|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted October 31, 2009 11:45 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:47, 31 Oct 2009.
|
See that is where we disagree. People were doing things long before society came around. Like say living. I don't know how to explain it besides "Rights just exsist, call it from nature, from evolution, from jimbobfurley bob it makes no difference." A privilage is something given by society, that 'laws' can also take away. While laws can interfear with RIGHTS, it is an either or, unlike privilages which can have varying degree. You are either alive..or not. Quality of life can be an argument, sure, but it is either black or white. While Privilages can be in any range from white, to grey, to black. You can limit freedom, right to free speech, etc. There is only one limit to say living. Death. Again, not talking QUALITY of life, but you are either alive or not.
Edit : I know I am not voicing it well, and that is one of my failings.
____________
Message received.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 12:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Edit : I know I am not voicing it well, and that is one of my failings.
Mine too, so I know how it feels.
I think just, that all JollyJoker is saying, is that for rights to exist they have to be uphold.
We all have stuff we want to do, no matter if we're intelligent or not.
One of the things that's true for many is staying alive, survive.
I think what would charactarize it as a right, independent of wether there exists actually intelligence to understand it as a right, is that it's something most wants, and it's not anything that possible could limit the rights of others.
But I don't know, if a right have much meaning, if there's no one to uphold it.
As an example, you want to survive, you've the right to survive, the right to live, but someone goes and assassinates you (asheera), and then that right may exist, but it's not uphold, and therefore without any power, the right have no influence, and you could maybe just as well say it does not actually exist.
The sole reason, I think, is that our wants, are something that's not derived to be always "true" pr. the laws of nature, i.e. we don't always get what we wants, eventhough it may not influence others right to their freedom and therefore can be seen as a right in itself.
Whereas according to the laws of nature, a rock drops to the ground, we may hold it up, but we're not going against its rights, because the rock have no consciousness and therefore no impression of rights to begin with, i.e. it has no wants.
So what good does it do, to have all the right intentions and wanting to do all the right things, when you lack the power to do so in the first place?
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 03:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Again Elodin you are confusing Atheism with something it is not. A disbelief in god does not = hate of everybody and everything. There are very moral Athiest.
Actually, you seem to be confused. I never said all atheists hate religious people. The "new atheists" like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris who sound like the atheist tyrants who murdered so many millions. Oh, and I've said there are moral atheists.
Quote:
There are very moral Athiest. That is like saying "Oh since the Crusades were sanctioned by the Church (at the time) then all Christians are murdering and cruel humans.
Actually, it is not true that the church of Jesus Christ santioned anything evil. There may have been wolves in sheeps clothing who did, but no Christian can be a murderer. According to Jesus Christ, his sheep follow his voice.
So, no, no Christian murders but there have certainly been atheist tyrants who've murdered millins.
Quote:
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Quote:
I'm not going over that nonsense again with Elodin, since I'm thoroughly fed up with debating his warped views.
Perhaps your warped views prevent you from seeing clearly enough to recognize such things as absolute morals. One absolute moral is that it is always wrong to rape a baby. Absolute morals can only come from God. All other morals are "relative."
Quote:
From what DO they come, though, if not from society? Right and wrong has no meaning whatsoever outside a conscious mind.
So sociey can say that raping a baby is moral and then it will be moral? It makes not the slightest bit of sense to say that it is not moral to rape a baby in the US but if you cross the border into Canada suddenly raping babies is moral.
I don't care if 100% of all Canadians voted to say raping babies is moral it still would be immoral to rape a baby.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 04:28 PM |
|
|
The more I read of this stuff the more disgusting it gets. I really don't think this hatemongering, un-Christian diffamation of people and these illogical nonsense that is repeated and repeated and repeated uselessly over and over and over again deserves an answer.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 04:37 PM |
|
|
That's because you have warped views, JJ.  Quote:
Perhaps your warped views prevent you from seeing clearly enough to recognize such things as absolute morals. One absolute moral is that it is always wrong to rape a baby. Absolute morals can only come from God. All other morals are "relative."
Quote:
From what DO they come, though, if not from society? Right and wrong has no meaning whatsoever outside a conscious mind.
So sociey can say that raping a baby is moral and then it will be moral? It makes not the slightest bit of sense to say that it is not moral to rape a baby in the US but if you cross the border into Canada suddenly raping babies is moral.
I don't care if 100% of all Canadians voted to say raping babies is moral it still would be immoral to rape a baby.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 04:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think what would charactarize it as a right, independent of wether there exists actually intelligence to understand it as a right, is that it's something most wants, and it's not anything that possible could limit the rights of others.
[...]
Whereas according to the laws of nature, a rock drops to the ground, we may hold it up, but we're not going against its rights, because the rock have no consciousness and therefore no impression of rights to begin with, i.e. it has no wants.
Actually it does limit the rights of others, because like you said, only living beings can infringe on the rights of others. If you are not living, THEN you can't limit the rights of others.
You still breathe, if you and two other guys are kept in a container with limited supply of oxygen, every breath becomes much more significant, and your infringement is much more severe. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 05:22 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:23, 31 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
The more I read of this stuff the more disgusting it gets. I really don't think this hatemongering, un-Christian diffamation of people and these illogical nonsense that is repeated and repeated and repeated uselessly over and over and over again deserves an answer.
In other words, you have no counter for my points and so are going go into "smear" mode?
Sorry, you said my views were warped and I pointed out that perhaps your warped views were perhaps the reason you could not see absolute morals exist.
Oh, nothing I said has been hate-mongering. Some people love to throw things at Christianity but rivers of tears flow from their eyes if atheism is questioned.
Just calling my points nonsense doesn't make them nonsense. Try actually countering the points and proving that if a society votes to make raping babies moral it is then moral since you claim society is the only source of morals.
I myself don't see how you can convince me that raping babies can ever be ok, but give it your best shot.
Oh, I also have not been defaming anyone, so please stop the smearing.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 05:51 PM |
|
|
This time I'm sorry because try as I might - I don't see a point. Do I really have to point out how utterly hypocritical it is to excuse every bad thing happening under the OFFICIAL flag of Christianity as the work of usurpers of the true belief and wollves in sheep cloth while everything and everyone else is of course denied this rather convenient excuse?
Do I really have to point out what a diffamation it is to say that people - who never did anything evil in their life - sound like mass murderers? Wouldn't you find it a diffamation if I said that you sound like those Inquisition guys who burned people as witches?
Points? I don't think so.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 05:53 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker, make it simple for him. Say it like this (your point from pages back):
Elodin, you're saying that the Church back then with its Inquisition were not true Christians but wolves in sheep's clothing, right? (reasonable, if we take your point of view)
Stalin was a wolf in sheep's clothing for communism too.
End of story.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This time I'm sorry because try as I might - I don't see a point. Do I really have to point out how utterly hypocritical it is to excuse every bad thing happening under the OFFICIAL flag of Christianity as the work of usurpers of the true belief and wollves in sheep cloth while everything and everyone else is of course denied this rather convenient excuse?
Do I really have to point out what a diffamation it is to say that people - who never did anything evil in their life - sound like mass murderers? Wouldn't you find it a diffamation if I said that you sound like those Inquisition guys who burned people as witches?
Points? I don't think so.
Sorry, the the New Testament clearly says that people who so much as hate others are not Christians. See my previous post for quotes from the New Testament. There is no such teaching in atheism. The atheist tyrants like Stalin and Mao were "true" atheists however, and militant atheists to boot.
By some atheists sounding like the mass murdering atheist tyrants of course I mean them saying such things as "Christianity is a disease of the mind" and other things that sound very similar to what Hitler said.
Since I said that Christians are to love, do good to, and pray for all people you saying I sounded like someone who condoned killing witches would be a lie. I have repeatedly stated that Christ did not authorize his church to punish any sinner for any sin.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 09:48 PM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 22:25, 31 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
By some atheists sounding like the mass murdering atheist tyrants of course I mean them saying such things as "Christianity is a disease of the mind" and other things that sound very similar to what Hitler said.
You're talking about the wrong Tyrant. Mao said things like that (particularly to the Dalai Lama when trying to forced him into submittion), Hitler never talked about religion.
(Except about Jews I mean)
No two evil tyrants are 100% alike. And they all have their own crazy issues. They all share totalitarian control and disregard for the human life they do not approve of.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 31, 2009 10:09 PM |
|
|
And people wonder why JJ gives up?
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 06:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You're talking about the wrong Tyrant. Mao said things like that (particularly to the Dalai Lama when trying to forced him into submittion), Hitler never talked about religion.
No, I'm not. Hitler vented his hatred of Christianity in his private writings and conversations and called Christianity a disease, just as atheists like Dawkins do. In fact many times onc would be hard pressed to distinguish between the translated writings of Hitler and that of the "new atheists."
He said such things as: (recorded in Table Talk)
Quote:
When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves. from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease.[pp 143-145]
Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn't, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar.
Quote:
It is a great pity that this tendency towards religious thought can find no better outlet than the Jewish pettifoggery of the Old Testament. For religious people who, in the solitude of winder, continually seek ultimate light on their religious problems with the assistance of the Bible, must eventually become spiritually deformed. The wretched people strive to extract truths from these Jewish chicaneries, where in fact no truths exist. As a result they become embedded in some rut of thought or other and, unless they possess an exceptionally commonsense mind, degenerate into religious maniacs.
It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German, and that the whole of the German people should have thus become exposed to the whole of this Jewish mumbojumbo. So long as the wisdom, particularly of the Old Testament, remained exclusively in the Latin of the Church, there was little danger that sensible people would become the victims of illusions as the result of the studying the Bible. But since the Bible became common property, a whole heap of people have found opened to them lines of religious thought which--particularly in conjunction with the German characteristic of persistent and somewhat melancholy meditation--as often as not turned them into religious maniacs. When one recollects further that the Catholic Church has elevated to the status of Saints a whole number of madmen, one realises why movements such as that of the Flagellants came inevitably into existence in the Middle Ages in Germany.
As a sane German, one is flabbergasted to think that German human beings could have let themselves be brought to such a pass by Jewish filth and priestly twaddle, that they were little different from the howling dervish of the Turks and the negroes, at whom we laugh so scornfully. It angers one to think that, while in other parts of the globe religious teaching like that of Confucius, Buddha and Mohammed offers an undeniably broad basis for the religious-minded, Germans should have been duped by a theological exposition devoid of all honest depth.
...The essential conclusion to which these considerations leads me is that we must do everything humanly possible to protect for all time any further sections of the German people from the danger of mental deformity, regardless of whether it be religious mania or any other type of cerebral derangement. For this reason I have directed that every town of any importance shall have an observatory, for astronomy has been shown by experience to be one of the best means at man's disposal for increasing his knowledge of the universe, and thus saving from any tendency towards mental aberration. [pp 513-14]
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 06:41 AM |
|
|
Forget it, he won't see the double standard if it was in glowing neon. Attributing any killings to a particular belief (Non belief is a belief in no higher power), is exactly like attributing it to another. It is not the belief, it is the person. He won't acknowledge that if his place of eternal punishment would freeze over. Time for us to move on.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 07:39 AM |
|
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 07:57 AM |
|
|
I am semi-neutral when it comes to religion. Although I don't believe any one religion has it 'right', I respect their belief and will defend their right to believe whatever they want 'An it harm none'. I am agnostic, in that I believe SOMETHING is out there, and don't know what..so I try to keep a very open mind.
I do not care for double standards, excuses, personal attacks (from anybody), or 'belief without question'. So far no person in any religion has answered my main question to my standard. Which is. "Why with all the religions out there, should I believe your version over X". Just like the bible. You know how many 'versions' their are? There is the mormon, the king james version, the jewish, not to mention different interrpetations of each one of them. Yet..every last one of them claims they have the 'One true unedited version'. Simply not possible, yet they won't even acknowledge there ARE different versions. It is..frustrating to say the least.
Religions (or atheism) is not bad. The people in them are. Don't blame a belief, blame the person. If you do blame the belief (whichever belief or lack of you blame) then realise your own religion has had some issues in the past also. Seems simple enough, but ... some people can't see the forest for the trees.
I am 'spiritual'. I believe in this world that there are three 'forces' at work. A 'Moral' (some times refered to as 'good) force, a natural (instinct..and our own thoughts), and a 'Greedy' (also known as immoral, evil, or self interest) force. However, since you have (or are supposed to have) intelligence you should take responsibility for your own actions. Because the 'god' and 'devil' balance each other out. Leaving JUST your own decision and natural instinct.
My 'belief' is not better, or worse, then anybody elses. They are free to believe that gravity is noodles if they choose. Who am I to judge? It's between them and whatever higher power (if any) ends up being 'the right one'. I don't take sides because I can see both sides. I just am unable to articulate my view in a successful manner, so I tend to prefer to shut the heck up (didn't say I am always 'successful' in doing so).
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 09:42 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:43, 01 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Forget it, he won't see the double standard if it was in glowing neon. Attributing any killings to a particular belief (Non belief is a belief in no higher power), is exactly like attributing it to another. It is not the belief, it is the person. He won't acknowledge that if his place of eternal punishment would freeze over. Time for us to move on.
Thanks for your insults, Mr Moderator.
I don't have double standards. I never said all atheists are like the "new atheists." If you say I did, quote it.
In fact, I have said atheists can be moral people. And I can go back and quote that.
But certainly atheism did play a role in the atheist tyrants murdering untold millions. Atheism devalues human beings as there is no inherent worth of a person in that philosophy.
I did not say all atheists place no value on people. I can quote where I said that before too. Most athesits hold beliefs that are in conflict with atheism.
And certainly the New Testament teaches that no Christian can commit murder. I already quoted those verses and the saying of Jesus that his sheep follow his voice.
So, no, I don't have double standards.
Maybe it is you who has chosen not to see the truth even "if it is in glowing neon" as you put it.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 10:50 AM |
|
|
Didn't insult you, although you apparently don't see it that way.
Explain something to me.
How is saying the belief standard Atheism is responsible for the deaths caused by a person or people, but the belief system Christianity is not to blame for the deaths done in its name not a double standard? Simple question.
How is saying atheist devalue human life, and that atheism was responsible for those deaths ANY different then saying that Atheist are all moraless people who love to kill? Never mind. Not worth the grief. Have a nice life.
____________
Message received.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 12:17 PM |
|
|
what is this thing religion you speak of? Sharletons? Mad people? Murders is all i know in that context./
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 12:27 PM |
|
|
That is just it Anti. I absolutely love some of the things that religions SHOULD stand for. It does teach good morals (usually) and for the most part their members are kind and caring. Yet..it is always the ones who twist the teaching to their own agenda that get the spotlight. Like Hitler quoting the bible to 'prove' that Germany was doing the right thing and would win. *shakes head*.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
