Posted on 08/01/2006 12:42:58 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Or take me for example. I no longer have doubt. Thing is, I'm not going to make any declaritive statements to an atheist in any way resembling post 66. I believe our experience after death is close to our individual expectations. Those who know their end is the eternal dirt nap will experience just that. Hell *perishes* in the lake of fire...Rev 20 something?
I don't think atheists have the corner on thinking they "know" what the truth is. There are lots of dogmatic atheists out there. And lots of dogmatic theists too.
Right, which is why I agreed w/ your previous statement. I take an atheist at their word & will act towards them accordingly. They have as much right to their beliefs as I have to mine. Some atheists operate under a clear moral code. Many of them believe the golden rule. OTOH, some have no moral principles at all.
"Why are humans different that we changed completely, while other animals, every other animal on earth for that matter, remained just that. Can someone smarter than me help?"
Because of alien mating, duh! Prior to alien mating, most hominids had the intelletual capacity of say the average DU'er. After mating with aliens, we became smarter as a race and able to do complex things like change flat tires.
parsy, who has been abducted several times by aliens and forced to be an extra-terrestrial love slave. (Or was that my second marriage?) Oh well, more Doctor Pepper and Parrot Bay Rum.Maybe I'll forget. . .
I think that's pretty much where my son is at.
From my POV it does. If it doesn't from your POV, no need to feel defensive about it.
I like 'E Pluribus Unum' too. Of course, if you said that phrase in English back in the 50's, you'd probably have been locked up as a commie sympathiser.
Good argument, but you've let the possibility of God slip in. You're trying to have it both ways. If the atheist is correct, immutable rights are no more than an illusion. Trouble is, our form of governmment hinges upon the fact that we have immutable rights.
What you have done is provide evidence for the fact that "rights" in the immutable sense do not exist.
You've taken yourself to the only possible position on rights an atheist can logically take.
People assert them in the same way a child asserts Santa Claus -- those assertions determine no objective reality on their own. If such rights were an objective reality, they could not be routinely violated.
Many of our rights are routinely violated. The law weights the rights of one person against another. As I said, laws can only take rights away. Whether or not that taking is justified depends a lot on the consent of the governed.
One can only come to the conclusion that it does not matter where one asserts rights come from (of if they exist at all), because the reality is the same regardless.
IOW, our Constitution is just a piece of paper... There is zero basis for most of our laws.
Relying solely on the arbitrary (and probably false) belief of your neighbor for good will is a flimsy protection at best.
I agree.
Fortunately, the motivation for being a decent person is the same as it always has been regardless of belief: it is to the long term benefit of the individual to be a good neighbor, and those that are decent prosper. Prosperity and happiness is all the motivation most people need. For everyone else, no belief is going to keep them out of trouble for long.
Most of the same enlightenment philosophy with an attempt to purge religion from society resulted in "The Reign of Terror".
I would make the tangential observation that most of the atheists I know, and I know many living where I live, are conservatives. The belief that compels them to be conservative is that conservatism is rational, and little more. Everything else follows.
Makes sense to me, though maybe that is due to my own reasons for leaning conservative.
Then those rights are not immutable.
IOW, our Constitution is just a piece of paper... There is zero basis for most of our laws.
The does not follow from the former. The Constitution is a piece of paper, with a lot of good ideas that were arrived at via reason and experience. (Of course there are some bad ideas too, e.g. Amendments 16 and 17).
Much as you say one can easily interchange them, Big Ogg with the club wants to remind you about the law of the jungle part of "natural rights".
It's the concept that rights aren't given by God, but that we, simply by virtue of being human, have certain rights that can't be taken away.
By virtue of being human? Why? Big Ogg needs to feed his hungry pet lion & you run slower than the deer. Even you can see the logic in feeding a hungry lion so it won't starve. What gives your life greater value than the life of Ogg's pet lion?
Natural rights are derived from natural law, which in general encompasses both the concept of "god-given rights" and "natural rights."
If you wanna be more than lion food, ya gotta give me more than "natural law".
So you would have no problem nor would you reply to someone that said Jesus Christ or Christianity sucks? I'm guessing that would get a lot more reaction on this site. Even if it was someone else with a different POV that so they shouldn't feel defensive about it.
What you said is insulting. If you don't care, that's fine. But I'm going to post back on it.
We are men, not gods. We do the best we can. Assumed immutability is the best set point before we begin to tinker with the scale of justice.
The does not follow from the former. The Constitution is a piece of paper, with a lot of good ideas that were arrived at via reason and experience. (Of course there are some bad ideas too, e.g. Amendments 16 and 17).
Paper with good ideas on it without the motion to implement it leaves it collecting dust on a back shelf somewhere. Takes beliefs of the governed to put it all into motion & one of those beliefs, a strong motivating belief is the belief in immutable rights. BTW, I agree with you about the 16th & 17th Amdts.
Can't say I'd get my knickers in a twist about someone saying it about Christianity. As far as someone saying it about Jesus Christ, what did He ever do to you? I'm not sure if you can see why your analogy fails or not. It's not like I find your beliefs unattractive PLUS insulted your mother.
I'm guessing that would get a lot more reaction on this site. Even if it was someone else with a different POV that so they shouldn't feel defensive about it.
A lot of people get defensive about their beliefs. I'm just not one of them. That reaction tends to puzzle me.
What you said is insulting. If you don't care, that's fine. But I'm going to post back on it.
I apologize. I meant no insult.
Sadly, theism doesn't cure us of all of our human failings.
So what? You are arguing from adverse consequences, a fallacy and therefore a meaningless.
The fact is that there are a number of core assumptions in the legal foundations of the US that go back to its foundings that as a strict matter are incontrovertibly invalid (e.g. relating to water rights, intellectual property, and personhood among others) and as conditions change eventually these facts do have to be dealt with. Our form of government is a compromise between an ideal and reality. It certainly does not meet the ideal, and frequently pretends it can ignore reality, as one might expect out of such a compromise.
Many of our rights are routinely violated. The law weights the rights of one person against another. As I said, laws can only take rights away. Whether or not that taking is justified depends a lot on the consent of the governed.
Any "right" that can be destroyed by another person or even nature on a whim is a useful fiction but still a fiction. One could easily assert that "rights" are as intrinsic to personhood as a pair of khakis.
IOW, our Constitution is just a piece of paper... There is zero basis for most of our laws.
The Constitution is the basis of our laws as a matter of convention, it has no more objective significance or power than that. The fact that the Constitution is routinely subverted by the government formed under it shows this. There have been many such documents in history created by thoughtful and intelligent men, and while the US Constitution is a particularly fine example of such a document it is not meaningfully distinguished from the others in history (many of which are still nominally in force).
Most of the same enlightenment philosophy with an attempt to purge religion from society resulted in "The Reign of Terror".
I think this is a dubious point. The United States was built to a significant extent on the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment, which frequently advocated the secular state. Indeed, the Constitution reflects many of the core attributes of 18th century enlightenment movement.
And Cardinal Richelieu thinks you're in the way of his power so you are just going to have to die. If you're a Protestant and lucky, maybe he just stripped you of your political rights and protections (what you probably consider now to be God-given rights).
Natural rights, god-given rights, what they actually are is always determined by people.
How so? Fear of what? Loss of immutable rights you have no logical basis to believe exist?
The fact is that there are a number of core assumptions in the legal foundations of the US that go back to its foundings that as a strict matter are incontrovertibly invalid (e.g. relating to water rights, intellectual property, and personhood among others) and as conditions change eventually these facts do have to be dealt with. Our form of government is a compromise between an ideal and reality. It certainly does not meet the ideal, and frequently pretends it can ignore reality, as one might expect out of such a compromise.
I agree.
Any "right" that can be destroyed by another person or even nature on a whim is a useful fiction but still a fiction. One could easily assert that "rights" are as intrinsic to personhood as a pair of khakis.
Here is the place where theists & atheists are the furthest apart. Rights can be infringed upon, but not destroyed.
The Constitution is the basis of our laws as a matter of convention, it has no more objective significance or power than that. The fact that the Constitution is routinely subverted by the government formed under it shows this. There have been many such documents in history created by thoughtful and intelligent men, and while the US Constitution is a particularly fine example of such a document it is not meaningfully distinguished from the others in history (many of which are still nominally in force).
As I said, our Constitution is just a piece of paper. Are we arguing?
I think this is a dubious point. The United States was built to a significant extent on the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment, which frequently advocated the secular state. Indeed, the Constitution reflects many of the core attributes of 18th century enlightenment movement.
Why the difference? Why select one line of reason over another? Surely it was not due to lack of exposure to both?
Save this to use against me if you ever see me arguing for a theocracy.
Natural rights, god-given rights, what they actually are is always determined by people.
Determined is different than derived, no?
Listening to K-LOVE on the rdio and just after I read your post they played Audio Adrenaline: "Cpme and go with me, to my Father's House."
"We are still finding life on earth where experts didn't think life was possible..."
I'm a little late to this conversation, but you may be interested in the book 'Life As We Do Not Know It', by Peter Ward (biologist at U of Wash).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.