christians did, the others like Calvinists did not. This isn't true either. People believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent, that he does and controls everything. You can't know all that will happen and not believe in fate. Catholics church did, though and that was the church. Calvinism is a Hersey unsurprisingly. Also, you're wrong again: Free Will is the ultimate champion of destiny. It doesn't matter if God knows, he doesn't interfere nor tell us. So, there is no fate. Christianity largely believed that man has control over his destiny for the most part. They were not fatalistic, for the most part. Pre destination as a doctrine happened, but it was against the backdrop of a large belief in the autonomy of man. So, then slavery in the bible isn't wrong then. I was arguing economically why slavery is bad, this is not about condemning anything (in this post). You don't need capital to be productive. That's what employees are. Yeah, I know. Especially, employees you don't always have to pay. that's why I made that example. That's silly. Why would a person need to believe in as you blatantly admit non rational fairy tales to be productive. Because people aren't rationally and rational incentives don't work as much as emotional ones. See Obama followers. This is what I mean by people being weak. They have to believe in the magical guy in the sky in order to do things? Slave owners were religious themselves, didn't help the slaves any. No, because they used it to their advantage. This goes back to the tool argument. Also, you forget that Christian abolitionist used the Bible against slave owners as well. People are most motivated when they can keep what they earn. They buy food, houses, go on dates, buy toys, and entertainment. That's plenty of motivation. Not starving. A slave on a plantation gets all of this, then I guess Chattel slavery is good? That's why the socialist system doesn't work. It's just slavery to the masses. Why work when I can be paid not to work? You do know that 90% of the cost of a slave went back to the slave? That slaves were the majority of capital that most slaveowners had? It wasn't efficient at all. Not to mention they didn't stimulate the economy much. All slave owners, no I don't believe that and it doesn't have to be slavery it could be "sometimes I pay you other times I don't". My point is the only protest you have against slavery is an argument about efficiency. That's weak. Yet many vote for these things and support it, or believe in things like Social Security and Medicare, which is the same thing. I'd say most believe in redistribution of some format. They just don't like "food stamp" type welfare. It's still wrong on principle which is what I'm arguing. Principle. That's silly. In the free market people have an incentive to build wealth and pass it down. People think about the future. They want the life to be better for their own children so that they don't have to go through what they went through. This is wrong, because male role in a child life [assuming were talking about a male passing down something] is a social not natural function. A dad could easily leave and work for themselves. Why even have kids willfully? Savings and capital build wealth, not spending all of it. Like what you see now. That's why the socialist model doesn't work. The inheritance tax we have now out of envy just encourages people to spend and blow all of their wealth and not to think in the future. Entrepreneurs often have visions that go far past the time they're here own earth. People can want to make the most out of their lives without believing in a fairy tale. Yes, they can make most out of their meaningless lives to maximize their own pleasure. But, as far as passing down something there's no real incentive, doesn't matter if they can do it. But, what's the point? It's often the religious who go on about how "money doesn't matter" and blow all of their money. I have several family members and friends who are always broke and go on about being spiritual, it's because they have nothing else. Hence why poor uneducated masses in small hick towns tend to be religious. They want someone to take care of them. They're losers in most cases. I see your case against religion, maybe we should make a thread about my point. I'm not pro mega church religions. Of course like the government, they love to bash entrepreneurs and the wealthy by saying things like "You didn't do that, God/Government did it for you." Yet they have their hands out every time for more of the dollars we create. It's disgusting. I agree it is disgusting. I'm talking about the idea that believing in something and praying about something is not doing something about it. If you're hungry, praying about food and believing in it won't fill you up. You have to go get the food, make it, and consume it. This is a simple fact that people won't deny. Yet when it comes to control of their lives, people of religion want to just toss it up to some other power to take control for them? It's just as fallacious. If you want the most out of your life, it's up to you to earn it. Not to sit around waiting for it like Marxists/religious types often talk about. Well, if you sit down and pray and expect everything then yeah. Fundamentally we don't disagree. I think there are just some differences. As far as I'm concerned the God part isn't necessary. You need to do what needs to be done. Believe in what you want, that's your business. Yes, but God gives it more meaning. Humans don't matter much in the long run. I think that's more motivating to believe we do. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 7:26:37 GMT -5
Cee,
Here's Tom Woods on the role of the Church. I know because of religious people you have a negative view on religion which is fine. Religion sucks, But, Western Religion is important because the philosophical ideas that go back to the Greeks are the only ones that developed this culture of liberty. Libertarianism, Capitalism and the sacrosact of Private party are a western phenomenon. Therefore we should study their intellectually history and I have. Which is why I'm defending the Church to an extent not religion:
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 18:56:37 GMT -5
Ok I'm going to keep this concise because it's going in circles and I've had a long busy day and I have other things to do besides quoting 30-40 posts to say the same thing over and over and accomplish nothing. No more point in arguing make believe than it is to argue with an SF4 fanboy over Kof, no offense. It's just they believe what they believe and there's no way around that. A few things first: Don't assume I'm a victim. My lack of belief in religion has to do with me wanting facts and logic when I want to find answers. Not simply settling on "God said so". Not settling on something that can't be proven and is just a tool to get masses to follow you, or is a motivator for people who aren't strong enough to pull themselves through life. Yes people who are religious are largely hypocritical and I've known this for a long time. That's like me saying you became religious because you were trying to overcome your personal problems. I don't know that so it's not for me to say. As for your argument, I don't know what you're arguing anymore. This whole discussion started on the topic of people who were wealthy being more religious which isn't true. Now you're talking about religion having an impact in society or how religion should be used in our laws. I'm not even sure even more. First of all, religion has had a tremendous impact on several societies. It doesn't mean it was a good or necessary impact. The fact of the matter is, religion is not necessary for a person to respect somebody else's private property. Many people who are religious don't believe in private property. Many societies have failed and succeeded with religious beliefs, but it was a free market society that has succeeded the most and that's a fact. America was doing it the best, now you have other countries like Singapore and Hong Kong doing it and they don't follow westernized religion. It simply has nothing to do with believing in *any* make believe figure of any sort. Secondly, you've already talked about religion being separated from the state, and why this is good. You can argue that our laws only have meaning with religion in terms of rights, but this is illogical. What if a person doesn't believe in that religion, should they have no rights? If people don't believe in religion period, should they not have rights? This is why separation of church and state is important and I don't like when religious people try to drill their influence in matters as these as it shouldn't matter. Not to mention that you cannot prove that God gave us rights or that he was the author of them so it is irrelevant. Furthermore the government takes away rights whether they have a religious basis or not and it is up to us to stand for them. "God said so" simply isn't good enough. Moreover, people pick and choose what part of religion they want to follow most of the times anyways. You said you don't believe in hell despite it being in Christian religion. I have some questions for you because I'm trying to get an idea of what kind of religious person you are. 1. Do you go to church regularly or often? 2. Do you tithe? 3. Do you know that God exists and that it's a fact? 4. Do you read the Bible? 5. Do you believe everything in it? 6. Do you believe God is all powerful and all knowing? 7. How old do you think the world is? 8. Are you a fundamentalist? Now on to a few of these quotes. It's not a contradiction. They're inalienable because the author is God. If the author is a man then the rights are open to reinterpretation by men. Prove this. Prove the author is God, and when did he say this? Based on objective standards, none of the wars in the Far east. Like the dynastic conflicts of the Chinese are based on religion. Same in india and same in antiquity. Was the Greeks vs The Persians about religion? What about Athens Vs Sparta? Romans Vs Carthagians, Huns vs Romans? I could go on and on. It's just not true. Crusades like many conflicts is caused by Islam. A religion I have no support for. I don't it makes sense to mention religions I'm defending or even the idea of religion which I'm also not defending. Those are a few number of conflicts in human history. The majority have had at least some religious basis in them, even if it was just to motivate people to go off and kill each other. From Africa, to Europe, to Asia, to the Middle East, they have all used religion in a large number of conflicts. My problem with you is you say things like this below: I didn't say they couldn't live without a higher power, though. I said they are better motivated by a higher power and the framers of the constitution used God as a bases for their laws regarding men having rights that no government could take away for a reason. Infact, we were far more religious back then than now. Most secular states like Europe tend to have big government. Reason is once you get rid of God people will fill the Vacuum with something else, usually Government. A common saying in the revolutionary war was "No Sovereign But God and no King but jesus". When power is in the hand of a non earthly power it isn't in the hand of an earthly one. You can't get rid of authority, limited governments will become big government overtime. Government power grows, like it did during the 16th century during Absolutism after the Church fell. Since Europe had political pluralism and the church kept the Government from monopolizing power. Government will grow, the founders mistake was that they thought Government could check itself. They were wrong. Which is why in 200 years Government grew. The church kept government in check for almost a millennium in Europe. So you understand that religion is used to motivate people to go off and kill each other for whatever reason and then you act like you don't know about it. Yes, people fill religion in with government or some other nonsense belief. My point is they should be educated with fact, not scared with nonsense and boogeyman that have been brainwashing the masses for centuries. So instead of giving people fact, we should just fill their head with fairytales? Most people were illiterate then and went off of what they were told. Also religion and government fought a lot in the past. Religion was not the good guy by any means. I've already said myself that religion was a tool to brainwash the masses to get them to behave a certain way. You're essentially agreeing with me. My point is that fact and logic go a long way, as well as letting people keep what they own. Which is how societies become prosperous, not religion. I'm glad you believe that people should be able to learn religion on their own and their family shouldn't shove it down their throat. It argues from a religious world view. You can't argue unalienable rights without God, it makes no sense. Sure you can, what if I don't believe God doesn't exist. As far as slaves, people will use any justification to do what they want. Religion was only one part. But, Government is given power by the people. So, if the people vote for charismatic demagogues to take our rights like Obama. Then it's because the people consent to it like they always do. People always consent to tyranny. Furthermore, you're wrong. Warlords that take over provinces by provinces exist on their own. They claim people as their subjects because they have the right to rule through their might. So no. You're wrong, government is always produced by people. The government doesn't come first, ever. People create government as a way to regulate societies through rules. Which is why over dependence of logic leads to this kind of dead end. What's the meaning of life? Logically there is none. But, this undermines logic as well. If the universe is an accident with no cause, reason or purpose. Then how can we trust our logic for truth or even better is there a truth? It's self destructive. We trust reason because to some degree we have faith in our reason to discover reason otherwise what makes reason reliable? If you argue that it's because it's consistent then I'll counter that the consistency doesn't prove it will be consistent all the time. Logic doesn't mean having all of the answers, you search for things and find them out with fact. Filling your head with make believe does nobody any good. It hurts the search for fact and answers. The meaning of life is what you make of it really. Why should there be only one definition. But, society is in nature. So, why does anything have a right to live? Man made society is not a part of nature, is religion a part of nature. Are you asking me these things or yourself? Why should productivity be a goal anyway, we all go to the same place no matter what we do. So, who cares? I could care less what other losers choose to do, I choose to make the most of my life when I'm here. If you believe that people die, what 's the point? You believe that following make believe gives your life more purpose than having real results? Why do you keep bringing up Rand? Is something wrong because a made up God said so? Okay, so, if you don't stand trial, pay taxes, obey traffic laws, serve on a jury, aquire a business license, or anything of the sort. You have the same rights as animal. I other words, rights hinge on actions they aren't garunteed. So, if I'm in a coma and do neither of the following I could lose my rights? A person who is comatose cannot act on their behalf and have someone else act on their behalf. Catholics church did, though and that was the church. Calvinism is a Hersey unsurprisingly. Also, you're wrong again: Free Will is the ultimate champion of destiny. It doesn't matter if God knows, he doesn't interfere nor tell us. So, there is no fate. Christianity largely believed that man has control over his destiny for the most part. They were not fatalistic, for the most part. Pre destination as a doctrine happened, but it was against the backdrop of a large belief in the autonomy of man. Calvinism is no more heresy than any other religion. You're also wrong, Christians (almost all) believe in an all knowing, all powerful God, who is control of everything. If God already knows, then there is no point. If God makes a storm, why pray for people to be saved? God already knew a long time ago. In terms of selling off capital to pay off debt, I wasn't talking about humans. Don't know where that came from. I also notice you said marriage had a utility purpose in the past. My question was why was it of religious significance. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 19:03:13 GMT -5
Stephan Molyneux has some interesting stuff on religion too.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 19:46:46 GMT -5
Ok I'm going to keep this concise because it's going in circles and I've had a long busy day and I have other things to do besides quoting 30-40 posts to say the same thing over and over and accomplish nothing. No more point in arguing make believe than it is to argue with an SF4 fanboy over Kof, no offense. It's just they believe what they believe and there's no way around that. I know this debate is long, but comparing me to a fan boy is a bit harsh, but okay. A few things first: Don't assume I'm a victim. My lack of belief in religion has to do with me wanting facts and logic when I want to find answers. Not simply settling on "God said so". Not settling on something that can't be proven and is just a tool to get masses to follow you, or is a motivator for people who aren't strong enough to pull themselves through life. Yes people who are religious are largely hypocritical and I've known this for a long time. That's like me saying you became religious because you were trying to overcome your personal problems. I don't know that so it's not for me to say. As for your argument, I don't know what you're arguing anymore. This whole discussion started on the topic of people who were wealthy being more religious which isn't true. Now you're talking about religion having an impact in society or how religion should be used in our laws. I'm not even sure even more. First of all, religion has had a tremendous impact on several societies. It doesn't mean it was a good or necessary impact. The fact of the matter is, religion is not necessary for a person to respect somebody else's private property. Many people who are religious don't believe in private property. Many societies have failed and succeeded with religious beliefs, but it was a free market society that has succeeded the most and that's a fact. America was doing it the best, now you have other countries like Singapore and Hong Kong doing it and they don't follow westernized religion. It simply has nothing to do with believing in *any* make believe figure of any sort. Cee, I have alot of respect for you. I mean you own your own business, hardworking and smart. So, I would never EVER use the victim argument that most Christians use. I'm not even arguing in favor of Christianity, because they believe that the afterlife is more important than the real life, hate materialism and so forth. What I'm arguing is the typical "It's all garbage belief". Second, it is true they're more religious, I posted a link from a study about habits between middle class and poor people. Yet, you just dismiss it. Your link was about conservative states being poorer and more religious. It didn't contradict what I said. You speak about logic and reason as if it's an absolute. My question is how? A universe created by an accidental violent explosion, assuming it has truth has no guarantee that logic and reason can ultimately discern truth. Even if you argue that it can't [which undermines it], but it's the best shot we have like most atheist. You can't speak of it in absolute terms like you are.Finally, I hate repeating myself. But, it seems that I keep having too. I don't care about other religions and I'am not debating them. Furthermore, I never claimed that you need to be religious care about private property. That's a strawman. I said, rights are not inalienable without God and that includes Private property. Once again, you can't speak of an absolute right without an absolute God.East Asia merely copies Western Economic ideas. It didn't create them from scratch, but okay. Secondly, you've already talked about religion being separated from the state, and why this is good. You can argue that our laws only have meaning with religion in terms of rights, but this is illogical. What if a person doesn't believe in that religion, should they have no rights? If people don't believe in religion period, should they not have rights? No, because lack of a belief doesn't make you lose your rights. God is still real, the person is just a non-believer but still has rights. But, the respect of inalienable rights hinges on religious faith. Also, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying you need God for rights. But, you need God for absolute inalienable rights. If rights are authored by man they can be revoked by man. While I can construct an argument as to why non-believers have rights. Man given rights can be as arbitrarily removed as they are given. Besides, you cannot make absolute claims without God.So, the certainty of you rights disappears. This is why separation of church and state is important and I don't like when religious people try to drill their influence in matters as these as it shouldn't matter. Not to mention that you cannot prove that God gave us rights or that he was the author of them so it is irrelevant. Furthermore the government takes away rights whether they have a religious basis or not and it is up to us to stand for them. "God said so" simply isn't good enough. Moreover, people pick and choose what part of religion they want to follow most of the times anyways. You said you don't believe in hell despite it being in Christian religion. You're throwing a bunch of points, I hardly see how this is concise? First off, the difference is if government violates God given rights then they are actually violating something. But, they can't violate government given rights they gave in the first place. They can just remove them since they gave them. There's a difference in principle. Which is why I rather have God given rights. Separation of church and state extends to the powers the government has in enforcement only. That's why rights from God keeps the government at bay in principle. It's out of it's sphere of influence. Hell, is a pagan idea. I have some questions for you because I'm trying to get an idea of what kind of religious person you are. 1. Do you go to church regularly or often? 2. Do you tithe? 3. Do you know that God exists and that it's a fact? 4. Do you read the Bible? 5. Do you believe everything in it? 6. Do you believe God is all powerful and all knowing? 7. How old do you think the world is? 8. Are you a fundamentalist? Now on to a few of these quotes. I'm not religious as I said, I believe in God and Philosophies of Christianity as they pertain to the west: 1.No 2.No 3. I have faith. 4. Yes and Extra-biblical sources since I'm not a Sola scripture Protestant. 5. See 4, but the bible has certain ways to be interpreted. I don't believe modern interpretations 6.Yes. 7. 4.54 Billion years old. 8. No. Prove this. Prove the author is God, and when did he say this? It's a consequence of being created in the image of God. Man becomes a special creation with special rights. Those are a few number of conflicts in human history. The majority have had at least some religious basis in them, even if it was just to motivate people to go off and kill each other. From Africa, to Europe, to Asia, to the Middle East, they have all used religion in a large number of conflicts. I don't think so, but even if you're right. I'm not pro-religion just Christianity in terms of philosophy. So you understand that religion is used to motivate people to go off and kill each other for whatever reason and then you act like you don't know about it. Yes, people fill religion in with government or some other nonsense belief. My point is they should be educated with fact, not scared with nonsense and boogeyman that have been brainwashing the masses for centuries. So instead of giving people fact, we should just fill their head with fairytales? Most people were illiterate then and went off of what they were told. Also religion and government fought a lot in the past. Religion was not the good guy by any means. Why do you suddenly have faith in people when it comes to religion? Look how many educated people voted in Obama and believe in marxism? Education won't make people less Marxist. Universities and Scientist are often far left. I've already said myself that religion was a tool to brainwash the masses to get them to behave a certain way. You're essentially agreeing with me. My point is that fact and logic go a long way, as well as letting people keep what they own. Which is how societies become prosperous, not religion. Facts and logic never stop educated people from believing in Obama and "You didn't build it". So, why should it now? I'm glad you believe that people should be able to learn religion on their own and their family shouldn't shove it down their throat. Thank you.  Sure you can, what if I don't believe God doesn't exist. As far as slaves, people will use any justification to do what they want. Religion was only one part. What's the justification for inalienable rights without God? You're wrong, government is always produced by people. The government doesn't come first, ever. People create government as a way to regulate societies through rules. And, when people vote for bi government and to have an arrangement where less than 5% of the people pay 40% of the taxes and 50% of the poor pay no taxes. Then using your logic that Government should observe the peoples will because it's created by the people. That arrangement wouldn't be wrong in principle. Logic doesn't mean having all of the answers, you search for things and find them out with fact. Filling your head with make believe does nobody any good. It hurts the search for fact and answers. But, how can you claim any answers? How can there be definite truth in a meaningless universe created by accident? The meaning of life is what you make of it really. Why should there be only one definition. Because some definitions are bad. Look at Marxist who believe the meaning of life is Communist revolution around the world. Can you say for certain they are wrong, with absolute certainty? I can. Man made society is not a part of nature, is religion a part of nature. Are you asking me these things or yourself? Why is it not a part of nature? I could care less what other losers choose to do, I choose to make the most of my life when I'm here. If you believe that people die, what 's the point? You believe that following make believe gives your life more purpose than having real results? Prosperity is real results. Which I believe in, stop using that straw-man. Once again, I don't believe in sitting down and waiting for miracles to happen. Why do you keep bringing up Rand? Is something wrong because a made up God said so? Because she was wrong in a way. She enshrined reason, but there's nothing proving reason is absolute or even close to truth. Outside of the appeal to consequences that it's true because it works. So, it's logically fallacious. A person who is comatose cannot act on their behalf and have someone else act on their behalf. And, what if they didn't get a chance to choose an avatar. Who decides? The state? Calvinism is no more heresy than any other religion. You're also wrong, Christians (almost all) believe in an all knowing, all powerful God, who is control of everything. If God already knows, then there is no point. If God makes a storm, why pray for people to be saved? God already knew a long time ago. I already explained this to you with the clockwork universe. God doesn't make it rain. The universe is autonomous, it doesn't need God to make it rain or the sun to rise up. God was the one who designed and set the universe in motion. Why do you not bother to differentiate between what I actually believe and what some religions do? Is it because it's religion and you don't care about the difference. I also notice you said marriage had a utility purpose in the past. My question was why was it of religious significance. Levitical had many secular utilitarian laws. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 19:56:33 GMT -5
Stephan Molyneux has some interesting stuff on religion too. I've watched the first video. He uses the same arguments about religion as a whole. Once again, I will repeat myself. I'am not defending every religion on earth. Christianity itself has been dismissive of religion as a whole. Only difference is that Atheist go one God further or one God too far. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 20:01:01 GMT -5
Stephan Molyneux has some interesting stuff on religion too. I've watched the first video. He uses the same arguments about religion as a whole. Once again, I will repeat myself. I'am not defending every religion on earth. Christianity itself has been dismissive of religion as a whole. Only difference is that Atheist go one God further or one God too far. He discusses the Christian part too. How is it proven to be true? I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 20:02:34 GMT -5
He discusses the Christian part too. How is it proven to be true? I don't get it. We should start over, I'm sorry for being cryptic. How about you ask a short concise question and I'll answer it? Fair enough? |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 20:08:19 GMT -5
The post was supposed to be concise. You just quote so much into tons and tons of smaller quotes and I keep trying to condense it. I'll try to make this super brief.
1. It is all belief. There is no fact or proof of it. Only belief.
2. Hell is in the Bible. You seem to be picking and choosing what parts of the bible to follow.
3. Ayn Rand believes in reason because it works? What's wrong with that?
4. Posting the habits of poor and rich doesn't mean that poorer people aren't more religious on average. I've seen *many* articles on the habits between the poor and the rich and I don't see religion in there. I sent you two articles on this issue. There's no correlation between religion and prosperity anyways. Only if you took very old people/groups with lots of accumulated wealth would you get that. It would be like looking at the rate of marriage and counting very elderly people who were more likely to marry and stay married. Best to look at people beneath a certain age group.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 20:22:12 GMT -5
1. So, I take it you're a naturalist that believes only naturally observable phenomenon as truth?
2. The term Hell isn't used when in the original translations. It's actually different words: Sheol which is just hades or Gehenna. Jews believed that you didn't have to be a jew to be righteous. Even if you weren't one as long as you followed the 7 noahide laws then you were fine. We can make a topic about hell, because this is a long answer.
3. But, is it true? You claimed God was a fairy tail because it's not true. So, you believe in truth? So, can you explain in a Godless universe if there is definite truth and how reason can uncover truth? You can't. The infallibility of reason depends on God it's not a given.
4.There are certain habits that make one successful. They are not religious or even exclusively christian. What I said was Christianity has some of these beliefs and habits. When I posted the article from Charles Murray. I wasn't saying that you need to believe in God to be rich.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 20:28:30 GMT -5
1. So, I take it you're a naturalist that believes only naturally observable phenomenon as truth? 2. The term Hell isn't used when in the original translations. It's actually different words: Sheol which is just hades or Gehenna. Jews believed that you didn't have to be a jew to be righteous. Even if you weren't one as long as you followed the 7 noahide laws then you were fine. We can make a topic about hell, because this is a long answer. 3. But, is it true? You claimed God was a fairy tail because it's not true. So, you believe in truth? So, can you explain in a Godless universe if there is definite truth and how reason can uncover truth? You can't. The infallibility of reason depends on God it's not a given. 4.There are certain habits that make one successful. They are not religious or even exclusively christian. What I said was Christianity has some of these beliefs and habits. When I posted the article from Charles Murray. I wasn't saying that you need to believe in God to be rich. 1. I believe in facts and evidence. I won't simply take someone's words on something they can't prove. 2. Let's go back to the hell thing later then. 3. I believe in logic and facts. Explaining how something doesn't exist that someone made up doesn't mean reason and ration isn't a good thing. It's one of man's greatest things. People are welcome to believe what they want, but I'm trying to see how reasoning is bad. 4. Religion has a lot of beliefs that fall into place with collectivism. That said a person who is successful long story short is generally: harder working, more ambitious, more intelligent, and has a positive attitude and wants to improve. You can have those traits whether you're religious or not. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 20:35:01 GMT -5
1&3: So, you believe in truth and the reason is the only way to discern truth? So, what makes you confident that reason is valid in discovering truth? Or that truth exsists?
4: Christianity doe shave collectivism, but it also has positive ideas and some versions emphasize hard work and progress [World to comes].
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 20:43:36 GMT -5
1&3: So, you believe in truth and the reason is the only way to discern truth? So, what makes you confident that reason is valid in discovering truth? Or that truth exsists? 4: Christianity doe shave collectivism, but it also has positive ideas and some versions emphasize hard work and progress [World to comes]. I like the word fact more than truth. You find facts through evidence and deducing that evidence by tests, results, examples, etc. If you want to argue, "How do you know anything is as is." That's far more philosophical, and if you want to say "God did it" to everything, that's fine, but I don't see how that helps or progresses mankind when there are things that are already discovered to be facts. Gravity is real and proven for instance. Hard work in collectivism doesn't work. The Pilgrims tried it and it failed. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 20:52:52 GMT -5
I like the word fact more than truth. You find facts through evidence and deducing that evidence by tests, results, examples, etc. If you want to argue, "How do you know anything is as is." That's far more philosophical, and if you want to say "God did it" to everything, that's fine, but I don't see how that helps or progresses mankind when there are things that are already discovered to be facts. Gravity is real and proven for instance. Hard work in collectivism doesn't work. The Pilgrims tried it and it failed. Truth or facts is just semantics, it's an absolute claim nonetheless The bolded is what I'm saying. I'm arguing God as a philosophical truth. You say we can find facts through testing, results, and so forth. But, how do we know our reasoning we usewhen we assess these test, evidence and so forth can provide factual insight? My point is you say some magical man in the sky has no proof. But, a clever ape is ultimately capable of understanding how the universe works through reason and that his conclusions are definitely true is just as absurd. Both are faith based claims. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 21:22:01 GMT -5
I like the word fact more than truth. You find facts through evidence and deducing that evidence by tests, results, examples, etc. If you want to argue, "How do you know anything is as is." That's far more philosophical, and if you want to say "God did it" to everything, that's fine, but I don't see how that helps or progresses mankind when there are things that are already discovered to be facts. Gravity is real and proven for instance. Hard work in collectivism doesn't work. The Pilgrims tried it and it failed. Truth or facts is just semantics, it's an absolute claim nonetheless The bolded is what I'm saying. I'm arguing God as a philosophical truth. You say we can find facts through testing, results, and so forth. But, how do we know our reasoning we usewhen we assess these test, evidence and so forth can provide factual insight? My point is you say some magical man in the sky has no proof. But, a clever ape is ultimately capable of understanding how the universe works through reason and that his conclusions are definitely true is just as absurd. Both are faith based claims. Because one has tangible evidence and the other does not. I can consistently prove gravity exists very easily. Evidence and proof are how we determine something exist. Believing a magical man in the sky exists is no different than believing a fire-breathing dragon. It doesn't really matter without proof or evidence. Like Stephan Molyneux said the only way someone can justify God existing is through an alternate world where fact has no real meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 21:29:58 GMT -5
Because one has tangible evidence and the other does not. I can consistently prove gravity exists very easily. So, something has to be tangible to be true? The future isn't tangible, does that mean it's not true? But, something being consistent doesn't mean it's absolutely true or even real anyway. I could have a reoccurring hallucination, does that make it real because it's consistent? That's an appeal to consequences anyway. You're essentially saying because it works it's true. Evidence and proof are how we determine something exist. Believing a magical man in the sky exists is no different than believing a fire-breathing dragon. It doesn't really matter without proof or evidence. Like Stephan Molyneux said the only way someone can justify God existing is through an alternate world where fact has no real meaning. So, can you provide the evidence and proof that reason provides a factual insight into the workings of the universe? If Stephen believes facts are absolute, then he has to prove the existence of facts in the first place. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 22:14:29 GMT -5
Because one has tangible evidence and the other does not. I can consistently prove gravity exists very easily. So, something has to be tangible to be true? The future isn't tangible, does that mean it's not true? But, something being consistent doesn't mean it's absolutely true or even real anyway. I could have a reoccurring hallucination, does that make it real because it's consistent? That's an appeal to consequences anyway. You're essentially saying because it works it's true. Evidence and proof are how we determine something exist. Believing a magical man in the sky exists is no different than believing a fire-breathing dragon. It doesn't really matter without proof or evidence. Like Stephan Molyneux said the only way someone can justify God existing is through an alternate world where fact has no real meaning. So, can you provide the evidence and proof that reason provides a factual insight into the workings of the universe? If Stephen believes facts are absolute, then he has to prove the existence of facts in the first place. Tangible evidence goes a long way into proving a fact. Repeated demonstrations of that concept show it is true. I drop a ball, it falls to the ground. This is a very simple demonstration of gravity. It will always happen every single time no matter how often I do it. You could have anybody do it at any time on Earth and you would get that result, you could even record it and get that result. It's a law. It has proof, therefore it is true. Your belief in religion is nothing but dogma; it is not true. It's not based on any factual evidence, and people who are religious have to believe in faith, you don't need faith when you factually know something is true and demonstrated. I don't need faith to know that ball will drop. It will drop every time. Just like inertia works the same way every time. It is not an appeal to consistency. It's cause and effect. Based on your argument you might as well say nothing exists because you could simply be imagining it all. That's completely ridiculous and has no place in any debate. Debates are logical discussions, you are trying to break any logic for the sake of proving religion is true, because there is no actual truth. It's one thing to argue the philosophical concept of reality in another discussion. We're talking about you proving that religion exists and you cannot. How does believing in facts mean that you know all the answers to all things? That's a fallacy. Nowhere did anybody say that believing in facts and proof means that one has all facts to all things. You don't have the facts any more than I do. You simply rationalize it by an all powerful being that you cannot prove exists. Yet you want others to believe that this being exists when you cannot even prove it? When you deny something as simple as gravity? Based on your logic I can make any assertion and simply say "facts are not absolute therefore nothing exists". I'd rather you just admit what you believe is based on faith than to go that route. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Aug 21, 2014 22:28:32 GMT -5
Tangible evidence goes a long way into proving a fact. Repeated demonstrations of that concept show it is true. I drop a ball, it falls to the ground. This is a very simple demonstration of gravity. It will always happen every single time no matter how often I do it. You could have anybody do it at any time on Earth and you would get that result, you could even record it and get that result. It's a law. It has proof, therefore it is true. No, it doesn't. First off, how do you know what you're seeing is even real? Our senses interpret the physical world via our brain, we have no way of knowing that these observation are how the world really is. Ever heard of a hallucination? You're essentially saying that because it's consistent it is true. Which once again is an appeal to consequences and a logic fallacy. You're using a naturalist bias, how do you know that only tangible things are true? Because they're tangible? How do you know conclusions used through reason are true? I could go on. It's a faith based claim just like mines. Your belief in religion is nothing but dogma; it is not true. It's not based on any factual evidence, and people who are religious have to believe in faith, you don't need faith when you factually know something is true and demonstrated. I don't need faith to know that ball will drop. It will drop every time. Just like inertia works the same way every time. It is not an appeal to consistency. It's cause and effect. Saying it will drop every-time requires proof, can you prove this. How do we know there won't be a time it won't drop and will turn into elvis? It's because you have faith because it's consistent. But, that's not truth because you can't be absolutely sure. If you are please explain how you're absolutely sure. Based on your argument you might as well say nothing exists because you could simply be imagining it all. That's completely ridiculous and has no place in any debate. Debates are logical discussions, you are trying to break any logic for the sake of proving religion is true, because there is no actual truth. Sure, why not. I say nothing exist for real, it's all an illusion. [Some people claim this.] Can you prove it exsist and that logic can prove it exist? It's one thing to argue the philosophical concept of reality in another discussion. We're talking about you proving that religion exists and you cannot. Just like you can't prove tangible things really exist for certain That Truths exist and logic can lead us to truth. How does believing in facts mean that you know all the answers to all things? That's a fallacy. What are you talking about? I asked you to prove that facts exist not answer everything. In order to make fact based claims you need to prove facts exist in the first place. Nowhere did anybody say that believing in facts and proof means that one has all facts to all things. You don't have the facts any more than I do. You simply rationalize it by an all powerful being that you cannot prove exists. Yet you want others to believe that this being exists when you cannot even prove it? When you deny something as simple as gravity? Based on your logic I can make any assertion and simply say "facts are not absolute therefore nothing exists". This is another strawman, I never said he has all the answers to everything. I asked you and him to prove that facts infact exsit. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Aug 21, 2014 22:30:06 GMT -5
So are you saying gravity doesn't exist?
How does believing that nothing actually exist prove that God exists?
|
|
All religions, really?
